Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon, all, and welcome to this Plenary meeting. The first item this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language. The first question is from Altaf Hussain.

Llywydd, the Welsh Government continues to prioritise value for money in all of our spending. The strategic integrated impact assessment, published alongside the budget, interrogates all spending decisions to align policy outcomes and best value principles.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. While I accept that 'value' can be a subjective term, we have to base value-for-money decisions on those representing value to the majority of the public, not those that politicians value. When we look at yesterday's budget, it saw increases for things like international development, saw continued spending for overseas embassies, while at the same time cutting funds for Welsh in education and Llais. Cabinet Secretary, the Welsh public expects its Government to fix Wales, not to pretend to be an independent nation with diplomatic missions. How successful was the Washington embassy in saving Welsh steel and aluminium products from Trump's tariffs? With tight public finances here at home and a host of issues facing public services in Wales, will you now agree to close all the Welsh Government's overseas offices? Thank you.

Llywydd, I start from a different point to the one articulated by the Member. The Welsh Government budget quite rightly responds to a very wide range of needs. Some of those needs are experienced by broad parts of the population, and some of those are much more specific needs. We wouldn't say, would we, 'We won't spend any money on people with disabilities because only 20 per cent of the Welsh population say they are disabled'? So, I think the budget is a good deal more sophisticated than that supplementary question would suggest. I'm very proud of the work that Wales does, in our very modest way, in the field of international development. Altaf Hussain is right to say there was an extra £50,000 in the international development budget line announced yesterday. That is to contribute to the fantastic work that many clinicians from Wales, in their own time and voluntarily, do as part of our work with Africa—most often focused on the needs of women, and women who have nowhere else to receive the help that they need, other than through the voluntary effort of so many clinicians in the Welsh NHS, with that very modest support from the Welsh Government.

As to closing all our international offices, well, of course I'm not going to agree to do that. Our international offices, almost always co-located with embassies in other parts of the world, are there not simply to raise awareness of Wales—as they all have been in this week of St David's Day celebrations—but they're there to bring business to Wales. The investment that we have recently seen in Newport in the former Newport Wafer Fab factory, investment from America, arose directly from a contact with our office in the United States. Now, I'm pleased to see the leader of the opposition in his place, because, when he was in Washington recently, he said that he took his role very seriously as leader of the opposition—I'm sure that's true—and that he wanted to be a First Minister to have a presence on the international stage. He won't be having that for Wales if he doesn't have some people in other parts of the world representing Wales and the Welsh Government that he hopes to lead.

I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. I have fully allocated the Welsh Government’s budget, providing an additional £1.6 billion to support front-line public services and reflect devolved needs. Once we know the funding that will come to Wales to help with public sector employer contributions, that funding will be made known to those services and passed to them immediately.

There’s a big problem here, isn’t there, Cabinet Secretary, and that is that many public services are actually contracted out for others to deliver rather than being directly delivered by people who are employed by the public sector. We already know that the cost to the public sector of its directly employed employees is in the hundreds of millions of pounds. And we know that it’s likely that it’s hundreds of millions more that will be required in order to support those other organisations that are delivering critically important services—public services like people working in care homes, domiciliary care, individuals who might be collecting waste from the kerbside, filling potholes, providing home-to-school transport for people. What assurances have you had from the UK Government that the costs associated with providing those public services, as a result of the additional employer national insurance contributions, will be met by your colleagues in the UK Treasury to make sure that those services can continue to be provided unhindered?

I thank Darren Millar for that further question, Llywydd. The confirmation we’ve had from the UK Government is that the Chancellor will use the Office for National Statistics definition of 'public sector employees' when she provides money to public services to enable them to meet the costs of additional employer national insurance contributions. Now, of course, Darren Millar is right that that definition does not capture some of the organisations to which he has made reference. And, as I’ve explained previously, at the Finance Committee and, I think, here on the floor of the Senedd, I cannot release money that comes to Wales for investment in our public services in order to meet a bill that has not been created here in Wales. However, because this is a much better budget, we are able to increase the funding we are providing to third sector organisations, and, for example, yesterday, on the floor, during the budget debate, I was able to highlight the further addition to the hourly rate for childcare providers. It was £5 an hour; it’s going to be £6.40 an hour now. Now, that is in recognition of a range of cost pressures—in food, in training, in premises—that that sector faces, and it will be for those sectors to use the resources they have to meet the different demands on them.

I want to respond to the point that Darren Millar made, though—it’s an important point—about the fact that different local authorities have made different decisions about the extent to which they’ve retained in-house and contracted-out services. And I want to try and recognise that in the way in which we will hand on to local government the money that will come to Wales through the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So, we’re going to do that through the distribution and finance sub-groups that we've set up. My officials have already had discussions with local authority directors of finance. I’ve no doubt that, as in all the decisions we make about funding local authorities, some will be more satisfied than others with the eventual outcome, but I want to give the leader of the opposition an assurance that we recognise the point that he has made and we’re trying to find the best solution to it in a dialogue with our local authority partners.

Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. I just wanted to follow up in relation to Darren’s points. I hear that you’re not in a position at the moment, because you’re not clear about the kind of financial issues ahead, but I think it’s still incumbent on us all to keep this in our minds, for you and for any allocations of funds going forward.

Just two other additional areas: just yesterday, we heard that Oakwood Theme Park, Wales’s largest theme park, announced its closure after 40 years, and they’ve cited national insurance changes as a key factor, and also, major charities like Platfform, Marie Curie and Tenovus Cancer Care face more than £250,000 in extra annual costs. So, we've got a range of organisations that are really struggling and there's a direct impact on one of the most iconic places of entertainment here in Wales. So, I'm just seeking your reassurances that, as you go forward, you'll be thinking of those organisations, and possibly, if there's an opportunity, to reach out as well and look at a package for Oakwood right now. Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you to Jane Dodds. Well, of course, the impact of employer national contributions is very much in my mind and that of my colleagues. I raised these points with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he was in Cardiff last week, as did my colleagues from Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Chief Secretary was clear: the Government, in order to provide the additional funding for public services and to meet some of the holes in the budget that the incoming Government inherited, have to raise money. They’ve chosen to do it in this way. They’ve made their decisions about the extent to which help will be available, and he gave no encouragement that we were to expect help beyond that which the UK Government has already outlined.

The commitment I’ve given, and I’ll give it again this afternoon, is that, for these purposes—and this is very much in breach of a fundamental principle of devolution, which is that any money that comes to Wales is for Wales to decide and for the Cabinet to put proposals to the Senedd—and in this case, I’m prepared to give a commitment in advance of the facts that when the money arrives, it will go straight out to those organisations for that purpose and for nothing else.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. First, we have the Welsh Conservatives' spokesperson, Sam Rowlands.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, the dust has just settled on yesterday’s proceedings, where, of course, you were successful in having your budget proceed through the Senedd. But also, one of the debates yesterday was in relation to income tax, and you said that the Welsh Government will commission an external review of current income tax powers. Could you give us a timeline of this external review and more detail about what it will contain?

My thanks to the official spokesperson on finance matters for that question, Llywydd. I agree, things are calmer today than they were yesterday. Well, I could say to him first of all that the work has already begun, because I took the opportunity of having the Scottish finance Minister here in Wales on Thursday to get a first sense from her of the way in which Scotland has used the wider set of income tax variation powers that they have, compared to the powers that we have here in Wales. I’m very grateful to the Scottish Minister for her willingness to share the information she had and to say that she will provide us with further information on those powers that they have found most useful and those powers that they have applied with, maybe, less success.

Now, I want to recruit to the external review a panel of people who can help us to shape the work that they do. I don’t just want to provide them with a preset remit, because these will be experts in their own right, and I’m happy to be in a dialogue with them about where they will concentrate their efforts. I would hope to have a report available before the end of this Senedd term. This is not work I think we can expect to complete in the final year of this Senedd, but I do want an incoming Government to have the benefit of that work so that they can look to see whether there are more effective powers than we have at present. Llywydd, the powers we’ve had have never been used and, as each year ticks by without them being used, I think what that is telling us is that these powers are probably unusable as they are currently constructed. If we want to be able to take more responsibility here for the money we spend, for making decisions about how that money is raised, we need tools that are genuinely capable of being used by the Senedd. So far, I don’t think the powers that we have are looking as though they will ever be in that category. That’s why we need the work.

I'm grateful for your response, Cabinet Secretary in outlining some of the detail that you touched on yesterday as well, and I recognise the conversation that you had with the Scottish finance Minister. You'll know, of course, that, under the SNP in Scotland, people in Scotland are paying some of the heaviest taxes. Anybody earning over £30,000 a year in Scotland pays the most taxes anywhere in the United Kingdom. So, is that the sort of vision that you have in mind for workers here in Wales?

Well, the tools themselves are neutral, Llywydd, aren't they? The tools, if they are usable, can be used to reduce taxes as well as to raise them, and political choices that are made elsewhere aren't to be read as making direct implications for the way that they would be used by the Senedd. What I'm interested in is having a usable set of measures that allow us to use the powers we have in a way that responds better to the needs of people in Wales. And we will see what the experts tell us about this. As it happens, using Welsh rates of income tax as we have so far has proportionately raised more money for Wales than the Scottish package has raised for Scotland. So, there are some interesting and evidence-based things that we can now learn, given the contrasting experience of the two nations. I want our policy to be evidence informed. I want to provide a set of options that an incoming Government can consider, but I don't want to anticipate the way in which any Government would use the tools that, by themselves, are neutral. 

I'm grateful for, again, your response to that, Cabinet Secretary, and you're absolutely right that Governments should also be looking to see where taxes can be reduced and not always increased. Of course, people up and down Wales, though, would be worried that the Labour Party would be seeking to hike up taxes, as they have done with the national insurance increases in Westminster and as they are doing with the inheritance tax for family farms as well. The record from Labour Governments for far too long is to increase taxes on people; particularly right now when people are in desperate need to have more cash in their pockets, it's a real worry for them when a Labour Government here in Cardiff is seeking to expand its powers on taxation. And the only party, of course, that would be looking to put more money back in people's pockets is the Conservative Party, which recognises that people in control of their money know how to best spend their money, and we should, as you rightly said, be looking to options to reduce tax where it's needed as well. So, I wonder, you said in your statement yesterday that now is not the right time to increase income tax levels; when would you think is the right time to increase income tax levels?

Well, I think I indicated in an earlier answer, Llywydd, that I think that the powers as currently constructed are unlikely to lead to that outcome. I think that Conservative Members will want to think carefully about what they say on this matter given that their Government increased the rate of tax-take in the British economy to a 60-year high during their tenure in office. It's one thing for the party to say that they have ambitions to cut taxes, but in fact they raised taxes and raised them again. Fiscal drag has meant, here in Wales, that there are thousands and thousands more people paying tax than there were before his party made that decision. So, I'm not disputing that that may be the ambition of the Conservative Party, but their record in office was exactly the opposite.

The Member is right, though, Llywydd, taxes can go down as well as up. I see that Pembrokeshire council this year is reducing the premium that it set on second homes in the county from 200 per cent to 150 per cent. I'm pleased to say that three local authorities in Wales have lowered their council tax rises for next year as a result of the floor that was agreed between the Government and the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats. So, there are examples in Wales where taxes go down, and that's in pretty sharp contradistinction to what happened when his party was in power in Westminster.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Heledd Fychan.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, today your Labour counterpart in Westminster, Rachel Reeves, has announced plans for billions of pounds-worth of spending cuts, which will fall particularly heavily on welfare, and this of course comes on the back of the decision to withdraw the winter fuel allowance from thousands of Welsh pensioners, a step that not even the original architect of austerity, George Osborne, dared to countenance. Can I ask, therefore: yesterday, you opened your speech on the budget by proclaiming we can turn the corner on the insidious legacy of austerity; based on what you've heard today, do you want to revise your prior optimism that austerity is on its way out?

Well, I've seen no announcement today, Llywydd. I've been in meetings all morning, so if there has been an announcement, then I have not seen it. I've seen press speculation, but that's very different to any announcement from the Treasury. If there is to be an announcement, I'll wait till I see it.

Well, I'm sure we'll await that update from Welsh Government. I assume from your response, then, that no prior warning or discussions have taken place with the Welsh Government.

If I could turn to another issue, language learning apps like Duolingo have an important role to play in terms of reaching the target of a million Welsh speakers, something that Carwyn Jones, as First Minister, recognised, as he wrote directly to the company asking them to develop the Welsh course. Although the company stopped developing its Welsh course in 2023, the course still has 774,000 active learners at the moment, and more than 3 million people have tried the course since 2016. As you know, the course is run at common European framework of reference for languages level A2 at the moment, but of course the Government's aim through the Welsh Language and Education (Wales) Bill is for all pupils to reach level B2. In response to a letter from the Chair of the culture and Welsh language committee, your predecessor, Jeremy Miles, said in November 2023:

'In the longer-term we have agreed to meet regularly as we develop the proposals in the Welsh Education Bill and a single continuum for learning Welsh, and to consider if Duolingo has a role as a resource to support teaching and learning as people progress along the continuum.'

Could I ask you, therefore: have you met with Duolingo? Will you commit to write to them to ask them to resume the course, and try to continue with the discussion in line with what Jeremy Miles said would happen?

Well, thank you for that question, and the Duolingo course has been extremely successful. I remember during COVID, I read that the Duolingo Welsh language course was one of the most popular, so it's disappointing to me that Duolingo has decided not to invest more in the courses that they provide. They say that they will continue to provide the courses that they have at the moment. They will continue to be available to people, but they aren't going to invest more on developing the courses that they currently have in the future. And of course, the Government has been in contact with Duolingo, seeking to persuade them not to take that step and to proceed with the successful courses that they provide at the moment. The response that we've received is that they want to use the resource that they have to develop other courses. They haven't closed the door on any future developments, but at the moment, they have not changed their position.

Thank you for that response, and I'm sure you would have support from a number of people in this Senedd in order to try and get Duolingo to move on that, especially given that they have changed in terms of Norwegian, and also as there were so many volunteers who were ready to give their time and who are still eager to do that. So, if there was an opportunity for us to continue to encourage Duolingo, we would be very supportive of that.

Of course, it's important that we do protect the language in the world around us and not just in the virtual world, and protecting Welsh place names is an integral part of that. You will be aware of the co-operation agreement that committed to ensuring that Welsh place names in the built and natural environment are protected and promoted. This, of course, includes the protection of landscape names, an elements that stakeholders including Cylch yr Iaith are concerned to see have received less attention as part of the work that Cadw and others are doing on behalf of the Government on this issue. Does the Government intend, therefore, to commission further work on this issue, and if so, when, and if you don't intend to do so, why not?

Well, just to say first of all that what Heledd Fychan has said is correct; the work that we've done already has focused on names that people use—not in the countryside, not in terms of landscape—and that was for a number of reasons. As people were carrying out the research, they came across things that they couldn't deal with within the contract available to them. I have a meeting in the diary to speak to Siân Gwenllian about the report that we've received, and to see how we can now progress and do more work in the area where the research at present hasn't gained the ground that we had initially expected.

So, a lot of work has been done, and I think that that will be of great assistance to us, but there is still more to be done, and I'm eager to continue to work with those in other parties who are interested in the same area.

I thank Mike Hedges for that, Llywydd. Over £200 million has been invested in the invest-to-save fund, with around £3 generated for every £1 invested. Best practice has been shared through projects within local health boards, Natural Resources Wales and recently the strategic road network through its LED road and tunnel lighting project.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. I'm an advocate for the use of invest-to-save. Upfront investment can reduce future costs. Apart from when invest-to-save was used to cover the costs, mainly ICT costs, of the creation, via merger, of Natural Resources Wales, most of the expenditure has been used to reduce future costs. Examples include improved ICT expenses systems that pay the actual mileage, not the rounded mileage for one health board; the use of LED lighting to reduce energy costs at another health board. Why have schemes such as these not been used by every health board in Wales, and can invest-to-save be used to fund artificial intelligence investment in one health board to then be copied by all other health boards?

Llywydd, can I first of all thank Mike Hedges for his consistent interest in this topic? I think I discussed with him on an earlier occasion the fact that we are looking to see how the next phase of invest-to-save can be designed, given that it was disrupted by the COVID pandemic when there wasn't the capacity to be carrying out the sorts of activities that the fund has generally supported. I'm very interested in whether or not we can use the fund for AI purposes. It would certainly be my hope that where one health board is succeeding in using invest-to-save strategies, that becomes material to other boards as well. I think the Member may have heard Jeremy Miles's statement on Betsi Cadwaladr yesterday when he made specific reference to the use of generative AI in the health board in the fields of breast and prostate cancer. We know that stroke care right across Wales is being really radically improved through the use of AI in analysing scans. Dermatology has used this form of artificial intelligence already.

It seems to me that health, and particularly the investigative side of health, is a really ripe area for artificial intelligence with the ability to analyse millions of previous scans, for example, very rapidly indeed and then to see whether the scan in front of you shows any signs that ought to be of clinical interest. There's real opportunity here. The debate about AI is, quite rightly, characterised by will it be a help or will it do us harm, but in the field that Mike Hedges has highlighted, I think there are prospects for advances; provided it is safe and ethical in its use, then AI has real potential.

Currently, whilst people are waiting for their council tax bills to drop on their doormats, there's a lot of concern about the levels of council tax increase across Wales. Now, as we know, Government finance can play a significant role in improving public service and driving innovation, but, at the same time, it has to be with the principles of prudence and financial probity. Now, the invest-to-save fund has been running since 2009, and the Welsh Government, as you've rightly said, has appropriated £200 million to over 180 projects. You're looking to support that even more. Other Welsh public sector organisations are now having to use this fund to support some of their own initiatives. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that there is a case for the need for more longer term funding options to be made available to our Welsh public services, along with ensuring that this funding and any funding provided to local government is used effectively, providing best value for our taxpayers, and that financial probity is upheld at all times?

Well, I very much agree with the points that the Member has made, Llywydd, about the importance of prudent use of public resources, probity in the way that they are invested, and making sure that best value is achieved through that. I know that Janet Finch-Saunders will remember that, the week before the half-term break, we took regulations through the Senedd, derived from the previous UK Government's Procurement Act 2023, designed exactly to do that—to make some of the processes easier so that local authorities and others can genuinely pursue best value in the investment they make through spending very large amounts of public money. So, I agree with much of what she said.

It's an interesting point that the Member makes as well about longer term investments with longer term paybacks. For non-public authorities, we have financial transactions capital, which operates in just that way; you have to pay it back, but it's sometimes as long as 30 years. In the work we're doing to reshape invest-to-save for the future, I'll make sure that that idea is fed into those discussions.

I thank the Member for the question. Llywydd, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a UK Parliament private Members' Bill. If the Bill proceeds to the next stage, we will consider the implications for Wales as part of the legislative consent process, including any language requirements.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. I voted in favour of the Bill when it was discussed here in the Senedd, and it is fair to say that there are concerns about safeguarding arising from the Bill and we need to be careful about that. We also must ensure that the situation in Wales and the position of the Welsh language is reflected in this Bill.

Now, I'm sure you will have seen the letter from a number of medical and palliative professionals across Wales raising questions as to why there is no requirement to have an assessment through the medium of Welsh if one is a first-language Welsh speaker, or indeed in any language that the patient speaks, and they raise a number of concerns on that issue. Can the Cabinet Secretary tell us, if things proceed to the next stage, that you will ensure that this unique situation in Wales is reflected in the Bill, and will you ensure that you inform the Westminster Government of that, but,  most importantly, ensure that the people of Wales are safeguarded? Thank you.

Thank you very much for the supplementary question. May I thank the Member for those additional questions? I recently re-read his contribution—a very emotional contribution—in the debate in Senedd on assisted dying. Today, this question focuses on one of the practical and operational issues that have to be tackled if the Bill does succeed. The Government continues to be fully committed to ensuring that the Welsh language is not treated less favourably than English and recognises the importance of the Welsh language in the context of assisted dying. 'More than words' is the Welsh Government's plan to strengthen Welsh language services in health and social care, and central to our approach is the principle of the operational offer, which places responsibility on health and social care providers to offer services through the medium of Welsh, rather than on the patient or service users to have to ask for them.

Now, there are amendments that have been tabled in the name of Liz Saville-Roberts and Jack Abbot, one of the Labour MPs, which, if they succeed—. And the Westminster Government doesn't have a position on this, because it's a private Members' Bill, but, if the amendments do succeed, they're going to impose duties on health bodies to provide not just services through the medium of Welsh but specific things in the situation that the Bill refers to, and we will have an opportunity, when we have discussions on the floor of the Senedd, to support those things that have been proposed.

Noswaith dda. Several healthcare professionals in north Wales have copied me in on their campaign letters about the specific needs of Welsh speakers relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. After I referred this to the cross-party group on hospice and palliative care, which I chair, Hospice UK shared this with their colleagues who are engaging with the UK Parliament Bill committee on amendments, and assisted dying will be a key agenda item at the joint meeting of the cross-party groups on hospice and palliative care and on funerals and bereavement on 2 April, when Baroness Finlay will be speaking.

As the letter states, quote, 'It will not be possible to make any assessment of the presence or absence of coercion if the co-ordinating and independent doctors and any other healthcare professionals involved have the necessary conversations in English with a Welsh speaker.' What engagement have you, therefore, had with the Westminster Bill committee, or will you be having with the UK Government, regarding both this and last October's vote in this Parliament against supporting this legislation in the Westminster Parliament?

Well, a number of points there, Llywydd; first of all, to thank Mark Isherwood for the work he does in chairing that cross-party group, and the group for the work that they do, and I'm sure that the meeting early in April with Baroness Finlay will be a very informative one. I just need to make the point again that this is not a Government Bill, so there is no Government-to-Government discussion of it, because the Government in Westminster isn't responsible for the Bill. The Bill is a private Members' Bill, and our own procedures for dealing with any legislative consent motion are different under private Members' Bills than they are under Government Bills.

What I think is important, as I said in my answer to Rhys ab Owen, is that there are amendments tabled now to the Bill that do a number of very important things in answering some of the concerns that have been raised. The amendments, for example, would place a requirement for medical practitioners when conducting preliminary discussions to discuss with the person their preferred language of Welsh or English; if the person's preferred language is Welsh, that there will be a further requirement for at least one member of a multidisciplinary panel to have fluent proficiency in Welsh; and if services or functions are to be provided to that individual, then there will be an entitlement for that person seeking assistance to end their own life to have those services in the language that they would prefer, and then a further requirement for the medical records specifically to record that those choices had been made available.

I think the points that have been raised in the correspondence are very important ones. There are now moves to put new safeguards into that Bill. As a private Members' Bill, the Government won't be taking a view on it, either at Westminster or here, but there are Welsh Members of Parliament who are involved in the Committee Stage of that Bill, and they will now have those amendments in front of them.

I thank Hannah Blythyn, Llywydd. The final budget includes a funding floor for Welsh local authorities. Flintshire is a beneficiary of that funding, which will support the council in serving the residents of Delyn.

Thank you for that response, Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you for all of your work to determine and deliver this budget. It's right to say that it's the budget that turns a corner for our country and sets us on the road to recovery from austerity, and it is a budget that will make a difference for Delyn, from the additional funding for childcare and extra money for social care, right down to the investment towards road repairs. It's certainly a stark contrast to previous years, when the Welsh Government, under a UK Tory Government, had to make tough choices about where to make so-called savings. 

But, sadly, the reality of those 14 years of austerity means it will take more than just one budget, whether here or in Westminster, to undo the impact on our public services. I recognise the difference that the funding floor will make to local authorities like my own in Flintshire, but they do still face being in an unenviable position of having to make those difficult decisions when it comes to setting a budget, which I'm sure you can empathise with, Cabinet Secretary. Whilst I realise you haven't quite had a chance to catch your breath after this budget, I would like to ask: are you still able to make clear yours and the Welsh Government's commitment to working together in respect of future funding settlements, in order to ensure a sustainable financial future for our public services and those who provide them? 

Llywydd, I thank Hannah Blythyn very much for those points, and for the support she gave to the budget yesterday. Flintshire is a beneficiary from the funding floor, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some very tough decisions that local authorities in all parts of Wales will face. What I ask them always to do is to make sure that they are in a close dialogue with their local communities, either explaining why they've come to the decisions they have come to, or making sure that those decisions reflect the influence of their local populations.

I thank Hannah Blythyn for drawing to the surface a couple of issues that we didn't manage to spend much time on yesterday. One of the issues we will certainly be continuing to discuss with the Welsh Local Government Association and local authorities is the fact that there will now be £120 million-worth of local government borrowing, supported by revenue from the Welsh Government, for them to attend to the needs of local roads and pavements. Now, we've come to that headline agreement. There's more discussion with our local authority colleagues to make sure that that money is disbursed in the best possible way, and, over the coming year, on the very important work that the finance sub-group does, in conjunction with my colleague Jayne Bryant, the Welsh Government will continue to be around that table and to work with those who do so much to provide services that make a difference to daily life in every part of Wales. 

Llywydd, the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution and the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government have corresponded on the 'Fit for the future' consultation. The consultation covered proposals on asset pooling, local and regional investment and scheme governance.

Thank you for that response, and thank you too for the letter that I received on Monday, along with the consultation. You noted in that letter that the UK Government recognises the benefits of the local government pension scheme for Wales and had shared its proposals beforehand with you as a Government. Can I ask whether there was any cause of concern for you from what they did share with you at that point, and, once the UK Government has come to final conclusions following the consultation, do they have an intention to have further discussions with you as a Government? 

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I'm sure that the UK Government does intend to continue discussing things with us as a Government here in Wales, and I can tell other Members that, because some people have been concerned about that.

The letter that we received from the Minister in London was very clear. He says: 'I would like to take the opportunity to reassure you that I do not see the need for the Welsh pool to merge with English funds. I believe that to do so would risk losing the benefits of a pool with a strong mutual interest in optimising investment within the Welsh economy.'

So, that's important, and I did appreciate sight of that.

There is one other thing in the Westminster Bill where we're still engaging in discussions with the UK Government.

They would like to see all pension pools established as Financial Conduct Authority regulated investment management companies. The Welsh pool is one of three that don't organise themselves in that way. I think we will want to be in a dialogue with the UK Government to ensure that, if the FCA-regulated method does become compulsory for all pools, there's sufficient time for the Welsh pool to make those adjustments. I don't think we are necessarily against the idea, but we do want to make sure that the Welsh pool has time to adjust its operation to bring itself in line with any of those new requirements.

Llywydd, the significant extra investment for Wales's cultural and arts sectors in the draft budget reflected our commitment to these important areas. The final budget provides an additional £4.4 million, which, taken together, represents an 8.5 per cent increase for the sector when compared to this year's revenue budget.

Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. In my own constituency we have a long tradition of making music of the highest calibre, and so often that's as a result of volunteers, such as Montgomeryshire Youth Music, who do excellent work in this area. There is great work done, I know, also by the National Plan for Music in Powys, which is really helpful in supporting the activity for children and young people.

Now, the funding that you mentioned, Cabinet Secretary, I very much welcome that, but I wonder if you could set out a road map to ensure that funding is increased in real terms over the coming years to help support the sector from the grass roots, to schools, to extra-curricular activities. And what more can you do, and can the Welsh Government do, to ensure that the Government works with voluntary organisations, such as Montgomeryshire Youth Music, to ensure that the money allocated is effective and ensures the very best impact?

