Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Llywydd, our current priority in the near term is to ensure that the present funding formula works as well as it can do for Wales. More fundamental reform will require the agreement of all four nations of the United Kingdom to a new fiscal framework and an independent oversight body.

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for that. I'm sure he agrees with me that the Barnett formula is no longer fit for purpose, and it also ensures that Wales does not get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to the distribution of funding across the United Kingdom. But, this afternoon, could the Cabinet Secretary confirm that the UK Government has decided to use Barnett consequentials as a means of distributing funds to compensate the Welsh Government for the employers' national insurance rise? Will he also confirm that this breaks the agreement between Governments in the United Kingdom that where one Government takes a decision that has a negative financial impact on another Government, they should provide the costs in full? And will he further confirm that this change to the established process could cost Wales £65 million?

Llywydd, thank you to Alun Davies for those further questions. In agreeing with him that the Barnett formula is not fit for purpose, of course, we are both agreeing with Joel Barnett, who, many, many times, said that the formula that he had devised in particular circumstances in the 1970s was no longer fit to discharge the heavy burden that it has borne since then.

Turning to the specific questions that the Member has raised, I can confirm that the UK Government has decided to distribute the assistance that will go to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in fulfilment of the Chancellor's promise that public sector employees would have the costs of national insurance increases met, and that the Chancellor has decided to use the Barnett formula for that purpose. I think that she is wrong to do that, and I have said so in direct terms to the Chief Secretary of the Treasury when he was here for the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee at the end of February, as did the finance Ministers for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

I've taken the precaution, Llywydd, wondering if this issue might come up today, of bringing with me the statement of funding policy—all 92 pages of it. And paragraph 10 on page 13 says, I think, very clearly that when decisions are taken by any of the administrations that lead to