I thank Russell George for that, and I'm sure that the lives of many young people in his constituency are shaped by the opportunities they have to take part in music and to benefit from the fantastic voluntary effort that so many people make to make sure that those opportunities go on being made available. I'm not able to set out a route-map today, Llywydd, because I don't have a budget beyond the next financial year. But, on 11 June, the Chancellor promises that we will see the results of the comprehensive spending review, and that will provide a three-year horizon for revenue spending and a four-year horizon for capital expenditure here in Wales, and, at that point, I think being able to map a funding platform into the future will become more possible for us.

Of course, the decisions on allocations of money are not made by Ministers, they're made by the Arts Council of Wales, but the Government, once those decisions are made, of course, remains anxious to work alongside our local authorities and our major arts bodies to ensure that they go on enriching the lives of people here in Wales.

And finally, question 8, Peter Fox.

Llywydd, the setting of budgets and council tax levels every year is a matter for local authorities themselves. I ask councils to consider carefully the balance between maintaining services and the financial pressures on households, and to engage meaningfully with communities on the decisions they make.

Thank you for that response, Cabinet Secretary. I highlighted in my contribution on the local government settlement yesterday my concern that Neath Port Talbot's budget consultation stated that the Welsh Government had assumed council tax will rise by 9.3 per cent across Wales, and their council tax was suggested to rise by 7 per cent. As I said in here yesterday, it was something I'd never seen published before, and something in itself that could push up council tax unnecessarily or disproportionately. The Cabinet Secretary assured me that the Welsh Government had not published any assumptions.

My interest in that consultation came as I have a daughter who now lives in the area. So, Cabinet Secretary, can you reassure me that the Welsh Government do not publish council tax increase assumptions, and that you will look into why a council would publish such a thing? It would seem to be possibly to justify their own council tax increase.

I'm sure my colleague Jayne Bryant will be looking into how that came to be said. I can give the Member an assurance that the Welsh Government does not publish any assumption of that sort. The working group of the Welsh Local Government Association does make an assumption itself when it is providing advice through the WLGA. My understanding is that it was nothing like the figure quoted in Neath Port Talbot.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item will be questions to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, and the first question is from Sam Rowlands.

Thank you, Sam. The Welsh Government supports the food and drink industry in north Wales through a variety of support programmes, including Grŵp Llandrillo Menai food technology centre, extensive capital and trade development support, and also innovation and technology networks to support future growth.

Thank you for your response, Cabinet Secretary. I'm glad you recognise the importance of the agri-food sector in north Wales. Of course, that does include the importance of export opportunities for food and drink producers in the region, and in particular in Wrexham, where there seems to be more international attention than ever because of the success of the football club in Wrexham.

I want to focus on some particular opportunities there with exports to the United States, and some of the potential barriers that may be in the way in the future. I'd like to highlight companies like Jones' Village Bakery, with their American-style pancakes, and Wrexham Lager, which is now sold in 29 states in the USA, from New York to California. It's brilliant for those businesses, brilliant for employees in north Wales and good for Wales to see those brands in the United States as well. Of course, we're all aware of a new President in the White House in the USA and some of the rhetoric on display with regard to tariffs and potential trade wars in the future, and those trade barriers would be terrible for Welsh businesses as well, in particular those businesses I've highlighted there in Wrexham.

So, I wonder, Cabinet Secretary, what conversations Welsh Government are having with your counterparts in the British Government and the British embassy in Washington, to make sure that the voices of Welsh agri-food businesses are heard. And what measures are being taken to prevent the sector from being impacted by any potential tariffs in the future? Thank you. 

Sam, thank you and it's such a good question. In fact, I was out, as I've reported to the Senedd before, last year, at the New York climate change conference, which was integral to our role as a smaller nation that punches above its weight. Whilst I was there, I actually met with some of those suppliers in the wider food chain and looked at the opportunities and the success that we already have in markets in places such as Texas. Texas is the size of a nation itself and the demand there for Welsh produce, including things like cheese, is phenomenal. I'd applaud those brands that are well recognised, such as the bakery you've mentioned, Wrexham Lager, and so on, and the role of sport tied into those has a real pivotal role in helping us to drive into those export markets as well. And curiously, in light of the earlier discussion about the role of Wales internationally and working with UK Government, as well as our own trade missions, to promote that very heavily, so our big markets in the middle east, in America, and so on.  

But certainly, Sam, I can see where you're pushing on this question. We will continue to engage, as we always do, with UK Government counterparts on the importance of hearing the voice of Wales, and Welsh primary producers and farmers, but also the whole Welsh food and drink sector, which has been such a success—it grew by 10 per cent in the last year that we have data for, which was 2023; we're exceeding our expectations—but making sure that, in any trade deals, whether those are with the USA or other trade deals internationally, they do not disbenefit and, in fact, they're to the benefit of our producers and our supply chain.

Thank you, Pred. We work closely with our partners in local resilience forums and across the responder community in Wales to plan for, to respond to and to recover from a broad range of risks, including those associated with adverse weather risks.

Thank you for that response. 

The storms that battered Wales in recent months have taken a heavy toll on the communities I represent. Homes that were left uninsurable after the storms of 2020 were flooded again just before Christmas. The same happened to rugby clubs up and down the Valleys from Caerleon to New Tredegar.

One of the more disturbing things for me was the appearance of a large sinkhole that opened up in a widowed pensioner's back garden in Newbridge. It was inspected by officials from Caerphilly County Borough Council and it was subsequently decided that there was no obligation to repair the sinkhole. This is despite the fact that it clearly bordered on to a public lane, and the issue may well have emanated from a public asset, which, seen with my own eyes, I could see was also incredibly dangerous. Imagine the stress of this just before Christmas when you live alone and rely on a pension to get by. After my office intervened, the local authority saw sense and made the hole secure for the resident, and they're currently undertaking a permanent repair to prevent further damage to the local drainage network.

Do you agree that there is an urgent need to review how we approach incidents like this, and do you also agree that there is a need for additional funding for repairs and mitigation as a result of the increasingly extreme weather that we actually face?

Thanks for that, and I think all of us in the Chamber, genuinely, our hearts go out to all of those who've been affected by recent storm events, because we know that there will be more coming as well. This is now going to become, in some ways, commonplace, so we have to actually prepare for those eventualities and how we respond to them. I was really pleased, in the light of storm Bert, storm Darragh, and indeed the separate in characteristic, but equally traumatic in many ways, incidents that we had in Conwy as well, when we had, because a pipeline gave way, up to around 40,000 people affected—it grew from 8,000 to 40,000 people within hours, not days—. So, our hearts go out to all those affected.

You take me into the area—I won't comment on the individual circumstances, and I'm pleased that you as a representative have engaged with the local authority—but that difficult area between individual liability and where, actually, the Government and the state or agencies can actually step in. I was very pleased recently, in light of the recent events, that my colleague and I were able to discuss the additional support that could be made available to local authorities to help out. But I think this has to be an ongoing dialogue as well, based on local issues and what happens, but also on the support that Welsh Government can provide, and we were pleased to step up and put additional funding into that space in light of recent events.

I think the challenge is that we're going to need to keep that momentum going, with the quantum of funding we have in preparedness and response, but also to look at each individual instance that comes about and see what we can do, but there is then this tricky area of the individual liability of landowners, home owners and so on as well. You'll understand if I don't comment on the individual case, but I'm glad you've been involved with the residents there with the local authority.

Cabinet Secretary, my constituents living in Caer Castell House in Brackla have suffered flooding on a number of occasions. Serious flooding occurred in 2012 and again in September last year. The adverse weather, even on 6 September 2024, was not the only culprit that caused sewer flooding that left all 10 ground-floor flats uninhabitable and caused severe damage to vehicles belonging to residents of the 30 flats in the building. Poor maintenance as well as ongoing neglect by the builders, failure by the local council, Network Rail and property developers all played a huge role. Their failure to uphold basic infrastructure standards has left residents vulnerable to repeated flooding. Residents have been unsupported by Welsh Government and let down by the local authorities, as well as Network Rail, who accepted responsibility for the flooding event in 2012. Residents affected by flooding in Pontypridd received £100,000 support, yet my constituents, many of whom are still unable to live in their homes even today, at present have received no support at all, not even advice.

Cabinet Secretary, what action can the Welsh Government take to protect residents living in places like Caer Castell House, who suffer from repeated floodings despite living in a low flood risk area?

Thank you, Altaf, for that question. The role of Welsh Government in this space is to ensure that we have the strategic approach to the way that we deal with flooding right across Wales, but also that we provide the quantum of investment needed—in the right form, as well—so that the decisions can be taken on the ground by the flood management authorities, which are the local authorities, working with Natural Resources Wales and, I have to say, with residents as well, to understand the nature of the mitigations that they would need. So, in some places—again, I won't comment on the individual ones—it could be pumps, in some places it could be hard defences and embankments; it could be a range of things. But we have now had record funding for flood risk management, including this year. It's been maintained at £75 million. This is the second or third year that we've maintained it at record levels. I'll be announcing more on the future investment flood programme later in the spring, for 2025-26, as well. But we know we've got to keep that investment going, and we'd thoroughly appreciate support from Senedd Members to do that as well.

But it's also worth touching on the Welsh Government's flagship coastal risk management programme, which, again, has seen an additional £291 million of concentrated investment funding over five years. It will have funded, that scheme alone, 15 schemes across Wales, benefiting 14,000 properties. So, we can put in place the funding, we can put in place the framework, but I would commend to you, Altaf, and to other Members, to then engage with the local flood management agencies, which are the local authorities, and NRW, to say, 'How do we work with individual neighbourhoods, individual streets and, indeed, individual properties?', because some of the investment is not grand scale, but it is individual property flood issues, such as flood gates, and so on.

This is such an important question. In the Valleys, our landscapes leave us more vulnerable to the effects of storms. Now, some of that's natural, because of our hills, but some of the danger is man made, most urgently because of coal tips that lie above us. Last November, residents in Cwmtillery were left traumatised by the coal tip that slipped down the mountain in heavy rain. It could have been so much worse. Inspections are still going on—that's so important for residents' peace of mind. But, communities living under coal tips shouldn't have to worry every time there's a storm. Westminster should be paying to clear those tips once and for all. We'll need far more than the £25 million promised to us by Rachel Reeves. And whilst the legislation going through the Senedd is welcome, it doesn't address that point. What update can you give the Senedd, please, and the Valleys, about how this Government will ensure that the debt they owe us will be paid?

Yes, I think we do absolutely have a debt to those communities, including the community I live in in Maesteg, and elsewhere, but throughout all the south Wales Valleys, and it includes parts of north Wales as well, where they still live with the issue of coal tips still being there 20, 30, 40 years after—this industrial legacy issue we need to deal with. I am really pleased that the UK Government has stepped up to the mark with the money that we asked for, for this year. I know that there have been calls for £500 million, £600 million, £700 million right now, but I've made clear to the Senedd before, Llywydd, when I've spoken on this, that it isn't a question of fixing every single tip right now; it's prioritising the tips that need work, and then getting on with it. I'm very pleased to say, by the way, that we've had a huge number of very good quality applications from several local authorities to draw down the next tranche of funding, which I'm keen to sign off. We're just going back and forth to the authorities to make sure that it's deliverable within the timescale they've said as well. And we are talking about multimillion-pound sums of money and many local communities.

We have that debt to pay. I think the UK Government is stepping up and saying, 'Here's the first instalment, and we regard it as a first instalment'. My colleague the finance Secretary is in discussion with the Treasury about what the next instalment will be, and the one after that and the one after that, because we see this as being a necessary partnership now, going forward. But be under no misapprehension, I've made clear to those communities that I've visited that we will make sure that we do the right thing by these communities and stand by them, because it's the least they deserve. And we will have to accelerate this funding, going forward. But bringing forward the legislation as well, and setting up this new public authority specifically tasked with making these communities safe and looking after the welfare of these communities, will also be a huge step forward. We'll have spent, by the end of this Senedd term, £102 million, and, for the first time, we've got the UK Government stepping in and saying, 'We've got a part to play.'

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Peter Fox.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I'd like to start by seeking some reassurance on our country's resilience and preparedness should we be hit by—heaven help us—foot and mouth again, or, indeed, anything else. We've already seen avian flu on our borders and we know that, when the weather warms up, we're likely to see bluetongue surge. And I just want some assurance for the Senedd that the Government have robust plans in place, and that all local authorities have appropriate plans, strategies, capacity and resource in place also, should that worst happen. Contingency planning for disasters and events is absolutely fundamental for our security, and I think we learnt that from COVID. So, I seek those reassurances for the Senedd.

Yes, Peter, I can give you those reassurances. The work that we do is not only within Wales, but actually engaging across the UK with counterparts, and, indeed, on veterinary and biosecurity matters, we’re also with our European counterparts as well, because what we know, with some of these diseases—and there is a triple threat that we’re currently facing, including foot and mouth, bluetongue and avian flu as well, but who knows what comes in future—is that the engagement is not simply within our borders; it extends as far as we know where that disease is coming from. So, in terms of things such as foot and mouth at the moment, where we had the recent outbreak within Germany, we were, within hours, engaged through our chief veterinarians and through the Animal and Plant Health Agency and others, and also Ministers and officials working together, to ensure that that outbreak was locked down, isolated, dealt with. And I’m pleased to say that was done very effectively.

But we do have that resilience planning in place not just for foot and mouth, but for other diseases—how we respond, how we marshal our resources, and not just within Wales. But if there is a major incident, just to be clear, a major incident of the type that we have seen before, regrettably, back in 2001, then the call will be above and beyond what I have normally in my budget. The call will be, 'This is an eventuality now that we need to resource, either through the Welsh Exchequer or on a UK basis.' But, yes, the planning in place. The structures are in place. The engagement is on a weekly basis. And the first thing we have to try and do is keep disease out. There is a role for us in that. There is also a role for those good farmers out there in helping us do that as well. But we are ready, as ready as we possibly can be, should we have any significant outbreak and eventuality we have to deal with.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that reassurance. I think it’s important that the Parliament could hear that, because we fear these things could happen, and they can take us by surprise and we need to be ready to act. And it’s pleasing to know that those things are in place.

Cabinet Secretary, moving back to something the Chancellor announced, we know she brought forward a tax hike on family farms, but she also announced that future agricultural funding will no longer be ring-fenced. This means that Welsh farmers are set to lose out on £150 million a year, or a 40 per cent cut in that budget. Cabinet Secretary, in a scrutiny session with the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, you seemed to suggest that this decision was the right one, saying that, and I quote:

'the money is passported to us...and I need to be scrutinised for those decisions. It's passported to us and we make the decisions.'

Now, this seems to differ a little from the First Minister’s position in her evidence to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee recently, where she was rightly concerned by this move. This division is incredibly concerning for the farming community, who need strong and decisive action from the Government. Cabinet Secretary, what exactly is the Welsh Government’s position on this matter? Do you support the Barnettisation of the rural affairs funding, and, if not, what discussions have you had with your Labour colleagues in Westminster on the matter?

Thank you, Peter. I’m happy to clarify that, and happy to confirm that I’ve had direct conversations on this with my UK counterparts as well, so that they understand our clear position as well.

Two separate issues: on the ring-fencing, on a principle of devolution, we do not accept that the UK Government should pass us money and say, ‘That’s how you spend it’. On a principle of devolution, what we should have is, curiously, not unlike the situation we had before we withdrew from the EU. The money we have available, we decide how to use in Wales. It’s our decision. That’s what you and I, Peter, are elected for.

A separate issue, however, is on the Barnettisation. We do, the First Minister and I, share a worry on any suggestion that we should simply proceed now on a Barnett consequential approach to agriculture. That would do a disservice to a proportion of the Welsh economy, and not just rural Wales, but the thing we were talking about with Sam earlier, to our great success in this area with the food and drink industry. It would do a disservice if it were simply a Barnett consequential. So, we've made our views clear to the UK Government. We welcome the fact that they are not ring-fencing it and that we can get on with—as we should in this Parliament; we are elected Members—making our decisions on the money that is given to Wales through the block grant, but we’ve expressed our concerns if they were to proceed purely on Barnettisation of future settlements.

Thank you for that clarity. It still worries me that there is the potential for Barnettisation to reduce our funding to rural communities, and I implore you to continue to lobby hard against that.

Cabinet Secretary, just over a year ago, we saw the largest protest the Senedd has ever seen, with farmers rightly infuriated over the sustainable farming scheme at that time. The Welsh Government listened, which was a good thing, and you went back to the table. Yesterday, and over recent weeks, we’ve seen thousands protest against your colleagues in Westminster over the incredibly damaging impact of the Chancellor’s tax on family farms. They need to listen as you did. The Welsh industry needs you now to speak out publicly. I know the stock answer is that agricultural property relief is a reserved issue. Yes, we all know that, but the Welsh Government has a view and can speak out publicly. Cabinet Secretary, can you today do that, either now in your response or in your response to the APR debate this afternoon, and reassure the farming community that you stand by them?

I absolutely stand by the farming community and we’ve met regularly and repeatedly with the farming unions to discuss this matter over the recent months, and, in fact, as recently as the last few days as well, and we’ll keep that dialogue going. We were pleased, on the basis of our representations, the unions’ representations and, I have to say, the help of the Wales Office as well, to broker dialogue with the UK Treasury on behalf of the farming unions, and NFU Cymru and FUW were both a part of those. But they came away disappointed from those discussions. So, we have, once again, taken up with the UK Government that we want to make sure that the alternative analyses that have been put forward, particularly in light of the fact that we are trying to take forward the sustainable farming scheme, based on the sustainable land management principles, which include having that vitality of the business model within farming, particularly small and medium-scale farming, recognising the social value of farming—this is a very different model from what’s been tried in other parts of the UK, and I note recently that this was applauded at the NFU conference as well—and that we could actually have a scheme here that is far better than anything else that’s in the UK—. Now, if we’re going to deliver that, we need to make sure that there are no negative consequences.

So, that’s the matter that we have taken up subsequent to those meetings that NFU Cymru and the FUW had with the Treasury. We’ve been back in touch with UK Ministers to say that we wanted to make sure that their views are properly heard, properly considered, and also that they take into account the fact that we are developing an initiative here in Wales that should last not just for now, but for future generations, and that we want that to be brought forward with good consensus around it, with stakeholders really behind it and also confident that they can invest in their businesses. Now, I think that’s as clear as I can possibly be that we want this to be done properly in the months ahead.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’d like to press you further about the shift towards applying the Barnett formula on agricultural funding in Wales, because, as you know, it has been met with widespread concern. The First Minister herself, as we were just reminded, described it as something that poses a significant threat to future funding levels. Do you not accept that it’s a pity, if we really had a partnership in power between Labour here and Labour in Westminster, that you weren't consulted about this before the decision was made? And do you not regret, therefore, that you’re now left trying to unpick that decision by asking your own party to make a u-turn on a policy that they introduced, which is clearly detrimental to Wales?

I believe we've seen an absolute sea change now in grown-up Government relations, proper inter-governmental relations, the ability now of Ministers to speak to each other. But that does not mean we will not have disagreements, that does not mean that they do not have the right in their reserved matters to make decisions, and then we have to go back at them and say, 'Right, there are some consequences with these we need to talk about.' But at least now I'm able to do that, Llyr. I can actually meet, speak regularly. The inter-ministerial groups in this area are meeting regularly, but I can also have bilaterals as well. So, this is firmly on the agenda, but I respect their reserved powers and decisions they can make in that, but I expect them to engage with us, then, when we raise matters that are really pertinent to the future of farming within Wales.

Although, I would expect that a partnership is about getting it right in the first place and not a partnership when it needs to be fixed—

Most of the time.

—but I hear what you're saying. So, can I ask you about the sustainable farming scheme, then? Because it's all gone a bit quiet, but that's okay because I know there's a lot of work happening in the background, but a lot of people, of course, are waiting now to see what emerges, and the later that detail emerges, the more likely it is that people might not commit in year 1. They may well hold back, see how it goes and decide maybe after year 1, maybe after year 2, whether they want to join the sustainable farming scheme or not. So, my question simply is: how will you manage the funding around that in years 1 and 2 particularly, and if there is low take-up, where does that money go?

So, Llyr, I don't anticipate there will be low take-up, because if we design this scheme well, and it's going well behind the scenes, even though we're into a period of public quietude at the moment, behind the scenes, those legs are paddling rapidly, they're swimming away—. The officials group is up and running again on the next iteration, so, you know, we're into the space now of looking at what the optional and collaborative elements will be. We've got that piece of work to take forward on the modelling of the individual elements as well, and then we've got the final economic modelling to do as well. But we will bring this forward by the summer because we've said we will do that, and it's working well towards that. And we will, then, have that certainty that farmers can plan ahead. But it's more than that. We're not starting from scratch. We already, last year, announced investment in, for example, the integrated natural resource scheme, the broad spatial collaborative scheme, so people are getting on with that. We already signalled what we're doing with the sites of special scientific interest.

We will bring forward this spring other areas that farmers will be able to opt into right now. So, it's not a sudden start, screaming, wheels spinning from January 1. We will have farmers who are actually in, if you like, the forerunner elements of the scheme and can simply flip across into it. So, I anticipate the take-up will be good and we can give that certainty as we come to the summer to farmers of exactly what the shape looks like, but we're also piloting these schemes through the year so that more farmers are actually involved in the sort of approaches that will take place, then, from January.

Fine. But you didn't say if it isn't as good as that, where the money would go; so, maybe you can come back to me on that later.

Just finally from me, over the last three months, of course, we know that 1.8 million farmed birds have been culled across the UK due to avian influenza. Now it's moving closer to Wales, of course. We know there are some cases along the border; some, in fact, impacting land in Wales. And there's deep concern, of course, amongst poultry farmers and others. Now, farmers in England have called on the UK Government to allow vaccination as a tool against bird flu. It's not currently permitted in the UK. Government policy obviously relies on culling and strict biosecurity at the minute, but there is growing pressure for a shift in approach. The National Farmers Union has urged the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to prioritise a practical vaccination plan, while organisations such as the British Free Range Egg Producers Association strongly support vaccination.

Now, I appreciate that there are concerns about potential trade restrictions and, you know, the virus evolving in response to vaccines et cetera, but can I ask what is the Welsh Government's position on poultry vaccination? Do you believe that vaccinations should be part of the long-term strategy to protect the poultry sector in Wales, and what discussions have taken place with the UK Government on this matter?

Yes, indeed. So, it's not only discussions with the UK Government, but it's between the chief veterinary officers. I'm being updated probably on a bi-weekly basis—sorry, I always get confused with that term—at least twice a week on this with my chief veterinary officer. We don't discount, actually, the use of vaccines going forward as a longer term strategy, but right from now, our approach is, as you will have seen, and I say this as I've got to declare an interest as a small-scale poultry keeper myself, who is, by the way, registered—. I'll just send that message out—if there are any Members here keeping a few chickens or whatever for the eggs, register if you haven't. You should have by now. I can give you advice how to do it, personally—it's very easy. But the approach we're taking is actually working with both the large-scale, commercial sector and others to make sure that we lock this disease out. But, possibly in the future, yes, that could well be part of it. But, yes, the engagement is going on right across the UK so we can try and keep this disease back and keep it out of Wales.

Diolch, Jenny. Thank you for that question. We are currently evaluating the options for tackling the idling of stationary vehicles, which is recognised can contribute to local air pollution levels. So, these could include, for example, working with local authorities on the enforcement of penalties and an awareness campaign, along with other measures to encourage changes in drivers' behaviours.

Well, an awareness campaign is certainly needed, because, in Cardiff Central, my constituency, we've already got several hotspots of illegal air quality, according to the World Health Organization classification, but I'm constantly having to challenge drivers who leave their engines running outside schools, in the taxi ranks, or in other built-up areas, where people will just give the excuse that they're trying to charge their phones, which is extraordinary. Some do the right thing and turn off their engines, and others are abusive, even when I remind them that they're breaking the law. So, the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Act 2024 has been law for a year now. I'm sorry that we're still evaluating and considering when it's so urgent to ensure that these regulations can be properly enforced by being able to identify people other than the police, who have so much else to do, to actually get that change of behaviour. So, people like parking attendants, responsible people, could impose fines on people who are refusing to turn off their engines, even when they've been asked to do so, and simply in order to raise awareness of the harm they are doing to the whole community.   

Jenny, I think you're right, the raising awareness of this to try and affect behavioural change is a critical element. There are other things we can use, other measures, including financial penalties and so on, and it's interesting to look at a range of financial penalties as well, rather than just one blunt one, and we're keen to explore that. But actually, behavioural change is the most tricky thing, and we've seen where this can succeed, not least where you have campaigns, for example, with local schools, for the children to try and influence the behaviour of parents and so on, with idling and parking and driving to school as well. But I think there is a significant piece of work we need to do within that.

It may be helpful as well just to flag with you some of the thoughts that we have as well, because we do believe that something within a financial penalty range could provide quite a helpful deterrent as well, where needed, alongside the behavioural change, something stronger than the current £20 penalty, but something with a good range as well, depending on the application. So, what we could do, for example, is look at, and we're exploring this at the moment, whether we could provide local authorities with a degree of flexibility to tailor the amount of penalty to the circumstances of the offence in the area and the severity of the offence. So, for example, you could put a fixed penalty at a higher range if the offence occurred next to a really sensitive receptor area, such as a school or a hospital or a clinic or a care home—things like that. A lower amount you could apply in a less sensitive area, to give a nudge, but without hammering too much. So, we're exploring these options now, internally and with local authorities, and we'd like to actually bring something forward now before the end of this Senedd term so we can actually put this into place on the ground and see how this works. But you are right, it's the behavioural piece as well as the sticks.

Cabinet Secretary, as we've heard, idling of vehicles is well known to increase concentrations of air pollutants, in particular fine particulate matter and elemental carbon. Studies have shown that buses and cars idling around schools have a huge impact, and that awareness campaigns encouraging divers to turn off their engines can reduce localised concentrations of fine particulate matter by up to 75 per cent, elemental carbon by 63 per cent and overall particle number concentration by a staggering 600 per cent. Moreover, it has been shown in England that buses fitted with additional particulate filters retrofitted to their roofs can clean air as they travel, further helping to mitigate air quality issues in built-up areas.

You have mentioned this in your previous response, but what action is the Welsh Government taking to encourage schools to run anti-idling campaigns, not only to help improve air quality, but also to engage pupils in understanding the causes of pollution? And what consideration has the Welsh Government given to encouraging bus companies to install additional filters to clean air as they travel? Thank you.

Joel, thank you for that supplementary. I think we need to look at every possible lever that we have to reduce idling and the dangers of air pollution with it, and that means also encouraging and empowering local authorities to take action. So, it's not for us to sit here and say what should happen in Flintshire or in Cardiff or whatever, but what we do need to give them is the tools that they can use, and that could include monetary penalties, but we would expect local authorities as well, in line with their air quality duties, which are now stringent and very clear, to bring forward their own proposals to drive forward better air quality in their areas. And they know—. They have the mapping of where they have the biggest impacts, and they need to bring forward their proposals, including on behavioural campaigns within those areas, and those could be working with local schools and colleges and residents and others to do it.

I think we also need—related to this, by the way—to deal with the wider issues of actually cleaning up emissions with vehicles. You are right. And I'll have that conversation, as I regularly have, with my Cabinet Secretary colleague for transport and north Wales. But also on reducing the amount of unnecessary journeys using fossil fuel vehicles, because that also has an impact, not just on air quality but on congestion and quality of life impacts, including on some of the poorer communities as well, who live alongside those main roads. So, all of these tools need to be used, both for air quality and also those wider things like actually reducing congestion on our roads.

Thank you, Carolyn. The designation of a national park in north-east Wales is a programme for government commitment. NRW recently held a public consultation on the proposals for the boundary as part of the necessary assessment and engagement work to establish a national park. The results will inform the final proposals.

Thank you for your answer. Could you give me some examples of what the three other national parks are doing well with farmers and how tourism is managed so it's sustainable in those national parks? Thank you.

Yes. It's a cracking question. We've got some examples already. So, for example—and it links, curiously, to the question Llyr put earlier on, on what are we doing in advance of the SFS—we launched a scheme over the last year called Ffermio Bro. The Ffermio Bro approach is actually bringing forward landscape-scale collaborations on conservation within national parks. So, we put the funding behind it. We've launched it. It's a direction of travel of where we might go with the sustainable farming scheme going forward. But that actually builds on other agri-environment projects within national parks, working with farmers in collaboration. So, for example, under the sustainable management scheme projects that have been funded, we've had things such as the traditional field boundaries project, which have extended, I think, something like 20 km additional of hedgerows and stone walls, which are themselves wildlife corridors as well. So, on that sort of collaboration there's already a strong record of national parks working with farmers.

You touched on sustainable tourism as well. I am one of those people who when they travel to Eryri take the public transport option, the park-and-ride option. I think it's absolutely brilliant. Why park along the highway and clutter up the highway with cars or whatever, and add to congestion and add to air quality issues, when you can actually take advantage of the partnership that's been done there with local transport providers to get people out of their cars and travel up by that? So, things like that, the use of public transport, but also as part of the Sustainable Landscapes, Sustainable Places capital grant schemes, all of our three national parks have already made great strides in improving their provision for electric vehicle charging as well. So, there are lots of good examples there already of national parks working with farmers, but also in driving forward sustainable tourism as well.

Thank you for the question from Carolyn Thomas. I was very interested in that, because my constituents have concerns, and so do I, following the proposals to extend the national park into parts of north Powys, which of course is not part of the original proposition from the Welsh Government included in their programme for government. But, on those two points that Carolyn raised, when NRW came to my constituency on 1 December and addressed a large number of people, they weren't convinced. Farmers were concerned about being unable to diversify in the same way if they were designated as in a national park. There was also concern around day visitors, concerns around potential infrastructure and specific examples around that. So, I suppose my question would be: why do you think NRW were not able to convince people in north Powys of the benefits of a national park? And indeed, I'm not convinced either; I see more disbenefits than benefits. But, in terms of the timetable, could I just ask quickly—? If the Government is going to proceed with the national park, then you will designate a national park, as I understand it, before the next Senedd elections, effectively before April next year. But could you also confirm if the national park would come into being at that point, and, if not, what would be not just the decision, but when would the national park come into being and what would the time frame for that be?

Okay. Thank you, Russell, and thanks for engaging in the consultation, going forward. I just want to, without commenting on the specifics—because there is still a sort of quasi-judicial process going on that I and other Cabinet Secretaries would be involved with, ultimately—just commend NRW on the consultation and the engagement they've done, which has been really extensive. So, they've heard views for, they've heard views against. It's primarily on the boundary issue, but they've also heard lots of other analysis, evidence, that has come forward from that. So, the process now is that NRW itself will conduct an analysis of what they've heard, the implications—both positive and negative views that they've heard—of national park status for the area and more widely, and that will include things such as impacts on tourism, on housing, on employment, the Welsh language. And that will then inform a final decision, with advice being lifted up to not just myself but other Cabinet Secretaries, who will then need to make a decision. We'll also need to have a detailed integrated impact assessment as well, so that we're basing our decisions on the most complete set of evidence available. 

Now, it's not appropriate for me as Cabinet Secretary, or my officials for that matter, to comment directly on specific issues being taken forward as part of this statutory process, but of course it is a programme for government commitment. We have to wait, now, for that advice to be lifted up, but, yes, Welsh Government stands by that programme for government commitment and we're now waiting for that advice to be brought forward. There's a limit to what I can add to that at the moment, Russell.  

Thank you, Tom. I'm in regular contact with my UK counterparts on a number of issues that affect farmers in Wales to ensure that their voices and concerns continue to be heard. My officials also engage regularly with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs via the UK agricultural market monitoring group and the agricultural policy collaboration group.

Thank you very much for your answer. During the general election, we heard repeatedly, didn't we, from the Labour Party that there would be no tax rises on working people, only for farmers, then, to find a new tax placed upon them, their farms and their families in the form of Labour's inheritance tax placed on farms, forcing many to consider whether they could even afford to remain open in the long run. I certainly consider farmers to be working people, I know my party considers farmers to be working people, which is why the Conservatives in Westminster have said that they'd scrap this policy if they came into Government after the next election. What conversations are you having with the UK Government if you also believe that farmers are working people, or is it the case that the Welsh Government believes that farmers are not working people?

It's just millionaires.

It's not. Mike, that says it all. That says it all. That's the attitude.

So, I can—

That's the attitude.

So, I can respond—. Sorry, Tom. I can respond quite helpfully on that. We engage regularly, as I mentioned in response to previous questions, with UK Ministers on this and other matters affecting the agricultural community.

But, just to say as well, in yesterday’s budget, which included an additional £50 million in revenue funding for the climate change and rural affairs budget, £73 million of capital funding as well, in terms of agricultural support, in total, that budget yesterday passed £366 million for agricultural support here in Wales, including £238 million for the basic payment scheme supporting agricultural transition to the sustainable farming scheme, and £11 million for Farming Connect, and indeed, uplifts as well in terms of things such as water quality improvements as well. So, I can absolutely guarantee that, here in Wales, Welsh Government stands steadfast with the farming community, and we were pleased to vote for that budget yesterday.

Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. I am hoping that everybody in the Siambr can see the pressures on our farmers, and the real concerns, particularly on their mental health right now, that there are.

I sat in a room recently in Brecon and Radnorshire with five farmers. Every single one of them was affected by the new inheritance tax. They had also done a detailed analysis, with the backing of accountants, of 15 farms in Brecon and Radnorshire, and all but one of them was affected by the new rules. This policy most affects the widowed, the widower, people who are suffering from illnesses that might lead to their early death, those who are older. This is a very discriminatory policy, so Cabinet Secretary, I recognise that there are particular challenges for you, but we really do need a loud voice on behalf of our Welsh farmers in London to say that this needs to be paused, and there needs to be a process of consultation and listening to all of those farmers affected. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you, Jane, and can I just also in passing thank you for the support and the additional work you did to lever in additional funding for rural issues and in terms of things like water quality as well, in terms of budget discussions there, which will be of help?

In respect of the pressures on farming, I think you’re absolutely right, and I regularly see this when I speak to farmers and their families as well, including when I visited farmers and support organisations in your own constituency and met with them, and the incredible work that they do, and it’s why Welsh Government has also continued to invest in support for these organisations. It’s why, curiously, they’re also represented on the SFS ministerial round-table as well, so that we hear that voice about the well-being approach, which is vitally important here. It’s also why we’ve invested £45,000 to develop FarmWell Wales, which is an information hub on personal and business resilience for farmers and for their families. We’ve had over 9,000 users since it was launched a few years back, so that is providing invaluable support, alongside the third sector organisations out there.

Further to the answers that I’ve given previously, and just to reiterate, not only have I engaged directly with DEFRA colleagues in Westminster on this all the way through this process, both in terms of discussions with the interministerial groups, the IMGs, but also in other bilateral conversations, I’ve written on two occasions as well now, including subsequent to the most recent meetings where the farming unions came away disappointed, feeling that they’d presented their information but it hadn’t been heard fully, so I followed that up. Because what I do want to have is that, whilst the Treasury start, quite understandably, from the figures that they have, I want them to engage with alternative evidence being put forward, even if they don’t agree with all of it, because there’s an importance here, in terms of Welsh farming, to make sure, particularly, those small and medium scale farms that are so important to the fabric of our communities are protected going forward, are able to actually move to the future of the sustainable farming scheme—and I’ve put this in writing as well—without impediment.

So, look, one thing we can’t walk away from is the hole that confronted the Chancellor when she walked in, and that’s the tragedy of this, is going into Government and finding that there are things costed there that were not actually paid for, that the funds were not committed to, and that was in the region of £20 billion. Now, on that basis, difficult decisions have to be put forward by a responsible Chancellor to fill that hole and go forward.

Thank you very much, Paul. Welsh Government works closely with local authorities to assess air quality through a combination of fixed monitoring stations and diffusion tubes that measure various pollutants against target levels. Pembrokeshire County Council publishes its annual air quality progress report outlining the actions it is taking to improve air quality.

Deputy First Minister, as you know, the monitoring of air quality has become a particular issue for residents living around the Withyhedge landfill site in my constituency. In fact, locally, some residents have previously referred to the odours from the site as like a stink bomb on steroids. Now, a recent report from Pembrokeshire County Council recommends that the council agree to the continuation of air quality monitoring at Spittal school for a further period of up to 12 months, which shows that there are fears of potential issues arising further in the future. The community has rightly called for a public inquiry and for the site to be closed down, calls that, as you know, I very much support. So, Deputy First Minister, how is the Welsh Government ensuring that air monitoring continues to take place whilst this site is operating, and will the Welsh Government, at the very least, support the local community's calls for a public inquiry? 

So, Paul, as you know, NRW, Natural Resources Wales, is continuing to work on the ground closely with the local authority, with Public Health Wales and Hywel Dda health board in a joint approach to addressing issues of public concern at Withyhedge landfill site, and I would strongly direct you and others to those organisations on the ground who are working to alleviate the concerns and to work with the operator there to make sure that these concerns are addressed. Now, I understand that the site operator has resumed waste acceptance and disposal at the site, so NRW continues to have a significant site presence. It is undertaking off-site odour monitoring to ensure compliance with the updated procedures and the broader conditions of the landfill permit. NRW officers have been monitoring the landfill gas emissions from incoming wastes, and they've reported no detection of elevated levels.

NRW, as part of its investigations management, also, as you know, releases regular updates, and the next one will be available later this week, I am told, which will also be received by yourself and other MSs in the area. NRW stresses that it's available to meet with you and others if that is desired.

Now, I'm aware, also, of some recent media reports regarding permit non-compliances relating to the paperwork concerning incoming waste. I have sought and had the assurances from NRW that the identified non-compliance was rectified during the initial site inspection on 6 January, and subsequent assessment has not identified a repeat occurrence. So, the NRW officers have been monitoring the landfill gas emissions from the incoming waste and the waste deposit. They haven't reported any off-site odours linked to the landfill that have yet been substantiated, but they will continue to monitor this, and, as I say, the offer is there from them to actually engage with the Member.

Thank you, Lesley. The Welsh Government is taking numerous steps to reduce agricultural pollution. These include committing £52 million to support on-farm infrastructure investments since 2021, continuing to provide financial support to NRW for the enforcement of the control of agricultural pollution regulations and working with and funding a range of strategic partnerships.

The figures I received in a written answer from you for the number of substantiated agricultural pollution incidents over the past three years are shocking. There has been no reduction, despite assurances from the agricultural sector and the farming unions over many years that voluntary action would reduce pollution. The public want to see decisive action to improve our water bodies, and the Welsh Government is committed to the COP15 targets within the global biodiversity framework to reduce pollution risks and impacts by 2030. How will the Welsh Government achieve this target when we continue to see such unacceptable levels of agricultural pollution? 

We are indeed committed to those COP targets, and I think that the work that we're doing and the investment we're putting in is the right way to proceed, and also to work not only with the enforcement and the penalties, but to work in collaboration where we can with the willing as well. So, we continue to fund NRW's enforcement of the regulations, and it was over £1.5 million of funds that went into that last year. Enforcing those regulations is critical to enforcing good farming practices, recognising the good farming out there and penalising those who are not playing by the rules. And it's good to say that, in my discussions with farming unions, they appreciate that as well, and that what we want to do is make sure that we drive up good standards and recognise those who are doing the right thing, but go after the ones who are not actually achieving good practice.

On the back of the regulations, as I mentioned, the other way that we can do this, working with the farming communities, is put our money to the means of dealing with slurry and so on—slurry management, sheds, et cetera. So, we've got £52 million now that we've put, in recent times, into that. There are challenges with getting those built on the ground, sometimes with planning and so on and so forth, but we're committed to that as well, because that will help the farmers who want to do the right thing to do the right management processes to avoid the issue of run-off and so on.

But most importantly, Llywydd and Lesley—and I recognise your commitment to this as the former Minister, standing here in my place as well—we've just got to the point where—. I always get this wrong; I keep calling her 'professor', but it's Dr Susannah Bolton, who is taking forward the four-yearly review of agricultural pollution regulations. It's an independently chaired piece. I think her engagement with stakeholders has been extensive, deep and thorough, and I'm looking forward to what she brings forward as the way forward now, and focusing on the outcomes, the outcomes of clearing up the issues of water quality from agricultural pollution. And of course, as you will know, we also need to deal with other sources of pollution then, from housing, from development, from water companies' antiquated systems and so on. But her work is very much focused on agricultural pollution.

And finally, question 8, Natasha Asghar.

Thanks, Natasha. The Welsh Government provides direct and indirect support for farmers in the south-east and indeed all of Wales. Our grants for on-farm improvements, equipment and technology, learning and development through Farming Connect, and advice via the farm liaison service all demonstrate our commitment to supporting a sustainable future for Welsh agriculture.

Thank you so much, Cabinet Secretary. I appreciate that a lot of Members from different benches have asked you questions today in relation to farming, but many farmers across Wales, including my region of South Wales East, are angry, they're upset and they're worried about Labour's planned family farm tax. This tax threatens the livelihood of our farming communities.

I'm sure that everyone can appreciate that family farms are, indeed, the backbone of our rural economy, providing food security and supporting local industries. Yet, Labour's brutal family farm tax could undo all of that and destroy this important part of our society. How your Labour colleagues in London could even justify bringing forward such a drastic measure, which will increase the already significant burden on family farmers, is, quite frankly, beyond me. Rather than helping our farmers thrive, this tax will hamper their survival and risk forcing many into financial hardship or leaving them with no choice but to sell up and leave the profession completely. We must remember, Cabinet Secretary: no farmers, no food. So, Cabinet Secretary, do you support the UK Labour Government's family farm tax, and if not, what will you be doing to mitigate the impact it will have on farmers in my region of South Wales East and across the country? Thank you.

There are things we can do here in Wales, to pick up your last point. But let me just be clear as well—. I think we're having a pre-run of a debate we might be having later on as well here, in some of the questions, which is fine. Yes, inheritance tax is a reserved tax, as everybody's aware; it's overseen by the UK Government. But what I have done is sought and gained those assurances from UK Government that Welsh farming unions will be heard on this issue, and I will continue to advocate for the views of Welsh farmers to be given full and proper consideration. It is important. We have to ensure that changes to inheritance tax and agricultural relief do not impact the future of sustainable farming here in Wales.

So, as part of supporting farmers to understand the impact and the implications of the IHT changes, Farming Connect, supported here from Welsh Government, have held a series of workshops across Wales. Over 1,200 farmers have attended to date. We have support available for farm businesses during the transition as well to the sustainable farming scheme in 2026. The Welsh Government's budget provides over £350 million to agricultural support—that's the budget we voted on yesterday and was supported here with the help of the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats as well. We've also got—. You asked in your question, 'How else can we support?' Well, there's a range of support schemes that we provide in south-east Wales; for example, it's the basic payment scheme payments, which we've guaranteed over the last few years and continue to take forward at the moment. Over 99 per cent of claimants have received their full BPS payment, and this is to the value of over £14.3 million. The Habitat Wales scheme 2024 payments to the south-east of Wales are worth £314,000; the organic support 2024 payments in South Wales East are worth £114,000 to farmers; under the first three rounds of the small grants efficiency scheme payments, they're worth £316,000 to farmers in your region as well, and that's not to mention the nutrient management investment scheme, where awards of over £300,000 were awarded to eight farm businesses in South Wales East. So, there's a range of ways that we can help farming here in Wales.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item will be the topical question, to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and to be asked by Samuel Kurtz.

The Welsh Government is aware of the situation and is awaiting further details of the impact on job losses and on the future of this site. We sympathise with those affected by this decision and stand ready to provide support to the workforce and to the supply chain.

Thank you very much for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. It's really sad news, because Oakwood holds a really special place in the hearts of many in Pembrokeshire and across Wales as well. I've got really fond memories of my time visiting as a child, and even more recently with Andrew R.T. Davies. He shared the photo of us both on Megafobia, enjoying ourselves, and he enjoyed it a little bit more than I did—I'm not one for rollercoasters. But it has been a really important part of our tourism offer in west Wales, and people shared their memories on social media following the announcement yesterday. Lee Day, whom I used to work with, shared the story of the time when he had to hide EastEnders actor Dean Gaffney in a restaurant in Oakwood because he was being followed around by teenagers throughout. It has been really nice, but it comes at the cost and the price of this park closing, which is deeply sad.

Aspro, the parent company, have cited 'unrelenting economic challenges' as the reason for the closure, and they've invested over £25 million there—£1 million in the Megafobia ride that I mentioned earlier. They say that national insurance contributions, the inflationary costs of food and drink, and the cost of ride parts and electricity have all been a factor. We can't ignore the impact of what's happened in the budget on the decision by Aspro to close Oakwood. So, I'm just wondering what discussions you're looking to take forward, following this closure, with your counterparts—with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and those counterparts of yours up in the UK Government—around the impact of NICs. We can't ignore the shadow that the tourism tax casts across these sorts of businesses as well. So, is this an opportunity for the Welsh Government to review and reset the tourism tax discussion, given the closure of Oakwood?

On a second point around staff, I've written to the management team locally and the head office in Madrid, asking that staff are supported. I'm aware of a business that I've spoken to this morning that is looking to take on staff who are losing their jobs, but what I'd quite like to hear from the Welsh Government is what they're doing to support staff in the area who are impacted by this closure, because we know that, without staff, these sorts of attractions don't have their heart and soul—they're the people who really care about this, and the staff we met on our visit to Oakwood most recently really loved being part of the Oakwood story. 

On the future of the site as well, this is a really prime site and it has been developed over the years. I'm aware that there could, potentially, already be buyers looking to come in and use the site for commercial purposes, either keeping it as a theme park or for other things as well. What I'm looking for is a commitment from the Welsh Government to work with me and other stakeholders—businesses have been in touch with me, and I'm sure businesses have been in touch with the Welsh Government as well—to try and find a buyer as soon as possible, because the last thing we want in Pembrokeshire is a site of that size being left derelict for a number of years. We saw that with the old CC2000 site, which became an eyesore, and we don't want that to happen. So, anything that can be done to support and bring more people together to try and buy the site and continue to run it would be most welcome.

The final point, then: I really hope that this isn't the start of a decline in tourism attractions in Wales, and that this is an isolated incident and impact. So, what I'd quite like is for the Welsh Government to convene a tourism summit with other large attractions from across Wales to hear their views, to reset the relationship with them, and to hear, 'Right, what's really affecting you following this closure by Oakwood?' to make sure that the tourism sector in Wales is supported in the very best way that it can be, so that this remains an isolated event and not the start of something more sad.

I'm very grateful for the question this afternoon. It is indeed a sad day. I know that many people across Wales will have very, very many happy memories over the last 40 years, and it is absolutely a much-loved attraction and has been for many decades.

I think that the business itself, as we've heard, has recognised that there are a range of factors behind the decision today. It mentioned also the costs in all areas of the operation. We've heard about ride parts, but then it also extended to the cost of electricity and inflation in terms of food and beverage. I don't think that there's anything in relation to the announcement today that suggests that this is a Wales-specific issue; I think that the issues that were described are certainly wider than things that the Welsh Government can have a direct impact on. I do think the reference across to the tourism levy might have been a little bit of a stretch this afternoon, given the fact that a tourism levy can't even come into place until next year, at the earliest, and the purpose of that levy is to invest in the conditions that make tourism a success locally. So, I know that we'll have to continue to disagree on that particular point.

I think that our main concern—and I think this goes for all of us—is really about the staff at the site. Of course, our Welsh Government team works closely with our key stakeholders, including the Department for Work and Pensions, local authorities and Working Wales to ensure that people who are at risk of losing their jobs, or at risk of redundancy, do receive the information, support and guidance that they need. We know that a lot of the team is made up of seasonal workers, so I would point to some of the innovations that we have, such as Big Ideas Wales, for example, which is a really great opportunity for those young people to consider, who might otherwise have been employed during the tourist season at Oakwood. So, that's just one idea that might be useful to some people.

But then in terms of the future of the site, I also share that concern that we wouldn't want to see that site derelict. Just to provide reassurance to colleagues that the Welsh Government is in contact with those people who might have a commercial interest in the site, and we will certainly do what we can to facilitate a quick sale, if we're able to contribute to those discussions.

And then, in terms of the wider tourism sector, I'm really pleased to say that we do have that kind of large summit that you referred to on the horizon. So, on 27 March, we have our national tourism conference. It's a Welsh Government conference that is provided through Visit Wales, and that will have some of those large tourist attraction owners at it, amongst others. Part of the key issues that we'll be trying to grapple with at that conference will be around sustainability and resilience for the sector.

I want to echo the feeling of disappointment that Sam Kurtz mentioned at the very sudden and unexpected news last night that Oakwood is to close. We all have very fond memories. As a family, we went nearly every year to Oakwood and I was forced, like Sam, to go on Megafobia and the rides that I wasn't comfortable to go on, but the children felt that dad had to go with them. So, I didn't have much choice in that. But they were great days. Sunday school trips also went to Oakwood regularly. And it's strange to think that Oakwood may not exist.

One thinks of the staff, of course, who will be greatly affected by this news. One also realises that Oakwood is not only a very, very important tourist attraction, but an attraction that gave such an economic boost to the area as well. There was so much more around Oakwood, with the supply businesses, the hospitality businesses and so forth that benefited so much from this park.

We know that the park has faced some health and safety problems in recent times that haven't helped, and perhaps hasn't adequately invested in continuing to be a park that attracted visitors as it once did. But maybe the question for the Government is this: when did you first hear about the park's problems? What discussions have you had with the park owners, and what support could you possibly give to the park in order to see whether it might be possible to save it, or, certainly, as Sam suggested, that we co-operate with possible new buyers, because the last thing we want to see is the site closing and no tourist attraction at all replacing it, given that it's made such a contribution over the years?

I'm very grateful for the question. Unfortunately, it was unexpected news for the Welsh Government as well, so we found out about it at the same time as others. I really would encourage any business in distress, or any business that is facing very difficult economic times or challenges that might lead them to consider making choices like this, to reach out to the Welsh Government at the earliest opportunity so that we can explore options with those businesses, to find out if there are ways that we could work together to ensure a longer term and sustainable plan for that business. So, that would be my appeal to businesses this afternoon—to reach out and see if there is help for them in those situations.

I think that the parent company has been quite clear in its intentions for the site, but, of course, we have reached out to them, through officials, to explore whether we can have further conversations with them. Our conversations really are also in the space of conversations with the staff, to explore what more we can do to help there. So, I did mention some of the partnerships that we work with locally to support staff, but I would also highlight that, where people are impacted by redundancy and want to remain in the labour market, then they can receive that individualised support through the Welsh Government's employability and skills programme, ReAct+, and also Communities for Work Plus. So, those schemes will be there for those individuals who might be affected. But, as I say, the vast majority of the workforce is that seasonal workforce, who haven't, at this point in the year, been recruited.

Of course, we all know that Oakwood is an iconic park. I remember taking my children there—and it's been around a while—and also, more recently, even taking my grandchildren there. But the point here is more important than that. You mentioned just now that this was the first that you'd heard of it, and I would go along with your plea to businesses to give earlier warnings, because it also gives earlier warnings to those suppliers who are supplying that attraction, and also to the employees, so that they can seek alternative employment. I don't know whether any of that was the case, but I hope that it was, because sudden closures of businesses are pretty devastating on all of those people who are affected. I believe there's somewhere around 200 workers. I don't know how many of those are employed full time. But my question is what we can do to support those workers who are seeking alternative employment.

Of course, the site is a large site. I believe it was agricultural land before it was a theme park—I believe that that's the case. Being a county councillor for over 30 years, if I'd still been there, I remember it actually getting its planning permission. So, I suppose one thing that could happen is it could return to farmland. But there will be plenty of options and there will be lots of interest, I'm certain about that. But what must happen is the best use of that land in terms of the wider community. I do agree with you that it's a stretch too far and a ridiculous attempt, really, to put this with the visitor levy. To my knowledge, people don't usually sleep in Oakwood—not intentionally, anyway, I'm sure of that. So, I do think that is somewhat ridiculous. But, nonetheless, this is a serious blow to the community. It did support people in their employment more widely than the park itself, and those people, I feel, will need support. So, I’d be very interested to hear how that plays out.

I’m very grateful, again, for the questions. As I understand it, the proportion of the workforce that is employed year-round is actually a relatively small number as compared to the overall number, but, for those individual workers, this news is going to be absolutely devastating. So, we stand ready to work, through our ReAct+ programme and others, with each and every one of those individuals to try and ensure that they are able to move on into work after the announcement today. And then, recognising that point about this being a really important site, the Welsh Government will do everything that we can to ensure that there is an outcome that provides jobs for the future at that really important site. But, today, I think all our thoughts are with those workers who are receiving some really difficult news, and our intentions are to support them as best we can.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

We’ll move now to item 4, which is the 90-second statements, and the first is from Rhun ap Iorwerth.

The people of Ynys Môn and audiences across Wales remember fondly this week Marged Esli, who died on St David’s day at the age of 75. For those who know the corridors of this Senedd, there is a picture of here near the Plaid Cymru offices, as it happens. It’s a picture of Marged at the Urdd Eisteddfod in Porthmadog in 1964. If my sums are right, that young girl from Gwalchmai would have still been a pupil at Llangefni comprehensive at that time, but that spark, which is clear in that photograph, was a hint at the natural talent for acting and performing that would see her starring on stage and screen for decades to come.

As a presenter on the Bilidowcar children's programme, she would have been one of the first faces that I would have seen on television as a child, I’m sure. Her character, Nansi Furlong, was a favourite on Pobol y Cwm. She took the lead in the film Madam Wen in the early 1980s. Her list of roles and performances over the years, in Welsh and in English, is lengthy, but she also was a screenwriter. She was a teacher, and showed a commitment to her craft and her area as an active volunteer at Theatr Fach, Llangefni.

In 2023, she published her autobiography under the title, Ro'n i’n arfer bod yn rhywun—‘I used to be someone’—but, in remembering her today, we can say that you will always be someone very special to us, Marged, and Ynys Môn in particular is very, very proud of your success.

The next from Jane Dodds. 

Diolch, Llywydd dros dro. I want to take this time to celebrate the wonderful work of Dolen Cymru, who are celebrating their fortieth anniversary this year. This organisation does incredible work in connecting communities in Lesotho and Wales. They’ve worked really hard to facilitate sustainable projects, partnerships and relationships that have a positive impact on communities in both Lesotho and in Wales. The Rt Hon Mohlabe Tsekoa wonderfully summarised the ties between the two countries when he said that,

'The link is a source of hope to the people of Lesotho. It is one of the greatest developments that has come to us on a human level...It is an unprecedented example of how meaningful links can be…given our location and smallness, there is a need to hold another hand, however far away, to help make us feel we are truly part of the world, part of the international community'.

This is a wonderful example of the strong ties that Wales can develop with other countries around the world. These days, when international relations are so fragile, organisations like these are invaluable to us here in Wales. Thank you so much to Dolen Cymru. Diolch.

Elin Jones. 

I am sure that every Member here has a soundtrack for their youth. Geraint Jarman and the Cynganeddwyr provided mine. Geraint Jarman died on Monday, but his age of music and words will live on.

His music from the 1970s brought the reggae rhythm of Riverside to the Welsh rock scene. Jarman invoked the life of the capital in musical poetry through the medium of Welsh. His gigs were the stuff of legend, and, as I talk about him, I can feel myself being immersed again in the excitement of being in the audience at a Jarman gig.

In his music, the skip was on fire, the tracksuit was green and the taxi was travelling into the darkness. The political poets never washed their dirty clothes, the door of the council house girl was open until dawn, and a new Ethiopia was on the horizon.

Before becoming an artist in his own right, Jarman was a member, along with Heather Jones and Meic Stevens, of the influential band Bara Menyn. He worked on the innovative series Fideo 9, and he was also the original voice of SuperTed.

The last time I heard Geraint Jarman sing live was in the Neuadd at the Senedd here in 2019, and he told me, with great humility, that it was a privilege and a dream to be able to sing his iconic anthem, 'Gwesty Cymru', at the Welsh Parliament.

Geraint Jarman's songs will be central to the fabric of the Welsh rock scene for many years to come. His words have made deep inroads into the souls of so many of us. And think about the inspiration that this 15-year-old, curly-haired girl got from his immortal line,

'The curly-haired rockers are the future of Wales now'.

Nos da, Jarman; Jarman, nos da.

Thank you very much.

We'll move on now to item 5, namely the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv), on the needs of the deaf community. I call on Mark Isherwood to move the motion. Mark Isherwood.

Today’s motion highlights the need for service providers to meet the needs of the deaf community, noting that people with hearing loss are severely disadvantaged compared to people who have unaffected hearing; that British Sign Language, BSL, is the preferred method of communication for many deaf people; and concern about the decision by Qualifications Wales not to progress with a GCSE in sign language.

The motion also calls on the Welsh Government to ensure that the disability rights taskforce specifically captures the issues and barriers that affect the lives of deaf people and to have a greater involvement with the deaf community to ascertain their needs. Cabinet Secretaries have routinely cited the work of the Welsh Government’s disability rights taskforce as their catch-all response to any disability-related matter. This includes questions about how they engage and work with the deaf community, using this to justify their previous statements that they did not recognise the need for a BSL Bill in Wales. For example, after I raised the decision taken by Qualifications Wales to suspend the development of a BSL GCSE in Wales in the Chamber last October, the social justice Secretary and Trefnydd said,

'I think it is important that the Cabinet Secretary for Education, clearly, is engaging, as I will do, from a disability rights taskforce perspective'.

The next day, I received from the recipient a freedom of information reply from the disability rights taskforce, following the recipient’s request to supply them with information of the disability rights taskforce and its sub-committees, which mentions British Sign Language, BSL. The reply stated that many of the taskforce meetings have referenced the broader need for more accessible information, which would capture British Sign Language without specifically mentioning it. Responding, the recipient stated, ‘I asked the question as I was fed-up of reading the same get-out clause referring any BSL matter to the disability rights taskforce or using it as an excuse for addressing BSL to be put on hold’. It is still happening, and yet there is evidence there has been next to no discussion on BSL within the taskforce. Please can this be challenged?

After I shared this with the co-submitter of this motion, Mike Hedges, and fellow member of the cross-party group on deaf issues, it was agreed that we would seek an opportunity to submit this for a Member debate. I was subsequently told by participants with lived experience within the disability rights taskforce that it was hard to get a slot to speak in most meetings due to volumes of others involved. Some mentions of BSL in recommendations were tacked on belatedly.

But whilst I welcome the establishment of the disability rights taskforce, its nature and terms of reference limit its work to the general rather than the specific, when disabled people facing barriers related to their specific conditions, including deaf people, need both.

After last November's announcement that the Welsh Government would establish a BSL stakeholder group, the new Welsh BSL consortium of organisations representing deaf and signing people reported to me that the Welsh Government's BSL policy team have been approaching individuals and organisations about this, and that they all remain in support of my BSL (Wales) Bill.

Evidence shows that deaf people have twice the rate of mental health problems experienced by hearing populations, yet Wales is the only UK country without a deaf mental health service. The all-Wales deaf mental health and well-being group of academics, clinicians and experts, both deaf and hearing, who are working with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, launched their report, ‘Deaf People Wales: Hidden Inequality’, at the Senedd in May 2022. I hosted that. In their submission to the Welsh Government's draft mental health and well-being strategy, they state that to date there have been no changes since the report was received by Welsh Government, adding the main issue is a lack of access to health and mental health services. Health and care staff do not have deaf awareness training and do not know how to book BSL interpreters. Due to complaint services also being inaccessible, few complaints are received by health boards.

When I again raised this with the First Minister last month, she stated that the Welsh Government had asked the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the NHS Wales joint commissioning committee to undertake a review to improve mental health services for those who are deaf or hard of hearing, which will inform the delivery plan alongside the strategy. We therefore need to know that the all-Wales deaf mental health and well-being group will be involved in both this review and monitoring of the subsequent plan.

BSL is not just a language, it is also a gateway to learning, and the means whereby deaf people survive and flourish in a hearing world. In October 2024 Qualifications Wales took the decision to suspend the development of a BSL GCSE. Part of the justification for this decision was that in Wales there is not a ready-made workforce of qualified teachers who could teach a GCSE in this subject. This gets to the crux of the argument of why a BSL Act in Wales is needed. Given the lack of BSL interpreters and translators in Wales, it is not surprising that there is also a lack of qualified teachers for a BSL GCSE.

This goes to the heart of why BSL signers are indirectly excluded from Welsh society through a lack of awareness of the barriers they face, and therefore a lack of proactive planning and adjustments made for deaf people and BSL signers. The National Deaf Children's Society Cymru has warned that falling numbers of teachers of the deaf and other issues with the Welsh Government's additional learning needs reforms is hindering deaf pupils. When I raised this with the then education Minister a year ago, he highlighted investment to support postgraduate training for local authority-based teachers of learners with sensory impairment. The National Deaf Children's Society therefore spoke to services on the ground, who told them that this is being used to keep the level of the teachers of the deaf workforce the same as opposed to expanding it, despite one in five having left the profession since 2011. They were also told that some of the funding was more targeted at ALN co-ordinators and school staff to help build deaf awareness rather than extend provision, thereby not growing the profession to support deaf children in Wales.

Deafness is not a learning difficulty, but deaf children are being disabled by the continuing inequity in outcome as the gap between deaf children and their hearing peers risks becoming even wider, in breach of the Equality Act 2010. My BSL (Wales) Bill would not be a means to an end in itself, but act as a platform to ensure improved services for the deaf community and people with hearing loss, and improve the support currently offered so people can fully engage in things like employment, health and education.

The Welsh Government has previously argued that we don't need specific Welsh BSL legislation because we have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and the Welsh Government has commissioned an audit of their BSL provision against the British Deaf Association's BSL charter. However, a common theme emerging from the Welsh deaf community is the desire for more Welsh deaf leadership in BSL service delivery, for BSL services to be delivered by deaf BSL signers themselves, and for support to enable deaf-led professional planning and budget setting on BSL issues. 

The initial consultation on this Bill has confirmed significant support for the proposed legislation, with only two respondents—one individual and one organisation—disagreeing with the need for it. Reasons for supporting the Bill include addressing the current legislative gaps in protecting and upholding the rights of deaf people, and creating parity with legislation in Scotland and England. As the BDA, the British Deaf Association, state, Welsh deaf BSL signers have seen Welsh Government and Welsh local authorities, with the best will in the world, spend money earmarked for BSL services on paying non-signers to design and deliver these BSL services, with the understandable and inevitable consequences of a mismatch between service design and actual need, reducing efficiency and value for money. 

Bristol law school's Dr Rob Wilks, a Welsh deaf legal academic, argues that the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act is not addressing the needs of the Welsh deaf community, concluding that the Act's current oversight of specific provisions for the Welsh deaf community underscores a critical gap that must be addressed to ensure equitable participation and benefit from societal advancements, and that to bridge this gap, several key steps are imperative. Firstly, introducing a BSL Act tailored to Wales is crucial. With a BSL Act in England and Scotland and a proposed executive Bill in Northern Ireland, it would be a betrayal of BSL signers across Wales if a BSL Act does not come to fruition here also. Diolch yn fawr.

I would like to thank Mark Isherwood for bringing forward this motion that I am pleased to support, and Plaid Cymru will vote in favour of the motion. I would also like to thank Mark Isherwood for his efforts in raising awareness of the difficulties and disadvantages that the deaf community continues to face in our society. Even though the Welsh Government supports the social model of disability, all of us who engage with disabled people and disabled people's organisations know that that is not really the reality in far too many parts of their lives.

Plaid Cymru is therefore pleased to support the motion to ensure that there will be a specific emphasis on the needs of the deaf community in the work of the Government's disability rights taskforce, because despite deaf and hard of hearing people representing around 18 per cent of the population of Wales, this community is often invisible in terms of societal arrangements and service availability. A recent study showed that over 80 per cent of deaf people in Wales believe that their condition makes it harder for them to access public services, and it's no surprise that they feel this way. As well as infringing upon their rights and ability to play a full part in society, this inequality also means that they suffer disproportionately from ill health, for example, like the fact that deaf people are twice as likely to suffer mental health problems compared to the wider population. It's unacceptable and I agree that it's unacceptable that Wales remains the only country without a dedicated mental health service for deaf people. 

Deaf children are also 26 per cent less likely to receive an A* to C grade in core GCSE subjects, which is a reflection of serious deficiencies in the availability of relevant expertise in the workforce. We saw good practice during the pandemic through the use of BSL in the Government’s daily updates, and I welcome the recent legislative proposals to put the language on a formal statutory footing, but the decision of Qualifications Wales not to offer a BSL GCSE course is an unfortunate retrograde step.

I therefore urge the Government to review this decision, especially in the context of relevant human rights legislation and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and to continue to support and learn from initiatives such as the Deaf Health and Well-being Wales research project, an inter-institutional partnership involving Bangor and Swansea universities, which assesses how the wider use of BSL can help respond to inequalities in the health system.

The motion mentions the disability rights taskforce and its role in underlining the barriers that adversely affect the lives of deaf people.

Cabinet Secretary, we were told by you, by way of a written statement on the international day of disabled people at the end of last year, that we would have an oral statement in the new year on the progress of the disability rights taskforce. Well, we haven't had one, and given that that work of publishing a disability rights action plan is so long overdue, that's disappointing. We need to hear also about the lack of progress too, and the reasons for that, on your programme for government commitment to incorporate the United Nations convention on the rights of disabled people, and also what work is being done to address the disability employment gap, which is considerably higher in Wales than in the rest of the UK.

The recent inquiry on that disability employment gap held by the Equality and Social Justice Committee, of which I'm a member, heard deep and widespread concern about the lack of progress on the publication and implementation of the work of the disability rights taskforce. You co-chair that taskforce with Professor Debbie Foster, who told the committee that things, in her words, had drifted, and pointed to redirection of resources as one of the possible reasons for this. The Equality and Human Rights Cymru told us that, and I quote,

'disability does not have the same status, perhaps, as other protected characteristics.'

And

'we don't see the same focus or drive in the space of disability.'

So, how would you respond to this, and when will we get an update that could ensure progress and delivery of the support needed by the deaf community, as called for in the motion?

In conclusion, we need to consider how the appalling impact of austerity, which was started by the previous Westminster Government, and that largely continues under the current Government, has undermined the effectiveness of public services. Recent research by RNID Cymru shows that some local authorities in Wales have had to cut spending on equipment and services for deaf people by over 50 per cent since 2010. It's important to remember that the inequalities and disadvantages that we have mentioned during this debate do not exist in a vacuum. Instead, they exist within a wider spectrum of social injustices, something that can only begin to be seriously remedied through a new fiscally fair settlement for Wales from Westminster, based on the needs of our population.

Thank you to Mark Isherwood, and can I just say I agree with everything you said in your opening remarks, Mark? I think you said them very eloquently, and I'm not going to try and copy them.

There are two distinct groups of people who are deaf: those who are born deaf and those who become deaf as they get older. For those who are born deaf, it comes as a huge shock to the family, who have probably never met a deaf child. My knowledge of this subject comes from my sister who's profoundly deaf. What that means is she cannot hear anything; the only way she can identify noise is the vibrations it causes. What are the effects of being deaf? Try it for yourself. Try watching tv without subtitles and with the sound turned to mute. How much of a programme will you actually understand? Walk around with ear defenders or earplugs in so you cannot hear anything. You miss the sound of nature, you miss hearing people speaking. A silent world is not a good world. Although most people have wished it could be less noisy on occasions, the reality is that we need noise. When we cross roads, we use our hearing as well as our eyes to avoid accidents. What cyclists do when approaching a pedestrian from behind is they ring their bell. That's of no use to somebody who is deaf whatsoever. If you spot someone you know, you shout out to them. This doesn't work when people are deaf. If you are behind them, they will not know you are shouting. A call out to identify a possible danger will be ignored, not due to not caring, but due to not hearing. There's no way of identifying someone walking down the street who is deaf. They don't look any different to you and me. If someone has substantial sight loss, then you will see the guide dog or the white stick. If someone has mobility issues, you will see the wheelchair or the sticks they need. There is nothing similar for those who are deaf.

There's a need for service providers to meet the needs of the deaf community. The provision of British Sign Language communication support is necessary when somebody does not have a significant ability to communicate effectively as a direct result of their hearing loss. There are a lot of opportunities missed to understand what is being said. I have this quite often when I and other people are speaking Welsh; that's why I always use the translation system when things are said that are complicated. When you're deaf, you don't have that opportunity.

Health is meant to provide people who can translate in sign language for medical appointments. It should; it does not always happen. This is important so that the person who is deaf gets a full understanding of what they are being told about their health.

People with hearing loss are severely disadvantaged compared to people who have unaffected hearing. I join deaf children and young people, along with Auditory Verbal UK, to challenge expectations of what deaf children can achieve, and call for increasing access to auditory verbal therapy.

Early and effective support is vital for all deaf children. Deaf children can achieve as long as they have the support they can need, including explanations using sign language. How often do teachers talk to the board? Speaking as someone who used to lecture—far too often. When you're talking to the board, then what you know is going to happen is that anybody who's deaf doesn't even know you're talking. When this happens without sign language interpreters, pupils do not know what has been said, or even if something has been said.

BSL is the preferred method of communication for many deaf people. There was a time in the 1960s and 1970s when deaf children were taught to lip-read and speak as the preferred option. The British Sign Language dictionary was compiled for the British Deaf Association by the deaf studies research unit at the University of Edinburgh. It depicts over 1,800 common signs through pictures and diagrams, each sign accompanied by definition, explanation and usage. British Sign Language is a useful skill to have to communicate effectively with deaf people. It consists of hand movements, hand shapes, as well as facial expressions and lip patterns to demonstrate what people want to say. It is estimated that 151,000 people in the UK use British Sign Language and that 87,000 of those are deaf. I was extremely disappointed when Qualifications Wales decided not to progress with a general certificate of secondary education in sign language.

It is important that the disability rights taskforce specifically captures the issues and barriers that affect the lives of deaf people. It is very difficult being deaf. What those of us who are not deaf take for granted, deaf people cannot do. We need to have a British Sign Language Act, because it's the only other language that people desperately need as a means of communication. We need to get larger organisations, including Government, health and local government, to employ people who can confidently and correctly sign so that, when deaf people go in, they can sign and have somebody replying to them using sign. It doesn't need everybody in the organisation—I don't think anybody would expect everybody in the organisation—to use sign but there should be somebody there when you go who can converse using sign language so that the person who is deaf knows what's happening. That is what equality looks like.

I'd like to firstly begin by thanking Mark for tabling this crucial debate on the needs of the deaf community. Your ongoing commitment, Mark, to championing their rights and calling for meaningful change is something we all support.

I want to just isolate my remarks, if that's okay, to the needs of deaf children. In Wales, there are around 2,260 deaf children, and they experience a range of hearing difficulties, from mild to profound deafness. Yet, too often, they are left without the tailored support that they need to thrive. One of the most distressing issues they face today is the sharp decline in the number of qualified teachers of the deaf. In Wales, we have, since 2011, witnessed a staggering 20 per cent reduction in the number of these critical professionals.

To make matters worse, the workforce is ageing and the impact of all of this cannot be overstated. With Wales having no specialist schools for deaf learners and 81 per cent of deaf children attending mainstream schools, we are risking an entire generation of deaf children being left without the support that they need to succeed in education.

Many families report that their children receive minimal assistance, with some receiving as little as one hour of teacher of the deaf support per week. This simply is not good enough. It was therefore incredibly disappointing that the Welsh Government rejected recommendation 32 of the Equality and Social Justice Committee report last year that called for a clear plan to address the shortage of specialist teachers. Despite public petitions and strong backing from organisations like Guide Dogs Cymru and the National Deaf Children's Society, the Welsh Government continues to leave specialist training in the hands of local authorities, despite clear evidence that they lack the resources and the capacity to provide consistent and equal access. As our report demonstrated, without a structured, national approach, deaf children will remain trapped in a postcode lottery, facing barriers to learning, development and future opportunities. I therefore urge the Welsh Government to reconsider its stance, engage more deeply with deaf children and their families, and commit to a clear, deliverable plan that ensures that no child is left behind. 

I'd like to just finish the rest of my time just focusing on the crucial role that speech and language therapists play in the lives of deaf children. Speech and language therapy is not just about teaching a child to speak; it's about empowering them to communicate in every aspect of their lives. For deaf children, early identification of their communication needs, with the right speech and language support, can help them to express themselves, develop language skills, and engage fully in school and society. Yet, despite this clear need, access to speech and language services remains wholly inadequate. A 2021 report from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists found that many deaf children, particularly those who use BSL, rarely encounter professionals who share their language, creating a fundamental barrier to effective communication. Right now, unbelievably, Wales has just 0.2 full-time equivalent speech and language therapists dedicated to supporting deaf children, with another vacant position. There is nowhere near enough to meet that demand, especially considering when the average number of children and young people on the speech and language therapy lists right now has risen by 31 per cent. It is therefore deeply concerning that the newly published Health Education and Improvement Wales education and training plan does not increase speech and language therapy training places, keeping them at 55, the same as the previous year.

This failure to invest in the workforce is a missed opportunity to provide deaf children and adults with the support they need to communicate, learn and thrive. And just for the Cabinet Secretary's information, I've double checked those figures, because I had a response from the First Minister: the number of training places has not increased. So, I do urge the Welsh Government to recognise the need for more specialist speech and language therapists and commit to a clear plan for increasing training places. Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd dros dro.

Can I start by thanking my colleague, Mark Isherwood, for raising such an important debate today, one that is very close to my heart? Sadly, we've spoken so many times in this Chamber, but yet we are still here asking for the same things: for the deaf community to be heard, and for their needs to be recognised. According to NHS data, there are around 480,000 deaf and hard-of-hearing people in Wales, which means that one sixth of our population struggles to hear, and this has a profound impact on their lives, putting them at enormous disadvantages.

What many people take for granted—the ability to access GP appointments and understand their diagnosis, to find suitable employment and access general public services—is a continuous and uphill struggle that has a huge bearing on their lives, in particular their mental health. Imagine, acting Presiding Officer, living day to day with the frustration that so many relatively straightforward tasks are difficult for you, not because you can't do them, but because the system has failed to recognise your specific needs, and won't let you do them. We know that this causes the deaf community to experience feelings of isolation, discrimination and stress, which contributes to their experiences of anxiety and depression, and which in turn manifests itself into mental health issues. Yet it is still a battle to get any improvement in services, mental health or otherwise, and I believe that this shames us as a country. A staggering 40 per cent of those who are deaf have mental health problems, which is twice the rate of individuals with regular hearing. The lack of positive progress in improving deaf people's access to and experiences of mental health services, in the case that the voice of lived experience has not been heard in the design and delivery of services, is a tragedy for so many people. Shockingly, south Wales has no specialised deaf mental health network, and the service in north Wales, as far as I'm aware, has been dissolved. And though Bangor University has launched a deaf health and well-being Wales project, which is a fantastic initiative, it ultimately still doesn't address the needs of the deaf community adequately. Yet, for me personally, the real tragedy of all this is that it is a relatively straightforward issue to fix, and it could have been done years ago. What is needed is the political will from this Welsh Government to actually put pressure on public service providers to listen to and incorporate solutions to the barriers that affect the deaf community. I would argue, acting Presiding Officer, that many of these barriers exist purely because public services have paid no attention to them whatsoever.

Finally, I would like to touch upon the British Sign Language Bill. Children, particularly those born to hearing parents, are disadvantaged right from birth, because they do not have access to the same education and health opportunities as their hearing peers. Ultimately, their parents are unlikely to have had experience of BSL, and are unlikely to have had contact with deaf role models. And because parents and siblings cannot use BSL, children are quickly isolated, and families struggle to communicate. The British Deaf Association estimates that the total number of people in the UK who use BSL is estimated to be 151,000 and, of these, 87,000 are deaf. If we are going to be able to provide the translation services for deaf people, if we are going to teach parents and families BSL, we, as a point of urgency, need to increase the number of BSL users and BSL teachers. I am therefore disappointed that Qualifications Wales did not progress with the GCSE in sign language. This to me is shortsighted, and this would have made a real difference to the number of people who could access BSL training, and ultimately jobs in providing translation services. I would really like to urge this Welsh Government to put this GCSE back on the agenda so that those who are out there and want to study it can. Thank you.

I'm very grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak here in this debate today, and thanks to Mark Isherwood for putting forward this very important motion, and I'm very pleased to wholeheartedly support it. I think it's very important that we recognise that not every deaf person’s needs will be the same. For example, not every deaf person communicates in the same way. Some rely on British Sign Language, others rely on lip-reading, therefore some people will need BSL interpreters and others will need lip-speakers. However, we all know that British Sign Language is recognised as a language here in Wales, and, according to the 2021 census, almost 1,000 people in Wales use BSL as their main language, but we are short of BSL teachers and registered sign language interpreters to allow BSL users to communicate in their preferred and only language.

The needs of the deaf community and any actions to improve the situation should have deaf people at the centre of any decisions that are made, and meetings should be fully inclusive so that deaf people can fully participate. I'm very pleased that the Cabinet Secretary announced the BSL stakeholder group, and I know that is at very early stages, but I'm sure it will progress to be very productive. I think the key thing about that group is that it does have actual people with lived experience there at the heart, and I think that's the key message we ought to get out today, that, whatever we do, we should have people who know about it leading the discussions and the actions.

I know there's widespread support for entrenching the rights of deaf people in law with the BSL Bill. I would support that move, which would help to remove barriers to education, health and public services. And, of course, as well as language rights, there are also cultural rights, and I was very pleased, and I've spoken about this in this Chamber today, at being at the unveiling of a purple plaque to Dorothy Miles in Rhyl. I think it was about a year ago. Dorothy Miles was a sign language poet and performer. And what I was so struck by, when attending that event, was that people came from all over Wales and over England as well to see what was happening, because they were so thrilled that someone was actually recognising a signer. And so, I think that does illustrate how important it is that we have this debate and that we put the spotlight on these issues here.

According to RNID's recent report, 'It does matter', 65 per cent of deaf people and people with hearing loss in Wales have experienced negative attitudes or behaviour in the last year, and 44 per cent said that they'd had negative experiences with people in shops, with shop workers, and nearly one in five said that they had experienced negative attitudes from work colleagues in the last 12 months. I don't think we can underestimate the difficulties that Mike Hedges so clearly revealed in his contribution, and I know from casework in my own constituency that the ability for deaf people to access healthcare isn't straightforward and it's often very difficult to get suitable translators for medical appointments.

We also know that much more needs to be done here in the Senedd to make it more inclusive for deaf and hard of hearing people, but I'm very pleased that the Commission is being very receptive to these calls, and I have recently had a meeting with Joyce Watson, and I'm very optimistic that we will make this Senedd operation fully inclusive. It's great we've got a signer here today, but we should have a signer for everything that happens in the Senedd. But I'm very hopeful that when we have the new system set up, which is going to be very soon, that there will be signing and that there will be written text, and that it will be fully inclusive. So, thank you very much to those people who have responded so positively to that.

So, we need to listen to what deaf and hard of hearing people are telling us about what needs to change and what needs to be better, and they need to be central in the decision-making process on the improvements that need to be brought in. So, I think, obviously, in the debate so far we have illustrated all the difficulties there are, but I think that there are positive things happening, and I think as politicians we are able to make things happen, and we are able to improve the situation and give the opportunity for everybody in our society to absolutely fully be involved in our political life, in the cultural life, and all the things that we, many of us, take for granted. Diolch.

Thank you to Mark Isherwood and to Mike Hedges for championing this cause. I think it's really important that we all embrace it. I was reading the 118 responses to the consultation that was launched by Mark Isherwood in advance on the need for a BSL Bill, and I haven't read all 118, but I have read a selection of them, which clearly indicate that we must act. We cannot ignore the level of discrimination that is out there, not least within our own public services.

Some of the people who responded said that deaf people who live in England and Scotland are reporting to their friends in Wales that many barriers have been addressed as a result of legislation. So, the deaf community in Wales feels unimportant and very behind the times and not of an equal status to their deaf peers who live in Scotland or England. I strongly feel, having reflected on this, that without an obligation to ensure BSL has equal status with any other language spoken in Wales, we will continue to discriminate against BSL users' ability to access public services on an equal basis, because I think many people don't understand that, for some people, BSL is their only language. You know, if you think of somebody who only speaks Mandarin or some other much more obscure language than that, if you can't communicate in the only language you speak, you are simply left to observe. And I think that the danger of doing nothing is really severe, and we absolutely can't let that happen.

There was one individual, a postgraduate student, who experienced discrimination when applying for jobs, working for a public service and using the health service. And another person described being asked to book a hospital procedure, 'by ringing this number'. Well, clearly, if you're deaf, you're not going to be able to ring anything, or you can ring it, but you won't be able to know when it's answered or, indeed, what instructions to follow as a result. This same individual, who was actually going for a significant procedure that required sedation, was then, on arrival, required to press a button, speak into the intercom and pull the door when the buzzer sounded. Well, none of this would she have been able to do. Then, the carer wasn't allowed to accompany that person into the clinical area, and no effort had been made to find a member of staff with even a basic knowledge of BSL. And when a nurse questioned this, the reply was, 'She can write if she needs to.' But having had to leave her phone with her carer, she couldn't even use type and talk. So, this is not a great situation for somebody about to undergo a significant procedure.

But I think one of the most troubling things is what Sioned Williams and others have spoken about, which is when somebody is born deaf, we need to gather around the whole family to ensure that they are supported, to ensure that deaf children have equal access to learn to the best of their abilities. And we're not doing that if we're not using all of the tools in the box to support them and their families. A hearing child needs exposure to speech to be able to learn to talk, but that also applies to a deaf child, and 90 per cent of deaf children are born to hearing parents. So, those parents need the proper support to learn to sign as well as the child, not just the child. And indeed signing is a really important tool to use with people with additional learning needs of other types as well, because it enables them to understand more clearly the instructions that they're being asked to follow. If you can't understand the teacher, how can you learn and how can you get the qualifications needed to get a good job? And Sioned Williams has already given us some pretty startling statistics about the underperformance at that level. And that means that we are confining people to live in poverty because of the lack of BSL interpreters in schools.

It is disturbing that there are limited numbers of qualified teachers with an additional qualification in teaching deaf pupils, and the numbers who speak Welsh as well are perhaps on the fingers of one hand. So, we really do need to change that and we need to revisit the decision by Qualifications Wales not to go ahead with a GCSE in BSL, which was dropped last year, because we must realise that insufficient support for young deaf children and their families means that some young deaf people have severe mental illness as a result of experiencing isolation and information deprivation within their educational settings.

It is widely known that it is easier to learn languages when we're younger. Young children will suck languages up like a sponge, and the best early education provision teaches BSL to all its pupils. It should be possible for all children in education to learn BSL. That is what we should expect of inclusive education.

The Member must now conclude, please.

Okay. So, we must now proceed with both a BSL Bill as well as some changes and improvements in our public services to ensure equal access for deaf people.

I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip, Jane Hutt. 

Diolch yn fawr, acting Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by thanking Mark Isherwood and Mike Hedges for bringing forward this Member debate. As a Government, we recognise the barriers faced by the deaf community in Wales, including deaf BSL signers, and we're determined to address these. And this debate has provided the opportunity for us to reaffirm our commitment to the recognition and promotion of British Sign Language and our determination to drive long-term positive change for deaf people across Wales. And that commitment has come over so clearly from Members across the Chamber today, so a very valuable debate.

For too long, deaf people and their families have faced significant barriers in their everyday lives, barriers that include issues in relation to access to education, to health and social services, and to wider public services in Wales, which have also been identified today. We must build a society that respects and empowers all deaf people, to create a Wales that provides equitable access and recognises, facilitates and values BSL as an integral part of Wales’s linguistic landscape.

Understanding the lived experiences of the deaf community is essential in shaping our cross-Government policies, as Members have highlighted. We’ve begun making progress in ensuring greater involvement with members of the deaf community, including deaf BSL signers, and we are committed to strengthening this engagement further. The disability rights taskforce working groups have concluded, and the recommendations have informed the development of the new disabled people’s rights plan, and more than 200 policy officials from across the Welsh Government and 350 external stakeholders—including members of the deaf community—worked together to develop the recommendations.

This 10-year plan, due for release for consultation this spring, aims to remove barriers and create long-term positive change, and the Welsh Government wants to ensure the actions, outcomes and ambitions of the disabled people’s rights plan reflect the views of the deaf community, including deaf BSL signers. Through our disabled people’s rights plan, we will identify and respond to the barriers that impact the lives of many deaf people in Wales. Our consultation on the plan will ensure the deaf community are actively engaged in the plan and their views included and acted upon.

We will establish an external advisory board to provide advice and support and monitor the implementation, delivery and impact of the disabled people’s rights plan, including reporting, of course, on positive outcomes for the deaf community. The work of the disability rights taskforce has shown that more effort is needed to achieve equity, inclusion and participation. It is crucial that we unite in our efforts to create a more equal Wales, making a real difference in people’s lives, and I look forward to making an oral statement on the disabled people’s rights plan during the consultation period. Welsh Government’s disability equality forum continues to collaborate with individuals and organisations who are working actively towards achieving equality for disabled people.

We recognise many deaf people do not consider themselves to be disabled, and in response to this the Welsh Government has recently established the BSL stakeholder group, and I thank Julie Morgan for steering us towards this in terms of her active engagement with the deaf community. This is a task and finish group, running for approximately six months, and it will develop key recommendations to inform the Welsh Government’s production of a BSL policy route-map. This route-map will set out the actions that Welsh Government are taking to promote and facilitate BSL and improve outcomes for the deaf BSL signing community of Wales. The group will advise on BSL priorities, it will consider where there are language barriers and the actions required to ensure equity of access to information and services for deaf BSL signers across a broad range of cross-Government policy. The BSL route-map will sit alongside the disabled people’s rights plan, recognising BSL with its own unique cultural, historical and linguistic identity. The BSL stakeholder group provides an important opportunity to strengthen our collaboration for meaningful engagement with key stakeholders, acting now, allowing us to capture the challenges and barriers faced by deaf BSL signers, supporting our work towards an inclusive and equal Wales.

There is still so much more to be done, but I would like to report on some cross-Government progress that is being made. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care continues to support work on renewing and broadening the all-Wales standards for communication and information. The renewed standards will include capturing and retaining accurate patient information to allow service providers to communicate with patients clearly and effectively. There will also be robust and clear guidance for commissioning BSL interpretation and translation services, and as we progress with this work, we'll continue to engage with key stakeholders to ensure equitable healthcare services for deaf people.

Led by the Minister for Mental Health and Well-being, the forthcoming mental health and well-being strategy, also due to be published this spring, sets out the importance of ensuring mental health support is accessible to all, and the mental health needs of the deaf community have been raised this afternoon by Members. The strategy will consider the diverse needs of the deaf community in Wales, and, as Mark Isherwood has said, in response to that question to the First Minister, the Welsh Government has asked the Royal College of Psychiatrists and NHS Wales joint commissioning committee to engage with key stakeholders to undertake a review to make recommendations to improve mental health services for deaf people in Wales. I will feed back the importance of involving the deaf community, including deaf BSL signers, in that review.

I'm also pleased to be working closely with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales to ensure that our transport networks are safe, accessible and welcoming to everyone, including deaf people. Transport for Wales has partnered with SignVideo, a mobile app that provides immediate access to online interpreting. This is a step towards removing some of the existing language barriers for deaf people when travelling by rail.

Wales is the first country in the UK to include British Sign Language in its curriculum. To support this, we've worked with BSL practitioners and other experts, including members of the deaf community, to develop guidance on designing a curriculum that includes progression in BSL. And thank you, Jane Dodds, for calling for further engagement looking at the needs of deaf children and looking at this issue relating to speech and language therapists, which we will take back. The decision to suspend the development of BSL GCSE was taken by Qualifications Wales in their role as our independent qualifications regulator, and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and I recognise the disappointment and concern about this decision, but we welcome their confirmation that they will continue to develop BSL units as part of a new skills suite as a qualification to be available from 2027.

So, in conclusion, acting Presiding Officer, there is still so much more work to be done to create that equal Wales, and gaining lived experience through engagement and collaboration with members of the deaf community and deaf BSL signers will ensure our policies meet their linguistic and cultural needs. Thank you once again to Mark Isherwood and Mike Hedges for bringing this debate forward. Thank you, Mark, for also recently sharing with us the draft summary of responses from the consultation on the BSL (Wales) Bill, along with the draft report of the findings from the engagement events undertaken. We'll carefully consider these and continue to work with you in relation to the Bill. So, through our collective efforts, we will continue to work to dismantle the barriers faced by deaf people. We are committed to delivering positive change and, ultimately, better outcomes for deaf people across Wales. Diolch yn fawr. 

I call now on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I thank everybody for their kind comments and for their contributions. Time is short, so I can't cover everything you said, but Sioned Williams was particularly emphasising the employment gap, the discrimination, the failure to equip people with the skills that they need and can achieve because of system breakdown and the consequential mental health impact that this can have. Mike Hedges was pointing out, of course, that some are born deaf, some become deaf and the implications of that, the need for service providers to meet the hidden needs of the deaf community, and that people with hearing loss are severely disadvantaged by comparison with others.

Jane Dodds was particularly emphasising the needs of deaf children too often left without the tailored support they need to thrive. She referred, again, to the falling numbers of teachers of the deaf, despite 81 per cent of deaf children attending mainstream school, creating barriers to their life opportunities, and she rightly, again, emphasised the crucial importance and role of speech and language therapists, contrasted with the falling number of training places and incumbents.

Joel James referred to the continuous uphill struggle accessing services because the system has failed to recognise the specific needs of deaf people, creating anxiety and mental health problems. He referred to the lack of deaf mental health networks and the need for political will from the Welsh Government to put pressure on service providers, and the need to increase the number of BSL speakers and service users.

To Julie Morgan, thank you. As she said, not every deaf person needs the same; some people use BSL, some are lip speakers, of course, and some are both. And the shortage, again, of teachers and interpreters—a theme that came from all of you. The need for the Senedd itself to be fully inclusive, with signers for everything that happens, and I take this opportunity to thank the signer for the great work he's doing trying to keep up with us all; he'll need a good, stiff drink afterwards, I'm sure. She also referenced the BSL stakeholder group—I'll just slip in that I've been advised that there were six main meetings scheduled, the first two meetings did not yield any actions and there is concern that little progress will be made. However, there is hope that future meetings will yield actions now that there is a BSL-using co-chair, Dafydd Eveleigh, representing the Welsh Government. They're watching closely.

Thanks to Jenny Rathbone. She said it's important that we all embrace this call. She referred to the 118 consultation responses—it's actually now 119; there was a late response from the Children's Commissioner for Wales. In addition, there've been 77 participants across four interviews and five focus groups, thanks to the Senedd outreach team. And out of all those numbers, only two objections: one individual and one organisation. As Jenny said, there's a danger of doing nothing. Ninety per cent of deaf children are born to hearing parents and we also need to provide support for them to learn to sign and it should be possible for all learners to learn BSL.

Again, thanks to the Cabinet Secretary for concluding the contributions. She said that the Welsh Government is determined to address the barriers faced by deaf people across Wales, to education, health, social services and wider services in Wales. And of course, there are other things like employment, which we heard referred to. She referred to the disability rights taskforce and plan and indicated that that is valuable for pan-disability issues. But we do also need condition-specific Welsh Government action for deaf people, including legislation. She referred to the BSL task and finish stakeholder group—and I refer again to the comments I made a moment ago—and emphasised that real actions are now needed. As she said, so much more work needs to be done.

I'll conclude by saying, quite rightly, so much more work needs to be done, emulating the actions in the other Parliaments across the UK where this has led to complete cross-party support for legislation and actions, reaching a point where all can agree on the best way forward, including but not solely relying on a legislative base to achieve that. So, diolch yn fawr, pawb.

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

The Welsh Conservatives debate is next on local government finance. The motion will be moved by Laura Anne Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to open this important debate today on local government finance, and I move the Welsh Conservative motion, tabled in the name of my colleague Paul Davies.

Firstly, I want to start by recognising the important and crucial role that local authorities play in the delivery of key services across Wales. Perhaps we don't recognise this enough. Instead, this Government sends diktat after diktat to local government without following it with the money needed, like free school meals, where councils are expected to pick up the shortfall. On top of that, the funding formula in Wales has always been inherently unfair, favouring Labour-controlled areas over rural Wales and north Wales. It has to change. I know it'd be like turkeys voting for Christmas for this Government, but it can't continue like this. The right thing to do is to commission an independent review on it, and I'm glad that the Plaid Cymru Members on the opposite benches agree with us on this. Rurality is a fundamental issue, and punishing councils for, well, being rural and all that entails and means for services has to end.

We are pleased to see the funding floor of 3.8 per cent, and like I said in the Chamber yesterday, it's very welcome for those councils hit hardest by this unfair funding formula for local government. But why 3.8 per cent, when one of your own party, the leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, has said that it needs to be at least 4 per cent? And what about the increases to national insurance and the massive burden now placed on local authorities, which don't even know how much money they're going to receive from you to cover that massive extra tax burden that your own Labour Westminster colleagues have placed upon them? That shortfall, as we know that there will be one, will have to be picked up by local councils and, of course, ultimately, the taxpayers in Wales.

Under this Labour Government's mismanagement, council tax has skyrocketed in Wales. Council tax has risen by over 200 per cent over the last two decades when Labour have been in power; that equates to £1,400 more per year. It has grown from a small contribution paid by each resident for local services to an unaffordable bill that offers poorer services in return. It seems to be the common pattern across Wales that residents are having to pay more for less. Only recently, a Labour councillor in Wales has scolded residents for putting out their rubbish, claiming that they were living too extravagantly. As a punishment, residents now face a 6.7 per cent council tax increase and the city council now plans to reduce their bin collection to every three weeks. This is what we can expect from tired Labour Governments: higher taxes and lower living standards.

The current council tax rises in Wales are the highest we've seen in recent years, well above what is considered to be normal. To put it into perspective, in 2002-03, council tax rose by just over 2 per cent; today it's an eye-watering 7.3 per cent average. The Welsh Conservatives believe that high taxes are regressive and especially damaging to low-income households. We believe that, just like in England, local people have the right to, and should have the choice of, a referendum on council tax increases over 5 per cent. This is not to punish local authorities, but to protect them and their residents. It would mean that the Welsh Government wouldn't be able to just pass the buck to local authorities by giving them insufficient moneys, forcing them to raise their own money via council taxes. It also prevents local authorities from viewing the public as a bail-out every time they run out of money or mismanage their own budgets. It would hopefully encourage healthier budget management for councils.

And what about the billions that are being sat on in reserves? Rhondda Cynon Taf has £269 million in reserves; Caerphilly council is currently hoarding £222 million of reserve funding, yet residents there are seeing council tax rises of 7.9 per cent. Let me remind Labour that reserve funding is meant to be used for desperate times—those rainy days. Well, I would argue that this is a rainy day, yet Labour are still hesitant to encourage councils to use reserves. It's completely immoral—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

I think you're being somewhat disingenuous about reserves. You should know by now and, surely, will have learnt this much: reserve funding is, somehow, reserved for the capital projects that are yet to come. Also, you must understand—it's very convenient, isn't it, that you've just mentioned a Labour-run authority. I'm sure that it's deliberate—I have no doubt about that. But what you haven't done so far is actually mention any of the additional money that is going and that is directed towards local authorities. You've also failed to mention the fact that they had reducing budgets for 14 years under Tory rule. You never got up and said anything about that.

Diolch. As the Member will know, of course, that's not always the case, and reserves can be used for things that aren't capital projects. It would take the pressure off councils, wouldn't it? It would take that pressure off and not force them to raise council tax to astronomical levels in Islwyn and in other places across Wales. Conwy council's 8.9 per cent council tax rise is eye-watering, yet they're still cutting those key services and wasting, for example, £2 million in rent so far on a building that can't be used. This is what we're seeing in Labour councils across Wales. Public funds should be just that: money that's used in the best interests of the public. Instead, it's often used on vanity projects or ill-thought-out projects at all levels of government, leaving less cash to keep council tax low. Against all reason, Welsh Labour prioritises spending millions of pounds on international offices, despite foreign affairs not being devolved; £150 million wasted on an M4 relief road that never happened, and £18 million on more politicians for this place. Your priorities are all wrong. This money should be going where it's needed: to local authorities, who are delivering the key services that we all, time and time again in this Chamber, say are so important. They are at the delivery end, so this Government should be doing all they can to enable best delivery of those vital services, those key services that better the lives of the people of Wales. Wales clearly needs its own department of efficiency to cut public services—to ensure public services are delivered efficiently and waste is cut, where possible.

In order to keep taxes as low as possible, councils need to be run more like businesses. The Welsh Government needs to work with councils to ensure they are working more collaboratively, more efficiently and more effectively. The sharing of best practice, as you know, Joyce, sounds like common sense to all of us, I’m sure, but it’s just not happening. There are fantastic examples of things happening across the local authorities in Wales, but it’s just not being shared between the 22 local authorities, creating a postcode lottery for provision and education in Wales.

Social care is a brilliant example of how sharing resources across boundaries just makes sense, and it could mean efficiency savings could be made in terms of cutting council staff with huge salaries too, streamlining structures, making one head of department over an area as opposed to two or three. We need more of this. But to keep council tax low, we need more than just collaboration; we need to change the way we look at government, encouraging that business mindset, as I’ve said, so that they treat the money, public money, like their own. Would you like another intervention, Joyce? Presiding Officer—

Carry on with your contribution. Joyce Watson, you're down to be called later on in the debate, so we can await with interest your contribution then. Carry on, Laura Anne Jones.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. I look forward to that statement. It requires a fair Government settlement, which, from yesterday, we’ve seen hasn’t happened. The people of Wales are not a limitless cash machine for Labour failures. Enough is enough. Council tax hikes, squandered reserves and bloated bureaucracy are not the answer. A fair funding system, financial discipline and respect for taxpayers are. The people of Wales deserve better: lower taxes, better services and a Government that spends their money wisely. Welsh Conservatives would fix this mess, Labour won’t, and I urge you to support our motion today.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to move amendment 1.

I move the amendment. Thank you very much, Llywydd.

For 14 years, the Conservatives underfunded our councils, leaving them with impossible choices: cut services or raise council tax. Their sudden concern for council tax rises is a bit hypocritical when they created the financial crisis councils now face. Labour in Westminster claim that they are not raising taxes on working people, but, by failing to properly fund vital services, they’re forcing councils to do it for them through council tax hikes—one of the most unfair taxes there are.

Labour’s amendment today shows that they fail to address that bigger issue. They need to make urgent representations to their counterparts in Westminster to secure fair funding for Wales that would reduce the burden on councils. They also need to ensure that our local authorities are fully reimbursed for Labour’s national insurance increases on employers. And I know we don’t know the quantum yet, but I asked the Cabinet Secretary yesterday what mechanism will be used to distribute that funding, when it does come—the funding that was promised—and I’d like an answer to that today, if possible.

Alongside a fairer funding formula for Wales, Plaid Cymru supports an independent review of the funding formula and a minimum funding floor to protect councils from unprecedented cuts. Reserves are there for emergencies and long-term planning; they are not a substitute for proper funding. These crises we face are one of funding by Labour in Wales and Westminster. This is not akin to COVID, for example. Forcing councils to deplete reserves only papers over the cracks and leaves them vulnerable in future crises.

Public services are not businesses. Councils exist to serve communities, not to chase profit. This Tory obsession—

Would you take an intervention?

Go on, then.

Thank you, Peredur. You may recall that, in 2013, David Cameron, our Prime Minister—the UK Conservative Prime Minister—gave three years' worth of moneys to Wales to freeze council tax. The only ones supporting that in this Chamber, for the Welsh Government to pass that on to the residents, was us, the Welsh Conservatives. So, three years of council tax freezes actually went on to other vanity projects by this Welsh Labour Government, and supported by Plaid.

We had 14 years of austerity, and hypothecating money goes against the fiscal framework. It just does. Anyway—. It's just not—. You don't grasp how funding works in this place. You can't be dictated to by Westminster what money is spent on here, so I don't agree with you there.

The Tory obsession with running public services like corporations is exactly why we see services struggling today. We should not be trying to copy Elon Musk and Donald Trump and trying to do what they're trying to do in the US. A funding floor is obviously welcome, but 3.8 per cent is simply not enough, given the scale of the crisis councils are facing. That's why Plaid Cymru calls for a minimum funding floor in future settlements that genuinely protects services.

While the Labour amendment today highlights that councils will be receiving over £6 billion from the final local government settlement, the headline figure ignores the budget pressures councils are facing, the rising costs, the increasing demand and the real-terms cuts after inflation. Plaid Cymru wants to see an urgent review to ensure councils get the funding that they truly need. A review is needed, but it must be independent and transparent. Labour's amendment suggests more of the same slow-moving process that has failed to deliver real change for years.

Plaid Cymru's position is clear: we must tackle the root cause of council tax rises, Westminster's imposed austerity, ensure fairer, longer-term funding for local government, and stop forcing councils into impossible choices between raising taxes and cutting services. Diolch yn fawr.

The Cabinet Secretary for local government to formally move amendment 2.

Formally.

It's a pleasure to take part in this debate this afternoon and I'd like to focus my attention on Denbighshire County Council, if I may. The 6 per cent council tax rise announced by Denbighshire in recent weeks is technically the lowest rise across north Wales authorities, but unfortunately that only tells half of the story. This is the same local authority that is reducing library opening times, has ambitions to close public toilets, and the ongoing chaotic roll-out of the new bin system since its introduction in June last year makes it difficult to justify such increases when residents in Denbighshire are seeing no tangible benefit to tax increases and fewer services. It's the classic case of Labour in power: tax more, give less, and they want the public to be grateful for it.

Public confidence from local residents is at an all-time low in Denbighshire, with many of my constituents having very little to no faith in the local authority, which has been exemplified by the poor roll-out of the new waste system. Low confidence in local authorities serving Rhyl and surrounding areas has been a long-standing issue, dating back to at least 1974, when they demolished the old Pavilion Theatre citing unsafe structural issues, but ironically it took several rounds of dynamite explosions to eventually bring it down.

Together with the disastrous children's village development in the 1990s, the short-sighted decision to bulldoze the sea life centre, despite private sector interest in the building in more recent times, and the continued sterilising of what Rhyl is famous for through constant and overzealous local authority intervention, my constituents in this area are quite well within their rights to have their reservations about the performance of the council and ask questions as to whether their hard-earned money is being used in an effective and efficient way in the best interests of local residents.

And the Welsh Government aren't off the hook here themselves. Under Labour since devolution in 1999, local authorities in Wales have been so tightly managed from down here in Cardiff Bay that much local autonomy has slowly eroded away, effectively making local authorities branches of the Welsh Government rather than independently minded decision-making bodies that act in the best interests of local residents. Of course we need rules, together with checks and balances from national Government, but that has been over-exercised down here in Cardiff Bay, which has gone far beyond what I and many other people think is an acceptable level of state intervention.

And it's the people who have to pay for all of this. Council tax rises in Wales have doubled since 2010 and even more than that since the late 1990s. But the services are going down. There are potholes all over the place, dog poo all over our roads, the schools are underperforming, social services are at breaking point, unrealistic net-zero commitments by 2030 costing a fortune but nowhere near being achieved. I could go on but I have little time. It's time to give people a say on the future finances of local authorities, rather than council fat cats. 

Are you taking the intervention? 

I'm not, unfortunately. That's why I support any council tax rise above 5 per cent being subject to the outcome of a referendum, but Labour won't agree to it as they know what the outcome would be. Vote for our motion tonight and free the great Welsh people from the shackles of overbloated authorities that aren't acting in their best interests, only their own. 

There has been a historic lack of UK Government funding for public services during the 14 years of austerity. The size of the financial cake has shrunk significantly whilst the demand for those services has increased. Many delivered by the local—. Sorry. The economic turmoil that followed Liz Truss's short tenure as Prime Minister in September 2022 made things even worse. The NHS in Wales had to find an extra £100 million to cover a massive rise in heating costs, for example. 

Conwy County Borough Council's budget gap skyrocketed from £6 million to £30 million in a single year. The new administration that took over were left with scarce reserves, no housing or housing services, and it was cut to the bone. On top of that, cuts to welfare have impacted, leaving councils to pick up the pieces wherever possible. As a former deputy leader of a local authority during the years of Tory austerity, I know how difficult it is for councillors. I feel their pain in trying to set a balanced budget. 

Would you give way? 

Yes. 

Thank you. It's over two decades since I first met the Labour leader of Flintshire County Council because of the discriminatory local government funding formula that he was seeking to campaign against. It's only two, three months since I raised here the concerns of the current Labour leader of Flintshire County Council. Because they've got an equal-bottom settlement this year, after years and years—two decades or more—of being at or near the bottom, they're facing a 9.5 per cent rise as school budgets are cut—

Can I just come in on that?

—opposed even by the Liberal Democrats who supported the budget here. Are you not concerned for the people of Flintshire that this obsolete discriminatory funding formula is going to impact on them?

You're using all my time up now. I have got a—[Interruption.] 

You can carry on, Carolyn Thomas. 

Thank you. Without the change in UK Government last year, it would have continued to be much worse for councils. In the last Conservative—[Interruption.] Oh, Mark, if you'd like me—. Sorry, I shall respond to you. Okay, I have got the table of where Flintshire ranks over the last 10 years. I was a Flintshire councillor there. It's not been always at the bottom, very often in the middle. They have been impacted greatly by the budget and I will be speaking about that now, and have also been raising their concerns as well here. 

Without the change in UK Government last year, it would have continued to be much worse for councils. In the last Conservative autumn statement, Jeremy Hunt continued to spout the usual Tory mantra, saying that public services had to be more efficient and that the UK Government wants an even smaller public state, continuing austerity. One in five councils in England last year were facing bankruptcy at the time. The UK Government has saved the bankruptcy of lots of councils. 

The settlement was more than £1 billion higher than it would have been under the previous Tory Government in Westminster, but it also exposes how reliant Welsh finances are on the UK Government. There are pressures across all Welsh Government departments for public services not delivered by councils: health, transport, NRW, culture, Transport for Wales, grants for farmers, higher education, Estyn—many also impacted by a loss of EU funding, all fighting for the same money. 

I welcome that there are some extra grants in this budget to help literally fill the gaps that have been left by historic underfunding, such as the £120 million two-year investment to tackle potholes and repair highways. I know the Cabinet Secretary is doing all she can to improve the local government funding settlement and lift the funding floor, and I thank Jane Dodds for working with Welsh Government on their shared priorities so that it's increased to 3.8 per cent. It does need to be higher to help those councils who have restructured, reorganised, deleted vacant posts, introduced charges so that there is nothing left except the basic statutory services; they've cut everything. A 3.8 per cent increase may seem reasonable, but it doesn't cover inflationary pressures, pay rises and the increasing need for social healthcare, homelessness or dealing with a crisis such as flooding, as happened in Rhondda Cynon Taf, high winds, snow or a water shortage, as happened in Conwy recently. Councils need a baseline in funding and, for some, this hasn't been enough without putting up the council tax to close the gap.

In north Wales, Flintshire, Wrexham and Conwy are really struggling. Gwynedd is not in a great position, but they're using their reserves, so council tax has not been used to fill that gap. The funding formula for local authorities is complicated, with lots of indices that have been evolving over the years, and the three predominant measures that impact the level of funding given to councils are population, deprivation and rurality. Realistically, any change to the funding formula would have to be approved by the WLGA and would lead to winners and losers. Deprived areas have been receiving higher funding, so if we change that, they might just become more deprived.

After 14 years of austerity, the UK Labour Government has turned a page when it comes to funding, but the scars of the last decade and a half of cuts cannot be healed overnight. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the UK Government succeeds in its talk of national renewal, because only with this can we ensure that increased funding continues in the long term. Thank you.

So, I stand before you today to speak about an issue that has been growing for far too long, and that's the woeful finance of local government in Wales. This is an issue that affects every single one of us, whether it's the quality of the public services we rely on or the burden of higher council taxes that have become an unfortunate reality. Local councils play a crucial role in delivering essential services to our communities, from education and social care to waste management and housing, local authorities are the heart of public service delivery in Wales. But despite the importance of these services, councils across Wales are now facing significant financial challenge. They're being asked to do more with less, and it is simply not sustainable.

It's worth noting, as my colleague Laura Anne Jones has pointed out, that councils in Wales currently hold over £2 billion in usable reserves, and these reserves have been held, rolled over, year after year after year, not spent on capital projects. I was the shadow Minister in 2013, and it was £1.4 billion; it's gone up to £2 billion since. It is completely wrong for authorities like Cardiff to be stockpiling over £180 million, Carmarthenshire £190 million, Rhondda £250 million, while several local authorities, including Conwy, £15 million. Clearly, money is being unfairly distributed. I remember at the time saying, 'Why isn't that money put back into a central pot and distributed across those local authorities?', and it was Welsh Labour who actually said 'no'.

So, whilst the average council tax rise in Wales is 7.3 per cent, now that we've got Labour in Conwy County Borough Council, the rise is well above this at 8.95 per cent, on top of 9-point-something last year, and 10 per cent the year before. That's nearly 30 per cent in three years. The median wage hasn't gone up; pensions haven't gone up to that degree. And what do you get for the increase? Toilets closed, threats of library closures, leisure centre closures, weeds left, litter bins left, household domestic waste left for four weeks for collection, not the three that yours is threatening to go to. It's shameful. Residents are being asked to pay more at a time when the services they rely on are just becoming unavailable.

The situation is serious, and I cannot—. I've got to be honest, at the time Lesley Griffiths was the Minister here, I have to say that she actually was quite open to the idea of putting 5 per cent—a referendum, you know, at a cap—[Interruption.] But go for it, Carolyn.

I must point out that the four-weekly collections happened when Sam Rowlands was council leader.

No, it did not. No, no. I have to tell you; I have to correct you on the record there. It actually was introduced, you know, you do your budget setting for the—. It was introduced before Sam was the leader of the council, before the Conservatives were in power. It was as a result of Plaid, Labour and the indies.

I'm glad that you pointed out about the shameful money that's been spent by Conwy on the HGV depot in Mochdre. We're also seeing rising costs as a result of poor choices and not enough building of homes in terms of temporary accommodation. And there are such examples of waste: £250,000 on the Craig-y-Don paddling pool at a time when it wasn't even open. They opened it after many complaints from residents and elected politicians for the last summer holiday break last year. It was disgusting.

What frustrates me, though, about local authorities in Wales is the lack of accountability. And I have to say—and they know—Audit Wales have had me on their shoulders for quite some time now, and I think it's disgusting that where you can prove there's waste of money, they will not investigate many examples, Members, if the value is under £5 million. It's shameful. Once upon a time, my own local authority would be, by now, facing a section 10 inspection, in my opinion. Every penny counts. So, this Welsh Parliament and Welsh Government should be sending a clear message to Audit Wales that where examples of local authority waste are presented, they are investigated.

Equally frustrating is the way the Welsh Government has handled the funding formula. The current formula is over 20 years old and it results in a substantial funding gap, even between Conwy and Denbighshire, Carolyn, which you represent. There's £34 million pounds' difference, and yet the authorities have the same demographic. It's crazy.

On top of this, we know the UK Government increasing national insurance is compounding the crisis. The way your Labour Government at Westminster have imposed the national insurance rise is disgraceful. In Conwy, 3.6 per cent of the nearly 9 per cent council tax increase is purely to cover this increased cost.

I've heard today, Llywydd, that the councillors' allowances in Conwy are going up. At a time when they've kicked the residents in the teeth, the Cabinet members and those running this authority—. Cabinet members going up to £40,000; deputy leader, £45,000; leader, £60,000. It's gone up from £45,000 in recent times.

We need a Welsh Conservative Government here in Cardiff Bay, led by Darren Millar. One thing is abundantly clear: our residents, our taxpayers, our hard-working families and pensioners, where they have Labour at any level of Government, it costs you more and gives you less. Next May, move over; let's have Darren Millar as the First Minister and a Welsh Conservative Government and we will fix local government in Wales.

Thank you, Janet Finch-Saunders. Heledd Fychan.

Diolch, Llywydd. Janet Finch-Saunders, in her contribution, talked about shameful and shameless; that's how I would describe the Conservatives not reflecting on 14 years of austerity and the damage it has done to people in our communities. Gareth Davies, I'm very sorry that you did not take my intervention because you raised the question, since 2010, council tax has doubled. What happened in 2010? What happened in 2010? Perhaps you'd like to come in?

We won an election.

You won an election? And what did it mean—? [Interruption.] No, no, I'm going to—. I was asking Gareth Davies; he would not take my intervention earlier. But—[Interruption.] No, no, no, I'm going to carry on with my point, thank you very much.

In 2010, the Conservatives came into power. In 2010, do you know how many people relied on foodbanks in the UK? There were 40,898 parcels distributed. In 2024, 3,121,404. If we look at the Citizens Advice dashboard that comes into all our inboxes frequently, those with council tax arrears have now over £500 more debt than they did in 2019. It's extremely, extremely difficult for most people in society, and to not take responsibility for the damage of austerity and the impact it's had on our councils is irresponsible and shameful and shameless.

Are you aware that the first foodbank in Wales, Trussell Trust, didn't open until 2011? And when the first foodbank was opened in 2004 in England by the Trussell Trust, the aim was to have a foodbank in every town in the UK. Therefore, the numbers have gone up as foodbanks have opened; it's not a straight comparison as you described.

But we shouldn't need foodbanks. They shouldn't have to exist. Do you know how many councils now have to provide funding to foodbanks because people are so hungry in our communities? That's the shameful and shameless legacy of austerity, and unfortunately we're seeing continuation now with the UK Labour Government, with announcements today of cuts coming to welfare. This is going to make the situation even worse for our councils, meaning that they have to spend more money helping foodbanks.

My concern in all of this, as Peredur Owen Griffiths outlined earlier, is in terms of the national insurance contributions: we don't know yet how much money will be returned to our councils, what that funding gap is. And the other issue, of course, is about the third sector and charities, which we know provide local services and support, often taking over some of the council responsibilities that have been lost due to austerity. Citizens Advice, for instance, play a crucial role, and I know a number of the local authorities in the region that I represent are really concerned to think that national insurance contributions are going to mean fewer services by the third sector and charities, where councils will then have to try and plug the gap, but with no additional funding.

Many of us here are former councillors. We know how hard people work in our local authorities, how difficult things have been because of cuts. Some departments have barely any staff, and yet pressures are rising all the time. We've seen the impact of Brexit in terms of difficulties in recruiting some staff in social care. It's really difficult. Also looking at climate change and the impact on services with more extreme weather, my own local authority, where I live, Rhondda Cynon Taf council, are doing so much work to try and help prevent flooding, but also to support communities, but with limited resources. So, we need to have an honest conversation about those statutory services, non-statutory, but also those services that are under pressure more than ever because of circumstances beyond their control, such as climate change.

With RCT, two massive storms, one massive flooding, and then the other, you know, highways and things, and then there were coal tip slips, so they had to—. They provided thousands of sandbags, and operatives had to give help as well. So, do you agree that sometimes reserves are needed for those emergencies as well?

Certainly, and one of the challenges we're also seeing in local authorities is being able to recruit and offer competitive salaries. For instance, with coal tips, remedial work, that's very specialised work, and being able to attract people with the level of expertise is difficult, and they don't have the resources to be able to employ people and share that expertise.

So, what I would hope that we would have today as part of this debate is, yes, reflect on the funding, but also agree cross party that we need solutions, because these are the services that matter to people in our communities, that make the biggest difference. And, yes, we can find fault; I'm sure there is some waste of spending on some things, and we can all point to those, but overall, the circumstances are extremely challenging for local authorities. We can't pretend either that the settlement is going to be good news for local services; there are still going to be cuts. Even with the increase from Welsh Government, voted through yesterday, it's still going to be challenging. So, let's focus not on name calling, but finding solutions and being honest about the situation our local authorities face, and being honest about what political decisions have meant in terms of local services. Austerity has had an impact; it's left our public services really damaged and fragile. We need to find solutions. 

Joyce Watson. Oh, sorry. First, Joel James, then you, Joyce. There's a big difference. Joel James.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I agree with my colleague Heledd Fychan's desire to find solutions, but she spent most of her time blaming the Conservative Government rather than coming up with anything positive.

But anyway, if I can carry on, we all agree in this Chamber that local authorities have a crucial role in delivering services across the nation. I was a councillor for many years, and for the record, I'm still a community councillor. I understand the complexity of many of the services that they provide, and the challenges that they face. Whilst some of these challenges are entirely of their own making, we have to acknowledge that some are not. Contextual challenges, like inflation, for instance, are outside the control of Welsh local authorities, but this is true for every council in the United Kingdom. Some of the challenges they face are not necessarily because of the lack of funding either, but from poor long-term planning and investment, which has reduced the financial resilience of councils.

Members from Plaid and, no doubt, Labour can only comprehend in their narrow world view that this is the fault of previous Conservative Governments, but this is not the case. Indeed, what we have seen in the last 14 years is a rise of almost 150 per cent needing to be spent on social care, 41 per cent on additional learning needs, and almost an 80 per cent rise in the number of children being looked after by Welsh councils. So, the financial pressures have come because councils simply haven't prepared for the rapid increases in the services they provide. The Welsh Government are, in part, to blame for this. The funding formula used to distribute funding is not fit for purpose, and hasn't been for some time. The standard spending assessment produces too much variance between neighbouring councils and doesn't put enough emphasis on funding services for older people, despite those services often resulting in higher social care costs. Moreover, some of the data used within the assessment is way out of date. It still uses census data from before some of the Members in this Chamber were even born. In addition to this, the settlement, normally published in October and finalised in December, is now provisionally set in December and finalised in February or March, which means that councils have little time to plan their budgets, and this has led to the bizarre reality that councils sometimes have to decide their annual budgets—  

Joel, will you take an intervention?

Can I carry on a bit and then—?

Yes, of course.

—decide their annual budget ahead of knowing the amount of funding they’ll actually receive from the Welsh Government. This has increased the risk of additional funding being allocated without a proper assessment of its impact or the unplanned use of reserves if funding is below the budgeted level. Both of these scenarios substantially increase the risk of funding not being used in a planned way to secure value for money.

What it has also led to is the substantial increase in usable reserves being sat in bank accounts. I have spoken many times in this Chamber about the incredible amount of reserves my own council, Rhondda Cynon Taf, has. In less than five years, the amount of usable reserves in councils in Wales has ballooned from £1.1 billion to £2.1 billion. RCT is personally sitting on £255 million of usable reserves—the largest of any local authority in the country. What this means is that councils are not investing in transforming and improving services for the future, and they're not helping struggling residents by reducing council tax either; they're just banking this money. This is not helping residents, it is not helping schools and it is not helping social services.

We need, as set out in the motion today, for the Welsh Government to take a step-change approach. We need to have a funding formula that is fit for purpose, that looks at achieving value for money and financial sustainability over the mid to long term. Councils are holding on to money and increasing their reserves just in case the Welsh Government reduces its grant after they have set their budget, and this is not right. Usable reserves should be in proportion to providing financial resilience, and the Welsh Government should be working with councils in order to make sure that they are investing the money in better services. The Welsh Conservatives are highlighting today that this should be done through an independent review and, let us be honest, this is in everybody's interest. Not only will it help councils, but it will also help the Welsh Government and, most importantly, Welsh residents.

I'm a firm believer, as are many in this Chamber, that we should be promoting efficiency savings by sharing resources across councils. I believe in local democracy, but there comes a point when services are being needlessly replicated from council to council. It's also widely accepted that Wales has fallen behind in providing digitalisation in the public sector. We have had underinvestment in digital services for far too long, and this has now caught up with us. We need innovation and creativity to work, and it's right that local government should be strongly encouraged to develop a business-like culture to ensure effective use of taxpayer funding, whilst cutting waste and reducing spending on vanity projects.

Finally, Llywydd—and I will bring in my colleague in a minute—I want to talk about council tax. Council tax rises are disproportionate to pay raises. Every year we have a bill that just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Our residents have no way of reducing this. Unlike utility bills, where people can reduce through improving efficiency, with council taxes we simply see bigger bills and poorer service every year. What infuriates residents even more is when this money is seemingly wasted on projects they are not their priorities. It is unfair, because council have the ability to put up council tax to excessive amounts without resident sign-off, and I think I actually speak for the whole country here when is say that anything larger than 5 per cent needs to be voted on by those who pay it. I believe that the Welsh Conservatives have put forward a strong and credible motion, and I urge everyone here to support it. And, Llywydd, if I have time, I'm willing to take—

No, you don't need to. I am about to call Joyce Watson anyway. Oh no, it was Rhianon. No, we'll move on to Joyce Watson.

I'm really pleased to take part in this debate and bring a little bit of reality back into the room. It seems to me that, somehow, the Tories have been living in a different world, a world that doesn't recognise the austerity that was imposed on Wales by their mismanagement of the Treasury and, somehow—somehow—you've been transported into this other universe that has forgotten the 14 years of damage that your budgets did year on year on year to Wales. You've also failed, somehow, in your parallel universe, to recognise that the budget provides more than £6 billion to local government and £1.3 billion in additional specific grants. You've also failed to recognise that it's the highest settlement since you were in power.

So, I think there's a sort of theme running here, and I think the theme is quite clear: it's Labour in power that look at providing money to local government and also to deliver essential services. I'm a little bit concerned—[Interruption.] In a minute, in a minute. I'm a little bit concerned to hear the opening statement that councils should be run like businesses. Now, if we start running councils purely on a business statement, I think we can only look to what is happening in the United States at the moment. And I don't know who you're going to bring in—I don't know which person you were thinking of bringing in—[Interruption.] In a minute.

So, the point here is that I'm living in the real world, not this universe that you are occupying, where you fail to recognise the damage that you've done. It would be quite nice, really, if just occasionally you did recognise the damage—[Interruption.] In a minute. We could have a little bit more respect towards the debate if you just did say, for once, 'We put our hands up. We never brought a statement like this before, we recognise that, and we know that we did a lot of damage.' If you just did that, we could perhaps go further forward. But the point is that this is the best local government financial settlement for more than 15 years. We don't live in this fantasy arena that you do, by imagining that this one single budget is going to fix 14 years of damage. We know it's not going to. But what we do commit to is protecting the core front-line public services. We support the hardest hit households and we prioritise jobs. I also was a former county councillor—[Interruption.] Do you know, it's getting a little bit like bob up and down over there—[Interruption.] In a minute, I might let somebody bob up. But the point is, there are huge demands on local government, and those demands of setting budgets, cost pressures, council tax reserves are challenges that get taken by local decision making.

In terms of reserves, and we've heard a lot about it here, it isn't for this Chamber or central Government to interfere with local decisions. Setting budgets, council tax and levels of reserves are a matter for local members in each council. And I'll give you an example of a local council. In Pembrokeshire, not all parties somehow take that responsibility seriously. The Tory group there has just submitted its own fantasy budget proposals. They've offered lower council tax at the cost of statutory functions like adult social services and pre-school education. They add that they could pay for those by the second home premium—the very premium that they've opposed and the very premium that they voted through to reduce. But, for the most part, local elected members across Wales fulfil their responsibilities. We should trust them—[Interruption.] It's a shame, I've just run out of time. I can't actually take any of your interventions.

The Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government to contribute—Jayne Bryant. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you very much for this debate today, and I'd like to start by putting on record my thanks, once again, to local government elected members and staff across all local authorities for the critical work that they do for our communities, people and businesses across Wales day in, day out. I want to, again, pay tribute to the incredible amount of hard work of both officers and elected members over many years to respond to the ongoing challenges that councils have been facing. And, as Carolyn Thomas said, we know that repairing and undoing the damage inflicted on Wales over the last 14 years will take time, but yesterday's passing of the budget is a crucial first step. 

Our overall settlement for 2025-26 is more than £1 billion higher than it would have been under the previous UK Government. And this could have been, really, a very different budget that we might have had yesterday if we hadn't had a general election when we did and hadn't had that Labour UK Government, because local authorities across Wales were preparing for a cash-flat budget. As outlined by the Cabinet Secretary for finance yesterday, there's an extra £1.5 billion for our public services and priorities, putting Wales back on the path to growth. And I'm proud that the Welsh Government has prioritised local government and other public services in those budget decisions. Adjusting for transfers, the core revenue funding for local government in 2025-26 will increase by 4.5 per cent, compared to 2024-25. Following the budget agreement, no authority will receive less than a 3.8 per cent increase. This means that every local authority in Wales will see a larger increase next year than in 2024-25.

Thank you for taking an intervention. Cabinet Secretary, could you just make clear to this Chamber how you came to that figure of 3.8 per cent? Thank you.

Okay. So, one of the things, in terms of having the funding floor that we were in discussion with our colleague, Jane Dodds, about, in terms of the budget discussions, is that I heard directly from local government, local government leaders and local government members as well, about how important the floor would be this year in particular, particularly in those nine authorities that we've been able to help thanks to the budget agreement this year. However, we recognise— [Interruption.] I'd just like to make a bit of progress. However, we recognise that authorities are facing challenges to deliver services, balance their budget and support their local communities by keeping council tax rises as low as they can. Councils will have considered all of the options available to them in making those decisions. They'll have made judgments on how far they can use their reserves to help in each of those decisions without risking their long-term position. And whilst I agree that £2 billion is a large sum, as Joyce Watson said, it's too simplistic to take the technical description of usable reserve, which includes individual school reserves and the housing revenue accounts reserve, as well as capital funds and grants for specific projects. 

It's also worth stating that there is no link between the level of usable reserves and the level of settlement increase. Councils will have had to consider all of the impacts of council tax increases on their communities. Decisions on services, on reserves and on council tax rises are taken by locally, democratically elected members. In Wales, local authorities have flexibility to set their budgets and determine council tax levels to respond to local priorities. [Interruption.] Yes.

Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, the question that I was going to ask the Member in your party on the backbenches there was about efficiency savings. Obviously, as you say, these are local authority decisions, they are made locally, but don't you agree that you have a role to play in helping local councils to become more efficient, become more business minded and to create those efficiencies by sharing the resources, by improving the delivery of services and bringing those costs down so that council taxes do not have to rise as much as they are?

Local authorities are doing incredible work to really be transformational in some of their services; I’ve seen that for myself when I’ve gone to different local authorities. Even today I went to an event where Blaenau Gwent and Torfaen councils were both talking about their new federation model that has been so important, and they’re sharing that good practice to other local authorities within Wales.

And just at this point, I would like to say I’m not going to take any lectures from the Tories on this. We’ve seen too well what the Tories have done in England in Government, where they’ve cut local government funding to the bone, on average cutting 60p out of every pound of Government grant to councils, and some councils losing 70 per cent.

So, I’m committed to working with local authorities in a spirit of trusted partnership and I’ve been working with my Cabinet colleagues on our approach to hypothecated funding to provide greater flexibility in managing the funding that we give them. It’s vital that we strip out all unnecessary administration so that more of the money goes on the delivery of what is important to our communities.

Like Heledd, I agree that the third sector in Wales provides crucial services to communities and people most in need of support, and in the draft budget 2025-26, we’ve committed to a three-year funding agreement for third sector support in Wales, comprising of £25.8 million, which is an increase of 7 per cent. And in relation to the national insurance point as well that Peredur had raised, obviously we are awaiting information from the UK Government. When we know the level of funding, we will use our standing mechanisms, the distribution sub-group and finance sub-group, to agree the distribution of funding, because I’m aware that different authorities have different proportions of directly employed staff, commissioned services or contracted-out services, so the distribution sub-group has had an initial conversation in preparation. [Interruption.] Sorry, yes.

Will you be looking at full-time equivalents, or what mechanisms are they considering?

So, that’s a matter for the distribution sub-group, so I’m sure that will come, as the discussions are happening at the moment.

The Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 provided for corporate joint committees as a framework to support regional working between local authorities. Aligning economic development, transport and land use planning in the CJC provides the opportunity for councils to pool resources and consider and capitalise on interdependencies between these functions. Ensuring the effectiveness of CJCs is a priority for Welsh Government. Whilst we recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, officials have begun working with the WLGA and local government officers to develop a prospectus setting out our shared ambitions for CJCs.

We’ve also co-developed with the WLGA digital and improvement priorities for local government and we’re already supporting collaborative digital transformation and innovation across councils, with an eye on improvement and innovation to help us find the right direction and digital solution for each purpose. Innovation regarding sharing resources and collaboration are more powerful when they come from the ground up and I’m really keen to encourage that.

Finally, Llywydd, I want to turn to the local government formula. This formula is well established and created and developed in collaboration with local government and agreed annually with local government, through the finance sub-group of the partnership council for Wales. Over three quarters of the funding distributed through the local government settlement funding formula relies on data that is updated annually, and there is an agreement that those elements of the formula that are the oldest need to be reviewed and updated, and work is under way to do so. But the formula is free from political agenda, driven by data and balances relative need and relative ability to raise income so that authorities across Wales are treated fairly and even-handedly. I ask the Members of the Senedd to reject the motion.

James Evans to reply to the debate. James Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’d like to thank all Members who spoke in this debate today, and I’d also like to thank Laura Anne Jones for giving her warm words to all those local government officers, and local government in general across Wales, for all they do in providing public services across our country. Laura Jones raised issues with the Welsh Government passing laws in this Senedd and regulation without passing on money to local authorities to support them. I was in health committee this morning talking about even more regulations that the Welsh Government hope to pass, which will put more pressure on local government, but yet again we're not seeing the money following those regulations, so it's yet again this Welsh Government making law, but, actually, no money put in with it to enforce it.

The funding floor was raised by a number of Members here, and it's something I think is a positive, that we do have a funding floor now for local government; it's something that has been asked for, but it could have gone further. I'm sure Members on the opposite bench will say, 'Well, how are you going to fund that?' But that's what's done through budget reprioritisation, isn't it? What we would do on these benches is reprioritise some of those Welsh Government budgets, really look at budget lines to make sure that happens, because I don't deal in fantasy economics. I actually believe in putting forward credible plans, unlike some other parties in this place.

Reserves were also raised by Laura Anne Jones, Janet Finch-Saunders and Joel James, about the number of local authorities across Wales holding huge amounts of reserves. But I always say what other Members say, not all reserves are there and can be earmarked and used; some of them are used, as the Minister did say, for the housing revenue account, for social services. But there are elements of usable reserves within local authorities. Joyce Watson, I think, needs to take a lesson in how local authority reserves are actually allocated, because she said it's all for capital, and I can assure you, as someone who was in local government for a while, they're not all capital reserves, so maybe you could have a lesson with the Welsh Government on how their reserves are actually spent.

The national insurance rise was raised by a lot of people in this Chamber. Janet Finch-Saunders raised it, and also Heledd Fychan raised it as well. I think it's a very important point that Members raised, which I think has been totally missed by the Labour Government in Westminster, about the sheer pressure that this is going to put on local government. The Minister talked about the additional money that is going into local government. All of that now is going to have to go on pay and pressures, because if we do not fund our social services departments properly, and we do not fund our children's services departments properly, those departments run on staff, and national insurance rises there are really going to hurt. So, all that additional money, Minister, will not be actually spent improving services, it'll be actually spent on keeping staff in the job.

Council tax was a huge part of this debate. It was raised by Joel James, Laura Anne Jones, Gareth Davies and Janet Finch-Saunders, who all talked very passionately about council tax rises in their own authorities, like mine in Powys County Council. I do think we need to have local residents having a say on council tax rises, like they do in England—[Interruption.] In the words of Joyce Watson, 'In a minute.' So, what we do need to do is have that local referendum to make sure that people can have their say, because it's only right that the public have got a say on these matters. I will take an intervention, I'm kinder than other Members in the Chamber.

You and others have raised this issue of having a referendum if a council tax increase is over 5 per cent. Now, whatever you think of council tax, at least that money is spent locally on essential services. When the Conservatives raised and increased value added tax to 20 per cent, when the Conservatives increased corporation tax from 19 per cent to 25 per cent, should there have been a referendum then?

Well, the thing is, you probably don't want a referendum on council tax, because the problem with socialism is they like to tell people how to spend their money, they don't like people having a say on how their money is spent.

But we did have the same usual speeches in the Chamber, didn't we, the same old '14 year' lines; if we'd have been in Government a bit longer, you'd have it struck off, and added 15, strike off, add 16. It's just the same old speech, isn't it, from Peredur Owen Griffiths, Carolyn, Heledd, Joyce, because they all forget, don't they, why some of those really difficult decisions had to be made in 2010. Heledd made quite an impassioned speech about the changes that had to be made in 2010, but I would like to remind Heledd that in 2010, when my party came into power, there was a little note left that said that the Labour Party had left no money left. They had bankrupted the country, and the job of a responsible—[Interruption.] The job of a responsible Government is to act properly when it's dealing with public money, and that's what we did in office. [Interruption.] I'll make a bit of progress, Heledd, and I'll bring you back in. That's fine.

Gareth Davies, I thought your speech was very, very passionate, talking about Denbighshire County Council, and the performance and some of the things that are going on in your area, especially all the dog fouling in the streets. I'm sure that's something that all of us see on a day-to-day basis when we're walking around, but it yet again shows, doesn't it, that this Labour Government doesn't fund our local authorities properly. So, that's why we see dog mess everywhere, and the quality of our street scene going down.

Carolyn Thomas, yes, the standard speech was out again, it must have come from the Labour group office, about how the Welsh Government have done nothing wrong. They have been the shining lights for the past 26 years, haven't they, but 14 years of Westminster—horrible people. It's such a shame that, actually, you wouldn't criticise your own Government in Westminster for the decisions they've made to make pensioners freeze this winter [Interruption.] I'll take an intervention, yes, that's fine.

Thank you. In terms of the many times that you've mentioned the lines that have come from one side of this Chamber, is there any comprehension that, since 2010, the Welsh funding block grant has been at 2010 levels? And is there any surprise, then, that that has been handed down across Wales?

I'm not quite sure you understand economics either, because, actually, there were record levels of funding last year. And the reason I said decisions had to be made is because your party bankrupted the country.

The funding formula was also raised in the debate, which is a very key matter, and I think something that we all need to take extremely seriously is the funding formula. The Minister said there is no political interference—well, actually, the WLGA is politically led, the Welsh Government is politically led, and they're led by Labour in both camps, so, unfortunately, there is political interference in the funding formula. But we do need the funding formula to be looked at because rural authorities always get disadvantage by it, and it's always Labour-led urban councils that seem to benefit. So, we do need to see an independent review of the funding formula, and actually the political football of our funding formula taken away and reviewed independently.

Just to pick up a few Members' comments, Janet Finch-Saunders—[Interruption.] Thank you, Darren. Janet Finch-Saunders—

You will need to conclude.

Oh, I didn't realise I was out of time; I was getting a bit carried away, Llywydd. There we are—[Interruption.]

No, don't keep going.

I will conclude, then, that I would encourage everybody to support our motion today, because we're the only party on this side of the Chamber that can fix our local government system. Labour are out of time, Plaid Cymru deal in fantasy; it's only us who deal in the real world.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore defer voting.

We now move to the Plaid Cymru debate on agricultural property relief. I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move the motion.

Thank you, Llywydd. At the outset, I should declare an interest, as many of us will have to do, because I have children who are or may in the future be part of the agriculture industry.

I'm pleased to move this motion on behalf of Plaid Cymru, namely that the Senedd calls on the Welsh Government here to make representations to the UK Government to pause and reconsider the family farm tax until such a time as they have conducted a thorough consultation and an economic review on its impact on working farms in Wales. I'd like to think that this is a reasonable and pragmatic motion, simply calling for a step back to consider the impact of what's being proposed. Unlike what we've heard in the last few minutes, perhaps, I hope that this will be a motion that will attract the support of all parties, so that we as a Senedd and the Welsh Government can send a united and constructive message to the UK Government. Exactly as the Scottish Parliament has done and the Northern Ireland Assembly has done, my hope is that this afternoon the Senedd will speak with one voice on this issue.

I am disappointed with the Government's amendment. Any amendment that starts with 'Delete all' never bodes well, does it? And you're right, it is an issue that is reserved and is not devolved, but that hasn't stopped Scotland or Northern Ireland from expressing an opinion. You say that you recognise the concerns expressed by Welsh farmers—well, if you recognise them, then we have a duty to respond strongly to that.

May I just say at the outset, by the way, that this is not a motion to deter anyone from tackling those who abuse the system and who buy land in order to avoid tax? The problem with this policy is that it does not distinguish between the millionaires and the billionaires and those corporate interests and, of course, the Welsh family farms that scrape a living from the land and that are so vital to Wales from an economic, social, cultural and linguistic point of view.

I agree with what you're saying there that some people have been avoiding paying tax by buying up land, but the motion before Westminster at the moment has led to very many multinational companies, venture capitalists, insurers and so on sniffing around Wales waiting for land to come up for sale because of this, and in reality, it's those who will benefit. Would you agree with that?

Well, I would, and that's an example of how this policy is deficient and another reason why we should review and change direction.

Now, those of us who know the fragility of the economics of farming know that the UK Government’s proposals will have very far-reaching consequences for farming families. Wales isn't a nation of lavish-living millionaire farmers. Our family farms operate on tight margins and they're cash poor; many live a hand-to-mouth existence and too many are in debt, and the Welsh Government’s own farm business income statistics prove as much. Welsh farmers don’t have the capital to shoulder this additional tax burden. It'll force families to sell off land, cutting further into their livelihoods and making their farms less viable for future generations. It'll also discourage investment in farm infrastructure and innovation, which, of course, will damage Labour’s own agenda for economic growth. The policy is utterly counter-productive at a time, of course, when we need to be strengthening our food security, and not undermining it.

Now, just as concerning, of course, is the data upon which the UK Government say they base their proposal. The Treasury, as we've heard many times, haven't we, in this Chamber, estimates that only 500 UK farms a year will be affected by the changes. But we've seen countless independent third-party analyses indicating or telling us quite a different story, some of which says that at least three quarters of farms will be affected. Now, even in that huge disparity, well, there's a case there, is there not, that justifies the need to think again. That’s why Plaid Cymru’s motion calls on the UK Government to reconsider and pause their plans on the family farm tax until they've done that work, until they've conducted a thorough consultation with the sector and an economic review of the impact on our working farms.

Yes, we need to get to grips with those multi-millionaires who intentionally buy up land for tax avoidance purposes—that was a point made by the First Minister in this Chamber yesterday, and a point upon which I agree with her. But our working family farms shouldn’t be caught in the crossfire. The economic, environmental, social and cultural collateral damage of allowing that to happen is too high a price to pay. Now, inheritance tax burdens on these farms will, as I suggested earlier, force land sales, they'll disrupt food production and, just when we need to be strengthening domestic food security, they'll have the opposite effect. Reducing the number of working farms will increase our reliance on food imports, it'll push up food prices and limit investment in sustainable farming practices.

The impact of this tax, of course, won't be limited or confined to the farms themselves. We know, and we quote it regularly in this Chamber, the £9 return on investment for every £1 that goes into farming. So, this isn’t just bad news for farms, it’s bad news for the wider food sector and the wider rural economy, for jobs in the supply chain. It'll reduce local economic activity—that's the point I'm making—and, of course, it'll further weaken the social fabric of our rural areas.

I referred to the cultural impact too. We know that farms play a central role in sustaining the Welsh language. Forty-three per cent of Welsh farmers speak Welsh, and that compares to 19 per cent of the general population. So, if you undermine one of the strongholds of the Welsh language, then you are undermining the aim of your own Government to deliver a million Welsh speakers by 2050.

Now, the farming unions and many other farming groups, rural and business organisations, professional experts and the wider food chain have all pointed out the numerous, highly damaging shortcomings of this UK Government policy. Many of you will be aware of a letter that has been signed urging a change of policy, signed by over 50 major retailers, including prominent businesses, and operations and processors et cetera here in Wales. I’ve already mentioned the impact it'll have on investment and reducing farm profitability, but, of course, it risks reducing the land made available for tenancies as well, which will have a significant impact on us here in Wales, given the amount of tenanted farms that we have. The policy will undermine domestic food production and our food security, it'll end multi-generational family farms, not to mention the excruciating emotional stress that this policy is already placing on farmers and growers up and down the country.

I’m sure that Members will be aware that there are alternative proposals that have been put on the table by farming unions and others, one of which is described as the 'clawback', of course, which allows 100 per cent relief on qualifying assets but charges inheritance tax on all of those assets if they’re subsequently sold by the beneficiary within a suggested timeframe of, say, seven years. That approach would significantly reduce the number of farms needing to be broken up on the death of an owner, especially where there is a desire, as there would be in the vast majority of cases, for that farm to continue to operate as a working farm. Now, that approach also disincentivises, of course, the purchasing of agricultural land simply as a way of minimising inheritance tax liabilities. That’s why the clawback is used in a number of European countries, typically applied to farmland, buildings, machinery, livestock, and sometimes shares in family-owned agricultural businesses as well. And get this: the policy would also raise more money for the Treasury—around 7 per cent more revenue than the Treasury estimates its current proposal will actually raise.

Now, if that, in itself, is not enough of a reason to pause and re-examine the policy, then the UK Government must step in to deal with the emotional and mental health impact of the policy, especially on those who are already elderly or have an illness that means that gifting an inheritance is not a realistic option for them, as they will not likely survive the seven years needed to avoid placing this additional tax burden on the next generation. At the very least, we should be considering a longer period before introducing the policy change, or at least allow the exclusion or exemption of those who are over a certain age or who have health conditions that will shorten their lives at the time of introducing any new policy.

Harrowing testimonies have been submitted by several individuals and families about how this older generation now feels that they are a burden on the next generation. I know that that has shocked many of us here in Senedd, but we've also heard some Labour MPs in Westminster who have called for the same pause and the same re-examination of the policy that we're calling for today after the sobering experience of hearing these accounts from their constituents.

I am, therefore, urging every Member of the Senedd here to acknowledge that the policy that has been announced by the UK Government is not going to achieve what they intend, and that it is indeed going to do more harm than good. Yes, we need to tackle those who misuse the system to avoid tax—we all recognise that—but that can be done in a way that does not undermine the future of our Welsh family farms. The reasonable step, therefore, is to call on the UK Government to pause, take a step back and look again at the proposals. That's all we're asking for, and it is the least that this Senedd and the Welsh Government should do.

I have selected the one amendment to the motion. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to formally move the amendment.

Formally.

It is formally moved. Peter Fox.

Diolch, Llywydd. I refer Members to my registered interest, as I am a farmer, albeit retiring quietly. We Conservatives welcome this important debate. It follows our similar debate last November, and we will be supporting the motion. I too found it disappointing that the Government have put forward their amendment. There was no need. But I don't want to be overly political, because this subject is too important. We need to have a united front on this.

Llywydd, thousands of farmers and rural people have been making their voices heard like never before over the draconian decision to remove agricultural inheritance tax relief. Only yesterday, they marched once again in London, and some of those, I'm sure, will be here today, and I welcome our guests this afternoon. Farmers don't want to be out on the streets, with lambing and calving and field work under way, but they march and protest out of desperation—a genuine fear for the future of their families, their children and their children's children.

The UK Government decisions on this tax are flawed and lack understanding of the complexity and fragility of the farming sector. They don't recognise the profound effect the removal of agricultural relief will have on the countryside, on our food security, especially here in Wales where our country is so dependent on family farms. These businesses not only feed us and preserve our countryside, they sustain our rural communities, enabling the next generations to continue the balance of life in Wales, as they have done for hundreds of years. The removal of APR comes on top of the devastating effects of TB, the controversial sustainable farming scheme, nitrate vulnerable zones, water regulations and piles of red tape. But this decision to tax family farms and future generations of children is the last straw for some. Many feel it will be the last nail in the coffin of their farms and businesses.

On Monday I visited, with my leader, a family dairy farm with three generations working there, in their 80s, 60s and the grandson in his 30s. They were clearly fearful, and I can't capture that fear in this short contribution. They were fearful that their farm will be devastated by the inheritance tax, or possibly two inheritance taxes, if the worst happened, and it would finish their businesses. They've even stopped their ongoing infrastructure investment. They've got a building half built, but they won't continue because it will increase the value of their assets and push their liability up, and that is bad. Their situation will be mirrored all over Wales, leading to a real contraction in the industry and a contraction in food production.

Agricultural property relief was a specifically designed policy to protect family farms from being sold and broken up. For this reason APR has been retained by past Governments of all colours, who recognised how important this was. So, what has changed? Yes, farms are valuable assets, but these are not assets that will be cashed. They are entities that are retained to enable farmers to continue to farm, and, when they can no longer do that or they pass away, the asset remains to allow the next generation to continue to farm and produce food. This is a fundamental part of an ecosystem that underpins our food security, our Welsh culture, our language and all that sustains our rural communities.

Let's also be clear: average farm incomes are low, certainly nowhere near even half of what any of us get paid in this place. There's no way the average farm can generate enough money to pay inheritance tax, even if spread over 10 years. The fact is farms would have to be broken up to realise the cash to pay.

Now, there are ways that the UK Government could close the loopholes where they think people are trying to avoid inheritance tax without hitting genuine family farms, and, as Llyr has already mentioned, feasible clawback options have been put forward by the NFU, and they are sensible and feasible. The Chancellor needs to reconsider those. They could provide workable solutions.

Ironically, as I have mentioned, the removal of APR is already curbing investment on farms, investment desperately needed to make sure our farms are sustainable and can deliver what the Welsh Government wants. Removal of APR is so counterintuitive to what this Welsh Government wants to achieve. This decision also lacks compassion, as we've heard, and has to be at least reviewed to enable elderly and vulnerable farmers—

Will you take an intervention?

Please, yes, certainly.

Most of the people who inherit the farm will continue farming, and they're the ones that will be taxed. Isn't another idea that we can use the capital gains process, so, if people choose to sell the farm when they inherit it, then they get taxed through the capital gains process?

Absolutely. I think there are a set of workable solutions that could be arrived at, and the Treasury really has to grip and grasp those, and explore them out and put an end to this.

But those elderly and vulnerable farmers need to have at least time to plan for the future of their farm businesses. I implore all benches to vote for this motion unamended, and I ask the Welsh Government sincerely, and not politically, to use its influence to encourage the UK Government to think again and review this tax decision. Diolch.

Some have declared an interest already today and I will do the same—not a material interest for me, although there is a family farm in my wife's family, but in terms of my community, and my children's generation, many of whom do want to see a future in agriculture. My own son is an agriculture student, and for his peers who are the sons and daughters of farmers the decisions of the UK Government in terms of inheritance tax represent a very concerning change in terms of the kinds of assurances that exist for their future and for investments that they may choose to make in the future in their family farms. There is real concern that many will not survive or will choose not to go into this sector, which is so important to us in terms of food production, never mind the protection of our countryside.

In the general election last year we heard a great deal of talk about the change that Keir Starmer and the Labour Party were trying to deliver, and we didn't have to wait too long to see what that change meant to rural Wales; the plans around inheritance tax are a real threat to the long-term viability of family farms.

It's important, of course, to refer as a matter of context for this debate today to the fact that the agricultural industry was facing huge pressures before Rachel Reeves stood up and announced her first budget back in October. From NVZs to TB, from uncertainty about the sustainable farming scheme, the industry truly has felt under pressure, hasn't it? And, yes, there has been some progress made in some of those areas more recently, but there is still such a long way to go, and this decision by the Labour UK Government around inheritance tax truly did feel like the last straw for many. 

I'm very grateful to farmers and the agricultural unions for making the case so clearly. It's been good to welcome many here to the Senedd today, and in speaking to farmers in my own constituency of Ynys Môn and across Wales, what I've heard time and time again is that plans that families had who have been working the land diligently for decades, often for generations, are under threat, and that the hopes of those who had intended to follow in their footsteps are at stake. 

We are talking, as I said, about food security, aren't we, something that is so important in the international climate that we're currently facing, but of course that isn't the only thing at stake here. The hasty decision taken by the Labour UK Government will have a damaging and far-reaching impact across our rural communities, on the agricultural economy, as Llyr Gruffydd said, the supply chain, and on the future of society and the future of the Welsh language. The agricultural industry is the backbone of rural Wales to a very great extent, and the family farm is the beating heart of that community. 

Plaid Cymru's motion today is as simple as it could be, really, and, crucially, it's as reasonable as it could be too. In their hour of need, Welsh family farms need a Welsh Government that stands up for them and genuinely makes the case that this inheritance tax change should be delayed until its impact is honestly and carefully assessed. The discrepancy between the figures of the UK Treasury and the farming sector itself—and Welsh Government itself, for that matter—speaks volumes. Without knowing the true extent of the policy's impact, it cannot be justified. 

The decision to introduce this tax will be a heavy blow to an industry that has already been under so much pressure. Yes, we can, as Llyr said, make changes that weed out those who seek to misuse the tax system, who seek out loopholes to buy land—something that, of course, in itself undermines family farms—but the key issue here is that we must not allow measures to be put in place that jeopardise the future of the Welsh family farm. We on these Plaid Cymru benches stand with those families, and we ask the Welsh Labour Government today to stand up for them too and support our proposal.

Firstly, thank you to Plaid Cymru for securing this debate today and we will be supporting it, as you supported our debate before Christmas as well. However, it is disappointing, as has been said, that the 'delete all' amendment came forward from the Government on this. I don't think that really shows an understanding of the impact that this would have on farmers across Wales, and it rides roughshod over this Senedd in trying to gain a unified voice in standing up for one of Wales's most important industries. And I take a moment to declare an interest as well. I don't profess to be a farmer myself, I'm merely a farmer's son, and I'm proud of that and proud of each and every one of those farmers up in the gallery and those watching at home for everything that they do, come rain or shine.

We've heard quite clearly the arguments as to the impact of this policy. It's a wrong policy, it's a bad policy, it's poorly drawn up and it obviously impacts the wrong people in trying to go after those who are looking to circumnavigate paying tax. So, that shows that this policy doesn't need just reviewing; it needs scrapping. It needs starting again, and the NFU's hard work that they've put into their clawback scheme is a good opportunity to show there's an alternative way of doing this. I commend the NFU for their work around this and supporting farmers and their communities, and not just members of the NFU as well, but the wider agricultural community, alongside other farming unions as well. But what really frustrates farmers, what really grinds their gears is when they're made to look like fools. Let's take our mind back to before the election, Keir Starmer, before, said,

'You deserve a government that listens, that heeds early warnings'.

Well, isn't this an example of listening? Isn't this an example of heeding the early warnings given, that there's so much discrepancy in which figures you take as being truthful on this? He also said at the NFU conference,

'losing a farm is not like losing any other the business',

showing that agriculture is different, when it comes to the taxation elements of it, because of the impact it would have on those who work the land, the amount of hands that it's been passed through, generation upon generation. It's different to other businesses and therefore needs to be treated differently.

Steve Reed, now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said there were no plans to change agricultural property relief—no plans whatsoever. And I was there at a local hustings that NFU Cymru, the FUW and the young farmers hosted in Pembrokeshire during the general election, when the Labour candidate stood up, looked those farmers in the eye and said, 'No, there will be no changes to APR.' And I'm pleased that he's rowed back and he's now calling for a review of this. A review for me doesn't go far enough; this needs to be scrapped altogether. But I'm pleased that he's stood up and done that for his constituents, because it's the right thing to do. And it's the right thing to stand there and say, 'This does not work, because of the evidence that we've heard', and it's about time that more Members do that, and that this Welsh Government does that as well.

But what have we heard from Welsh Government and MSs on this, because we know what some of the backbenchers on the Labour benches think about agriculture? We heard it here today: one Member saying that we're all millionaires, talking about farmers. I had it two weeks ago that I need to go back to the young farmers. Another Member saying that, if you've got TB, 'Well, find another job.' That's what backbench Labour MSs think, but let's see what the frontbench think.

We've obviously pushed the Labour Government to correspond with their UK Government counterparts, and a freedom of information request has shown that there's been one letter—there may be more now, and I look to the Deputy First Minister on this. There's been one letter submitted on 28 January, and the letter requests confirmation that the UK Government and HM Treasury have engaged directly with Welsh farming unions. That's what it's asking for: it's asking to make sure that the unions are engaged, which is commendable, but doesn't give a view. It doesn't give a view of what the Welsh Labour Government is.

But we'll go, then, forward to a meeting that the First Minister had with the Chancellor—the very Chancellor who's bringing forward this policy, who's avoiding having that meeting with the NFU and other farming unions. What did the First Minister do? Did she bring that up? In a written question, I asked her, 'Did you bring that up, APR changes, inheritance tax changes, when you met with the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Wales?' The answer:

'Inheritance tax is a reserved tax and decisions about the tax and associated reliefs are a matter for the UK Government.

'The Deputy First Minister continues to raise this issue with the UK Government.'

So, the First Minister, in meeting with the Chancellor bringing forward this very policy refuses to raise the impact that this would have on Welsh farmers. That is a dereliction of duty, in the respect that she should afford all of Wales as being the First Minister of all of Wales. I don't think that's acceptable.

So, what can we do? What can we do? We can't change it here. We know that. We've heard it throughout rural affairs questions today: it's a reserved matter; it's for the UK Government, for them to change their mind. Well, yes, but we can send the message as a Senedd. We can send the message. We are agreeing with Plaid Cymru here. It would be great if the Deputy First Minister would rescind the 'delete all' amendment that's been put forward, back a unified Senedd voice, and really send the message up the M4, because this partnership in power that we've all heard so much about isn't really working for farmers, is it? Diolch.

Agriculture is one of the cornerstones of the society that I represent in Mid and West Wales, and it's important, as we've already heard, that we remember that 43 per cent of workers in the sector are Welsh speakers, the highest percentage of any industry in Wales. But more than that, as we've already heard, our family farms sustain a way of life that has existed for centuries; they sustain community life in its great diversity and, of course, make a significant contribution to the local economy. As Rhun said, these family farms are the beating heart of our rural communities.

Some weeks ago, myself and Ann Davies, the Member of Parliament for Carmarthen, had a meeting with the Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire NFU in Llandeilo, and we met a number of members who voiced great concern about this proposed policy and its impact on them. And among the members present were representatives of the younger generation, those who will be impacted most by this inheritance tax.

Cabinet Secretary, they were under great pressure, and very emotional in reporting their concerns and their fears of not being able to pay this tax. The failure to maintain the succession that is important, and that stretching back many generations. It was a heartbreaking experience to be in that meeting. You can't undervalue the emotion and the impact that this is having on farmers across Wales.

They told me what I've heard from many farms in my region over recent months, namely that this is another nail in the coffin of the agricultural sector in Wales. And it's another challenge to add to the ghastly acronyms that scare them: NVZs, SFS, TB; acronyms that strike at the heart of the concern that they feel every day. And this inheritance tax is another item on that list. And this, of course, is going to lead to forced land sales, exacerbate financial instability and undermine that succession that I talked about, and the continuation of traditions regarding how to work the land that have been nurtured over many decades.

Others, including the UK Government, have tried to underestimate the impact, saying that only a relatively small number of farms will be affected: 27 per cent, according to them. But it's worth noting that NFU Cymru's research shows that there are large gaps in the way that this has been calculated, and that it's based on old and misleading data, and that about 75 per cent of farms in Wales will truly be affected.

In a way, this is the fundamental problem, is it not, namely that we have little idea of what the implications of this policy change will be on agriculture in Wales, because no thorough economic assessment of the impact has been carried out.

Thank you. I should declare an interest because I do live on a family farm. You mentioned there the lack of assessment and that we don't know the true value of this because, of course, land value has increased significantly in recent years to over about £16,000 an acre. Implements are drawn into this, tractors worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. And if a farm has, for example, a hydro system that they've brought in, or other similar systems, all of those are factored in, which pushes the value of the farm up, but there is no cash value to that to the family at all. So, that will mean that there has been a lack of an assessment made in those terms.

Yn sicr, mae hynny'n ychwanegu at y dystiolaeth yna fod y data sy'n cael ei ddefnyddio gan y Trysorlys yn hen ddata. Mae angen asesiad cyfredol, yn ein barn ni, o effaith y polisïau yma, a'r perygl—ac asesu effaith y perygl o danseilio cynifer o'n ffermydd a'n cymunedau, ac mae angen i'r asesiad yna fod yn un mawl ac eang iawn.

Felly, i gloi, Llywydd, rwy'n hapus iawn, fel mae Plaid Cymru, yn falch o gael cefnogaeth y Torïaid hefyd yn cefnogi cynnig Llyr Huws Gruffydd prynhawn yma ar ran y Blaid, ac yn galw ar y Llywodraeth i ddefnyddio'r bartneriaeth mewn grym honedig yma sydd ganddyn nhw i bwyso ar Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Gyfunol i oedi'r dreth hyd nes y byddan nhw wedi cynnal ymgynghoriad ac adolygiad economaidd trylwyr ar ei heffaith ar ein ffermydd teuluol.

Thank you to Plaid Cymru for tabling this motion. I will be supporting it and will oppose the amendment. It's very disappointing, in my view, that the Government has tabled that amendment, because if you look at the wording in the motion that was put forward, it—

'Calls on the Welsh Government to make representations to the UK Government that they reconsider and pause the family farm tax until such a time as they have conducted a thorough consultation and economic review of its impact on working farms.'

It is just asking for a pause and consultation. Now, that doesn't seem very much to ask for.

I thought the sustainable farming scheme was bad when I saw its effects on farmers, and its 17 universal actions demanded, which were compulsory for farmers. I thought, within that, that the demand that there were 10 per cent trees was bad enough, and I saw the effect that that had on farmers. But there's been nothing as bad as what I've seen in the last few months with the threat of the introduction of the family farm tax in terms of its effect on farmers and their families.

Families are genuinely worried about their futures. Young people are concerned about whether they can carry on. This policy—and I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating—discriminates against the widowed, the widower, the terminally ill and the older farmers. It's very clear that that is not the way we should act here in Wales. Farmers and their families are frozen in fear. They don't know what's happening in the future. There is no investment happening in any farm equipment, in anything in farms. They are literally just waiting. 

I'm keen to know from the Cabinet Secretary the reasons in his view that this Labour Government introduced this policy, because, earlier this afternoon, he said in response to an issue that was raised around the family farm tax,

'one thing we can't walk away from is the hole that confronted the Chancellor when she walked in, and that's the tragedy of this, is going into Government and finding that there are things costed there that were not actually paid for, that the funds were not committed to, and that was in the region of £20 billion. Now, on that basis, difficult decisions have to be put forward by a responsible Chancellor to fill that hole and go forward.'

That's what you said earlier, Cabinet Secretary. So, I'm interested to know, is it about money, or is it about a fairer approach to—and we've all recognised and accepted this—those millionaires who actually buy farms for greenwashing?

I'm sorry to say that what I've seen so far in the Labour Government in London is they're picking on the little people. They pick on older people with the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance; they pick on families with three children or more by not scrapping the two-child benefit; they pick on businesses, farmers, charities, by increasing the national insurance limit; they pick on WASPI women by not compensating them; and, now, they're picking on farmers.

Going back to what the Labour Government needs to think about if it is about funding—and I really would like a direct answer to that question—there's lots that the Labour Government in London could be doing in order to fill the pockets after this £20 billion hole. They could be actually taxing our big banks; they could be increasing remote gaming duty; they could be raising tax on digital services or on social media companies and other tech giants. There's a whole host of things they could be doing rather than trying to get the money from our family farms.

So, to finish, I want to join with those across the Siambr in calling on the Welsh Government to make representations to the UK Government that they, as we've said, pause and consider this family farm tax. That's all we're asking for. That's not unreasonable. We want the Welsh Government to stand up for little people. We want the Welsh Government to stand up for our family farms. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'd like to refer Members to my register of interests, and also declare a relatable interest in that I've got farming family and friends, and I, from time to time, do a bit of farming whenever I've got time.

This isn't just a tax debate today; this is a debate about the very survival of family farms, the backbone of Wales's economy, our culture and our way of life. And it's a way of life that I love, and one of the reasons why I'm here. The UK Government's decision to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026 is one of the most devastating blows to Welsh farming in recent memory. If these changes go ahead, the consequences will be catastrophic: farms will be forced to sell off land, families will be burdened with unsustainable tax bills, and the very future of Welsh food production will be put at risk.

And let's be clear, APR is not a loophole. It was introduced in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 to protect family farms from being broken up by unfair tax burdens. This relief has been upheld by governments of all political persuasions for a number of years because they recognise the unique nature of farming to produce food, to protect food security in this nation. Farms are not like any other business. They are long-term, intergenerational businesses. They operate on razor-thin margins whilst feeding our country. The UK Government claim that only 27 per cent of farms will be affected by this policy. But let's be honest, this figure is completely outdated and misleading. NFU Cymru's research, backed by economists from the Office for Budget Responsibility, shows that a staggering 75 per cent of commercial family farms in Wales will be hit by this tax. Why? Because the value of farms has risen sharply, while profits have remained dangerously low within the industry. According to Aberystwyth University's farm business survey, the average net worth of a farm in Wales is already over £1,000,000. That means most farms will now fall into the Chancellor's new tax trap. Yet, just because a farm has high asset values doesn't mean that those working in that farm are rich or millionaires. It's quite the opposite—many of them are struggling to survive on very, very basic incomes. These farmers do not have cash reserves to pay huge inheritance tax bills. They'll have no choice but to sell land, take on debt or shut down completely. And let's not forget that 40 per cent of Welsh farms rely on both APR and BPR to stay afloat. By capping relief across both schemes, the UK Government is double taxing our family farms. It's not fairness—it's a direct attack on our farmers and our rural way of life.

But this damaging policy won't just stop at the farm gate, Llywydd. The collapse of family farms across Wales will have huge impacts on our economy. The farming industry underpins a £9.3 billion Welsh food and drink sector, which employs almost 230,000 people. That's 17 per cent of Wales's total workforce, and the farming sector in Wales purchases £1.5 billion-worth of goods and services every year, supporting thousands of local businesses across Wales. It's staggering that the Treasury has chosen to ignore these figures and the repeated warnings from the industry about these changes.

When the sector was challenged by the Chancellor to produce an alternative, it did. NFU put forward a clawback proposal that would raise revenue for the UK Government, stop tax avoidance by non-farming landowners, and protect working family farms from unfair tax burdens. Yet, when our farming leaders, who are with us today, met with the Treasury on 18 February, these proposals were not even considered by the UK Government. The UK Government has built this policy on outdated claims and data that does not exist, because it doesn't take account of rising land values, inflation and the economic realities of farming. It has ignored the industry's warnings, dismissed expert research and refused to listen to those who know farming best. Make no mistake, if this policy goes ahead, the consequences will be devastating: 6,000 family farms across Wales will be lost, more food will be imported from abroad, increasing food prices, fewer young people entering farming and accelerating rural decline.

So, I urge Members in the Senedd today, regardless of party, to stand up for Welsh farming, and this Welsh Government must take immediate steps to engage with the UK Government to rethink this policy and get it scrapped altogether. We must send a clear and united message: Welsh farmers are not disposable assets, they are the lifeblood of our nation. And I want to say to farmers when I leave this place, I want to look at them clearly in the eye and say, 'I supported you and I did my best for you', and all Members in this Chamber will have the opportunity to do that today by backing this motion. We must fight for our farmers. We must fight for our future, because, as the saying goes, with no farmers, there's no food.

As many contributors have mentioned, the family farm is the backbone of the rural economy. The family farm also plays a crucial role—crucial role—in sustaining the Welsh language as a community language and sustaining our rich culture.

I believe that the Plaid Cymru motion is entirely sensible, reasonable and practical. The motion calls for a pause to the changes to the family farm tax until two things have happened, and two things that are entirely fair and reasonable: first, that there should be a consultation with the sector—consultation is a central part of policy making in this place, but not this time, it would appear, and I can't understand why—and secondly, that there should be a thorough economic review of the impact on working farms.

It is important that we base all policy decisions on clear evidence. That's what we often hear from the Government. So, I would like to know why the Government doesn't believe that we need a review to know exactly what the impacts of these taxation changes would be. The Treasury says one thing, but research from others has told a very different story and says that 75 per cent of family farms would be impacted in a negative way. Surely, we must have the full picture through having a thorough review before we go down a path that could be so destructive to rural Wales and the Welsh language.

Family farms area stronghold for the Welsh language. We've heard this afternoon that 43 per cent—43 per cent—of the sector are Welsh speaking, and the negative impact of the change to agricultural property relief would lead to a totally disproportionate impact on the Welsh language. How that makes sense in light of the million Welsh speaker strategy, I simply couldn't tell you. It is simple: if future farmers are forced out of the industry, there will be fewer Welsh-speaking families.

We must celebrate the special role of the Wales Young Farmers Clubs movement in promoting and supporting the use of the Welsh language. There are over 130 clubs across rural Wales, with over 8,000 members, and over 60 per cent of those—60 per cent of them—are Welsh speaking. But with the family farm under threat, there is a very real risk that our young farmers will be forced out of the sector, and this important organisation, which brings them all together and does so much for the Welsh language and our culture, will decline and even disappear. So, I return to the issue of common sense: it is a motion calling for entirely rational and reasonable steps—a pause, consultation and a full economic review. I don't see that there is anything in this motion that everyone in this Chamber couldn't and shouldn't support this afternoon. Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to contribute to the debate—Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on the important issue of inheritance tax and agriculture today. As everyone knows, this is a reserved matter for the UK Government. However, within our devolved powers and in co-operation with farmers, there is a lot that we can do to ensure a prosperous future for farming in Wales. Family farms are at the heart of rural communities in Wales, and they play a vital role in our economy and in food production. As stewards of our land, they are also the front-line defenders in safeguarding and recovering nature and tackling the climate emergency.

With regard to the motion today, it is very clear—crystal clear—that the new UK Government, when they arrived in Downing Street, had some really serious, difficult choices to make, due to, I've got to say, something that hasn't really been touched on today, the catastrophic financial situation that they inherited, as has been remarked upon. [Interruption.] To walk in and find—I will not take an intervention at this point—that you have a £20 billion black hole that you have left an incoming Government with, that you’ve left the taxpayers of the UK with as well, and that public services and investment that was committed had not actually—[Interruption.]—no, I will not at this point—been funded, that the money had not been put forward, is a disastrous situation to land this country in. And this meant it was clear that the Government coming in had difficult decisions that they had not anticipated they would have to make. We’ve heard no apology today for that whatsoever.

It is also clear, I have to say as well, that the proposed changes to agricultural inheritance tax have raised significant concerns, as we’ve heard today, among our farming communities. And my thanks, by the way, to the leadership of NFU Cymru and FUW for regularly meeting with me on this very issue and outlining those concerns and their ideas. It is therefore imperative that we address these concerns with clarity, with empathy and with a shared commitment to safeguarding the future of Welsh farming.

Now, I’ve heard and I’ve listened to the very real concerns of our farming community. Many farmers directly have shared and met with me and shared their worries about passing on their farms to their children, reflecting a widespread anxiety amongst our rural areas. So, that is why I have made and will continue to make strong representations to the UK Government about the need to understand and to respond to the specific concerns of our Welsh farmers. Indeed, I made this case in person in Whitehall only as recently as last week. I have to say as well, my officials in Welsh Government have also been representing these concerns to their UK Government counterparts. I will give away.

Thank you. I’m very grateful to you for giving way there. I referenced a letter that you wrote in my contribution. Would you publish the letter, then, rather than just the outline from the freedom of information request, and all subsequent ones?

Yes. Can I thank you for that, Sam? Because I know that, over the last few days, the Conservative front benches as well as others have been referencing that single letter, which ignores the discussions that we’ve had in bilaterals, on the inter-ministerial groups as well, and other discussions that we’ve had frequently, both at official level and ministerial level. So, the idea that I have not been making those representations is a fallacy, just to be clear.

So, as a result of these efforts, plus I have to support the work of the unions and of the Wales Office too, DEFRA and HM Treasury met face to face with the Welsh farming unions on 18 February. We are all very aware that the unions were not satisfied with the outcome of the meeting, but I would encourage the unions to continue to engage constructively with the Treasury and other UK Ministers, and we continue to stand ready to help open those doors for those discussions. [Interruption.] Not for the moment. Let me make a bit more progress, James.

We are committed to supporting our farmers in advocating on their behalf, whilst concentrating, Llywydd, on the areas where we have direct responsibility. Now, in line with this commitment, Farming Connect has held a series of workshops right across Wales, attended to date by nearly 1,500 farmers, to help them understand and to respond to the implications of the inheritance tax changes. These workshops are just one example of how we’re providing really practical support to our farming communities.

And it’s because we value the contribution of our farmers that it is our Welsh Government budget that protected the basic payment scheme, valued at £238 million, for 2025. That has given the financial stability for farm businesses that, I have to say, wasn’t being seen in the last few years across the border. It’s ensured that financial stability for farm businesses. In fact, the budget delivers a total of over £350 million in agricultural support from this Welsh Government. This was not, I have to say, an easy decision, let me make it crystal clear, given the budgetary pressures that we face across all areas, but it was the choice we are proud to make. It clearly demonstrates the support of this Government for farmers. I will give way, but there’s probably going to be a limit to the number of interventions I can take.

Thanks, I appreciate that. My understanding is that, currently, Farming Connect are having to go out to consultation to discuss with farmers, because farmers are already preparing for this, at a cost of maybe up to £5,000 a consultation. So, this is costing your Government in order to consult and discuss with farmers. Is that figure correct for how much this is actually costing your Government now?

I can’t give you the actual figure, but it is a cost to—. Sorry, it’s a cost that we are taking on within Farming Connect. It’s the sort of service we should be providing with the Welsh Government, and we’re proud to, and we are proud to steer Farming Connect to do that.

I also have to commend as well the work of both of the unions as well, who are also providing advice to farmers. And it is important, in the concerns that have been expressed, that farmers do know, and their families know, where they can go for support as well, either from the unions, or from their own advisers, or from Farming Connect as well, so that they can work through the details.

It's also, by the way, why our ambition for the sustainable farming scheme remains steadfast—the things we can do here in Wales. This scheme is designed to support a sustainable and a productive agricultural industry in Wales, whilst also addressing climate change and nature commitments. We have made significant progress through collaboration with our stakeholders, and we'll continue to refine the scheme to meet the needs of farmers and the environment. And so, for example, as it was mentioned earlier on, we've reduced the overall number of universal actions from 17 to 12 based on feedback from the farming community—[Interruption.] Let me make a bit more progress, please. These actions are designed to be practical and achievable, reflecting the day-to-day realities of farming in Wales. And this approach that we are taking here in Wales on SFS highlights that we, as a Government, and how I personally, always endeavour to work through dialogue, through collaboration and through bringing people together. So, I strongly urge the farming unions to continue the active engagement with HM Treasury and UK Government.

Last week the UK Government opened a technical consultation seeking views on aspects of the application of the £1 million allowance for properties settled into trust qualifying for 100 per cent APR or business property relief. Now, I recognise that this focus of this consultation doesn't address the substantive concerns of the farming communities, but they need to be heard in that. It remains a crucial opportunity for voices to be heard and to shape the implementation of these changes. That continued participation is vital in ensuring that the unique challenges faced by Welsh farmers, and the characteristics of Welsh farming, those small and medium-scale farms, are fully understood and fully considered. I will give way.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The NFU put forward a clawback proposal to His Majesty's Treasury. You've encouraged the farming unions to keep in dialogue with the Treasury. I'm just interested in the Welsh Government's view on that clawback proposal, and what conversations you've had in bilateral meetings with your counterparts in the UK Government on it? Do you agree with that clawback proposal as an alternative to what the UK Government has put forward?

My ask of the UK Government, in my discussions with the UK Government, DEFRA Ministers and in other representations wider across Whitehall is that they listen to all of the suggestions and the ideas and that they engage with them. [Interruption.] Sorry, I don't know where the cacophony is coming from. [Interruption.] I'll continue; I've taken a number of interventions.

Ignore the other voices.

Diolch, Llywydd. I absolutely understand that the proposed changes to inheritance tax present challenges and concerns for many. Welsh Government, for its part, is fully committed to ensuring that the concerns of our farmers are heard, responded to, addressed and considered. We will continue to actively engage with the UK Government and farming unions on this matter. I've also written to the UK Government to highlight the work that we are doing here to ensure the future of sustainable farming in Wales, and to stress the importance of actions in delivering these outcomes here in Wales, because, as people have commented, if we get this scheme right, then it could be by far the best scheme throughout the UK for this and for future generations of farming. 

So, let us focus on a constructive dialogue and practical support for our farming communities. Together, we can actually influence these changes and ensure a prosperous future for family farms in Wales. Our farmers are resilient, innovative and committed to their craft. We have committed to maintain support and our co-operative approach in the future. Thank you very much.

Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate.

May I sincerely thank everyone who has contributed to the debate?

Thank you to all who've contributed to this debate. As we've been reminded by many contributors, there is a lot of uncertainty and concern facing the sector. It feels very often like a sector under siege these days. But this proposal on inheritance tax goes deeper. It really does go deeper, because despite all the day-to-day challenges, struggling to carry on as many do, the one thing you cling on to is your ability to pass your farm on to the next generation, to give your children a livelihood, to give them an opportunity to carry on with the work of a farmer, for them to pass it on.

Despite  everyone and everything, the farm is still there. And that's the assurance that every farming family wants, and that's the reassurance that our society wants, the assurance that there is greater food security, as Rhun ap Iorwerth said, that there is a backbone to the rural economy, that there is support for the supply chain, that there is a social, linguistic, cultural life to be had. We heard from Siân about the contribution of young farmers. The family farm, as described, is the heartbeat that holds all of this together.

And you're right, Sam, Steve Reed promised not to introduce this policy, and the UK Government introduced it in their very first budget.

Now, it's been a heartbreaking experience to hear people talking about their own experiences.

And Jane, I think you're right that people feel discriminated against. The elderly, the terminally ill, the widows and widowers. And you mentioned picking on little people; well, you know, farmers aren't little people, are they? They feed us. They're in the front line of the fight against climate change. They have so much to contribute in that respect. James reminded us as well of the fact that they underpin the near £10 billion food sector we have in Wales, the near quarter of a million jobs that are dependent on them. But many, of course, won't realise that they're not little people until it's too late. That's the risk.

But it's good to see that you also, Deputy First Minister, recognise this. Yes, the UK Government did inherit challenges and, yes, they have had to make and no doubt will still have to make difficult decisions. But you have to accept that this proposal doesn't achieve its intended outcome. You say you're willing to advocate on farmers' behalf in areas where you have responsibility. Well, you will have responsibility when it comes to picking up the pieces from the damage that this policy causes: economic damage, environmental damage, social damage, cultural damage, and you'll be there picking up the pieces. The Scottish Government has made a strong stand on this. The Northern Ireland Government, they've also made a strong statement. Why not Wales? All we ask—all we ask in our debate this afternoon, is that you urge the UK Government to do exactly what you've done with the sustainable farming scheme: pause and review. There's no shame in accepting that you need time to look at something again and to get it right. That's all we're asking.

So, I urge you, Deputy First Minister, and other Members, not to object to our motion. Let's speak as a Senedd with one voice on this, and I urge all Members to support Plaid Cymru's motion this evening. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore I will defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time. The first vote today is on the Welsh Conservatives debate on local government finance. I call for a vote first on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 37 against. The motion is not agreed. 

Amendment 1 will be next, and if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote, therefore, on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, 40 against, therefore that amendment is not agreed. 

I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 25 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed. 

And the final vote on this item is a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 25 against. Therefore the motion as amended is agreed. 

The next votes are on the Plaid Cymru debate on agricultural property relief. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 26 against. Therefore the motion is not agreed. 

Amendment 1 will be next, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 25 against. Therefore the amendment is agreed. 

The final vote is on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, 11 abstentions, 14 against. Therefore the motion as amended is agreed. 

That's the end of voting for today.

We will move on now to the short debate and this short debate this afternoon is brought forward by Hannah Blythyn. 

And you can start your short debate once Members have—some of them have—quietly left the Chamber. Hannah Blythyn.

Diolch, Llywydd. At the outset, I'd like to say I've given a minute of my time to Jenny Rathbone, Sioned Williams and Joyce Watson.

Time and time again, we have stood and spoken in this Siambr to condemn sexual harassment in our communities, in our workplaces and in our country. We've signed up to campaigns, we've supported policies and we've taken part in events. Welsh Government has rightly legislated, set up working groups and worked together with trade unions and other partners on implementation. But sexual harassment at large in society remains, sadly, endemic, and we've had to repeatedly respond to systemic issues of sexual harassment within workplaces and across services in Wales. 

Yes, we have a duty to call out, but to merely condemn is not enough. A corporate commitment or policy position is welcome, but is no substitution for widespread cultural change. And we have to not be afraid to hold individuals and institutions to account on any hypocrisy: for example, to advocate or be an ambassador for something like the White Ribbon campaign when his own or organisational actions fall far short. 

Today's short debate will set out what sexual harassment in the workplace is, some of the protections currently in place, and, hopefully, serve in some way as a call to do and to be better. But, as someone who became a politician because I was an activist, I want to try and set out some practical steps and suggestions for how we can meaningfully move from talking to tackling sexual harassment at work. Sexual harassment is conduct that is unwanted, meaning that it is unwelcome or uninvited behaviour and the person carrying it out doesn't have the consent or permission to do so from the person that experiences it. Workplace sexual harassment also relates to violations of a professional space, and so can extend beyond the feelings of an individual victim. There is also sex-based harassment—unwanted contact that focuses on sex or gender. 

No one person experiences harassment in the same way as another, but what is a common factor is that it is rooted in power and is often an exploitation of power imbalance. Ultimately, sexual harassment is a disgusting display of power that intimidates, coerces or degrades another person, and, from a worker's perspective, it could be someone that is high profile or influential in the context of that workplace or working environment. And in a political environment such as our own, that power imbalance is absolutely and acutely amplified. On that note, whilst I am contributing today in my capacity as MS for Delyn, I do want, as Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, to place on record my commitment to strengthen the processes we have in place for dealing with sexual harassment so as to improve confidence and support in our Senedd and all who work within it.

Workplace sexual harassment can manifest in different ways: it can be physical, face-to-face, or in digital form, such as WhatsApp messages or posts on social media platforms. So, let's be clear—

Sorry, Hannah—sorry to interrupt. Can the members of the gallery please leave quietly? Thank you. Hannah Blythyn.

Diolch. Let's be clear, sexual harassment in the workplace does not exist in isolation—it's merely a microcosm and part of a societal misogyny that has for too long and too often been normalised. But it cannot ever be considered low level, because, for those on the receiving end, it can cause severe trauma and be life changing.

In October 2023, the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act was passed in the UK Parliament and introduced a preventative duty on employers to require them to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. It includes the ability for compensation in sexual harassment claims to be increased, and it also gives the Equality and Human Rights Commission power to take enforcement action where there's evidence of an organisation failing to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. Whilst this is to be welcomed—and I would expect the public sector in Wales to take full account of this in social partnership—the Act does not go far enough. It does not include cover for third-party harassment, nor does it actually tackle sexual harassment.

So, how can we strengthen protections to tackle sexual harassment in workplaces in Wales? Policies on prevention are not enough on their own. More needs to be done to actually tackle sexual harassment through an all-Wales sexual harassment policy and approach across the entirety of the public sector, one that has zero tolerance central to tackling this blight on our society, and to ensure that workplaces have comprehensive support frameworks and processes that victims of sexual harassment can finally have confidence in. This should include access to counselling services, legal assistance and confidential reporting mechanisms. Welsh Government could explore how to use public procurement and the power of the public purse for the private sector in Wales to also adapt to these practices; an all-Wales whistleblowing facility that has appropriate resources, expertise and transparency of process and outcome; a hard-hitting public campaign, aimed at making sexual harassment in the workplace as taboo as drink driving and that helps consign such behaviours to the dustbin of history; and exploring how devolved powers such as planning and licensing could be used to better protect people from sexual harassment in particular workplaces—for example, in hospitality. This should take into account the ask of Unite the Union's 'Get ME home safely' campaign. We should also recognise that the experience of those from marginalised communities of sexual harassment is often more severe, with more complex barriers to reporting and accessing therapy or support. This is something that this institution and our own organisations will need to address alongside the commitment to a more diverse Senedd.

Beyond Wales, employment legislation could be amended or introduced to strengthen obligations on dealing with sexual harassment for both employers and employees. There could also be guaranteed facility time for trade union equality reps and members who want to take sexual harassment training and for reps who want to represent workers in cases of sexual harassment. I believe also there is merit in working together to explore the potential of a separate tribunal process for cases of sexual harassment, one that recognises the need for sensitivity and appropriate expertise. Tribunals are currently costly, which acts as an added deterrent. This needs reviewing, because it cannot be the case that wealth wins in this respect.

Access to employment tribunals can be out of reach for most individuals, and it's through trade unions that justice in this way for many can be accessed. It's the role of trade unions to stand up for workers, and they play a pivotal role in ensuring that workers can do their jobs safely, free from harassment, in a fair and supportive environment. Union reps are often the first person to receive disclosures of sexual harassment, and trade unions, in the spirit of meaningful social partnership, should absolutely be central to shaping the actions to tackle sexual harassment in the workplace. Workers are experts by experience and best placed to shape improvements where they work. All union reps should receive training on how to support and represent members in cases of sexual harassment and all members are expected to work against a culture that allows sexual harassment.

I said at the outset that what happens in a workplace is not in isolation from wider society. And, like any workplaces, trade unions are not immune. We only have to look at the more recent headlines of challenges within organisations like the TSSA, and at the GMB, which saw the commission of the Monaghan report and further review. That said, though, individual trade unions across the country are stepping up the ante when it comes to stamping out sexual harassment, whether that is through campaigns, action plans, or a zero-tolerance approach. I want to pay particular tribute to Rhianydd Williams of the Wales Trades Union Congress who's developed the Wales TUC toolkit for tackling sexual harassment in the workplace and is leading the way in bringing a range of workplaces on board. This toolkit should be adopted and implemented by every workplace in Wales.

However, the stark reality of life is that much of the evidence and experience of women makes it clear that no workplace is immune from sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour, myself included. I won't use the term 'low level', because I dismissed it at the start, but, in the grand scheme, it is relatively benign, but telling in its example. Very many years ago now, when I was a young and enthusiastic activist, I went to one of my first big conferences. I was at one of those evening events we'd all be familiar with, with some warm white wine on offer. I was introduced to somebody who was then very senior in the trade union movement. They looked me up and down and said, 'Oh, if I was 20 years younger.' At the time, I was so fresh to the scene that I didn't know who they were, so I replied with, 'If you were 20 years younger, you still wouldn't have a chance.' The issue then was that person walked away, but the people around me actually said to me, 'I can't believe you said that to him.' Unfortunately, there are examples I could lean on since I've stood for election or that have been locked deep in my brain for decades. But I shared what I have today simply because I think it demonstrates that real challenge of cultural change, power dynamics, and the attitudes of so-called bystanders, particularly in some of the more politically charged settings. It wasn't just the inappropriate comments of that very senior official, but the reaction of others to me.

So, in coming to a close, it's important to reflect on our own and others' attitudes, as well as action or inaction. That's why any approach to tackling such harassment in a work setting is both about prevention and having proper, independent and trusted processes in place, but also, I believe, should incorporate the accountability of bystanders and their behaviours. To stand by or to not have proper processes in place, or, worse, to suppress or to cover up behaviours, is certainly not the right thing to do by the individual who's been on the receiving end, but neither is it in the interests of an institution. It does not protect the reputation of that institution—quite the opposite. We should also reflect on and call out where there has been knowledge of an individual or individuals' inappropriate behaviour and it's been used as some form of leverage, politically or otherwise, as a means of exerting some sort of control.

Saturday will mark International Women's Day, and the theme this year is 'accelerate action', so let's do just that and accelerate action to tackle sexual harassment in the workplace: a little less conversation, a little more action please.

I represent a constituency that includes the whole of the city centre, and, obviously, there's a huge number of entertainment venues where, unfortunately, sexual harassment is an everyday occurrence. Exploitation of women continues to be a major issue. The new south Wales police and crime commissioner has considerable experience in combating violence against women, but much work remains to be done by the organisations that make money out of the night-time economy. On New Year's Day 2024, one of my constituents was attacked in a nightclub, allegedly because she'd rebuffed unwanted sexual advances from an individual she did not know. She had to be taken to A&E to deal with the injuries she suffered from a broken bottle. But, unfortunately, neither the CCTV footage nor the lack of any witnesses, anybody prepared to come forward and explain what had happened, meant that the Crown Prosecution Service refused to go ahead with any prosecution. It is unfortunate that people like doormen, who are employed to keep people safe in these venues, are not alert to what is potentially going on and prepared to give evidence to ensure that people find this activity to be impossible to carry out in these entertainment venues. It clearly requires additional training for both permanent staff and temporary staff such as bouncers to ensure that all staff are aware of and alert to sexual harassment and coercion like spiking, which is another major issue that occurs, and the appropriate steps need to be taken so that everybody can enjoy going out in the evening without fear of sexual harassment.

I want to thank Hannah Blythyn for bringing this important debate to the Senedd, and I really want to endorse the point she's raised in relation to the need for more urgent action as regards tackling sexual harassment in the workplace to mark International Women's Day. The women's caucus co-hosted a wonderful event at lunch time today, 'Inspire Her in the Senedd', with Elect Her. And it was great to speak with so many young women who are interested in politics; some of them from my former school, Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni. And always in the back of my mind at those events, when I'm encouraging women and urging women to get involved, to campaign, to become activists, to stand for office, is that we also need to do that work to make this Senedd a fit and safe workplace for them. And it's easier perhaps for us to do that first piece of work without doing that essential second piece of work as well.

So, I'd like to know from the Minister what particularly can be done by the Government, in the context of Senedd expansion and the Government guidance that will be issued to parties, to encourage more women to stand, to achieve this. Because it is a workplace like no other. Members are employers, not employees. It's quite difficult sometimes to know—. When you're an employee and you're a member of a union, you can go to your rep; it's not quite the same. Many of us are members of different unions—legacy unions, if you will, many of them from our former professions. We know that something needs to be done about standards; you referenced your role as the Chair of the standards committee, and we know work is ongoing there. Again, I think that that needs to be accelerated. Because that power imbalance you talked of, which plays such a huge role in sexual harassment, of course, is very much present in this place and in politics. So, I'd like to have some answers specifically perhaps around that as we look forward to welcoming a lot more women into this place, but it has to be a workplace fit for them.

I want to thank Hannah Blythyn for bringing forward what is a hugely important topic to debate here in the Chamber.

We've heard that sexual harassment in the workplace is far too common and underreported. Many victims believe that reporting it will either make the problem worse or it will be completely ignored. I strongly believe that everyone—both women and men—should feel safe at work, and that sexual harassment in the workplace is completely unacceptable.

That is why, in early spring 2023, I agreed to host an event where the Trades Union Congress launched their sexual harassment toolkit. And one of the aims of that toolkit is to provide—and you've mentioned it, Hannah—union reps with information that they can use to tackle sexual harassment in the workplace, and also, more importantly, to stop it happening in the first place, which was referenced just now.

So, it's about changing the culture around sexual harassment and abuse, it's about calling it out and it's about encouraging people to report it. But it's also about protecting those people who do call it out, otherwise you will never change the culture in the first place. So, that toolkit is useful in as much as it lets people understand their obligations and also to do something around the framework in the workplace. But my call today will be to protect the whistleblower in the workplace as well. Because unless they know they're protected, they're not going to call it out, which is ultimately what they would want to do.

I now call on the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership to reply to the debate. Jack Sargeant.

Diolch yn fawr, acting Llywydd. Can I start my contribution in responding to today's important debate by thanking Hannah Blythyn, not just for bringing forward the debate, but also for sharing the truly unacceptable experience that the Member endured in her previous employment, and also for the work that Hannah Blythyn will lead as the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee in this Senedd? And I'm right in saying that the Welsh Government looks forward to receiving the recommendations from that committee and to responding to some of the challenges, but also the opportunities that Senedd expansion will offer us in trying to address the issues we've heard this evening.

I'm grateful for the contributions from Jenny Rathbone, from Sioned Williams and from Joyce Watson during this debate. Our ongoing efforts to tackle sexual harassment in workplaces across Wales are incredibly important. Tackling workplace sexual harassment requires, firstly, a strong legislative framework; secondly, a clear vision and strategy; and thirdly, as Hannah Blythyn mentioned, cultural and behavioural change. I want to try and address those factors in my response this afternoon.

The UK worker protection Act, as previously mentioned in this debate, which came into force in October, places a proactive duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of employees during their employment. It also makes provision for compensation uplifts to be awarded by employment tribunals when an employer has failed to fulfil its duties, and it provides the Equality and Human Rights Commission with the authority to investigate and enforce compliance with the new duties.

The Act is a significant step forward in strengthening the legislative framework. However, I am delighted that it will be strengthened further by the Employment Rights Bill, which is currently moving through its parliamentary stages in Westminster. The Bill will strengthen the provisions in the worker protection Act by extending the proactive duty on employers so that they are required to take all reasonable steps. It will also extend liability to employers in cases where staff are harassed by third parties, for example, by customers or clients, in the course of their employment.

And it's really important that we play our part in ensuring employers are aware of these duties, and that workers know the protection they have in law. It's why we have raised awareness of the Act and the guidance available on our Business Wales website. It's why we have worked with partners, including through our workplace rights and responsibilities forum and the workforce partnership council, to raise awareness of the guidance produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. And it's why we take the opportunities to amplify the excellent TUC Cymru toolkit, which has been referred to by Members already. I had the privilege of being at the launch of the toolkit back in 2023 with Joyce Watson and the Cabinet Secretary, Jane Hutt. The information and the package of resources on tackling and preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, we should encourage all workplaces to seek that guidance.

We have always been very clear about our commitment, our vision and strategy for ending violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and sexual violence. We have strengthened the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence strategy. It now includes a specific workstream on workplace harassment. This aims to provide the expertise and innovative approaches to ensure workplaces are free from harassment for workers, and that employers have the tools, the skills and the processes to be part of a whole-society change we all want to see. As part of the workplace harassment workstream we have strengthened our understanding and evidence base. This has included commissioned research on the experiences of black, Asian and minority ethnic women regarding workplace sexual harassment.

We are engaging public sector leaders and key partners directly through a series of workplace sexual harassment conferences. The conferences are organised in social partnership through the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence blueprint's workplace harassment workstream. The most recent of those conferences was held in January in Wrexham and was hosted by Shavanah Taj from TUC Cymru. The conferences bring together leaders of the public sector organisations, our trade union leaders and representatives, all dedicated to addressing the pervasive and unacceptable issue of workplace sexual harassment within the public sector in Wales.

We've have also continued to invest in the bystander intervention training initiative, which offers free training that is available to a range of organisations, including workplaces, responding directly to Jenny Rathbone’s queries as to where people can go to not be a bystander.

We recognise that where we are now is not where we need to be. We have seen too many shocking and unacceptable examples of sexual harassment at work, including in some devolved public sector bodies. Let me be clear: there is no room for sexual harassment in workplaces or anywhere else in Wales. This is a critical issue that affects the well-being and safety of our workforce, and we are committed to working with partners to create a work environment where everyone feels safe and respected.

We will continue to work tirelessly to accelerate our action to address and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace across Wales, including considering the points raised by the Member who led the debate, and the Members who contributed to this evening’s debate. Together with our partners, we can make a difference. We can ensure that workplaces are free from the scourge of harassment, and we will all endeavour to do so. Diolch.

Thank you, Minister. And that brings today's proceedings to a close.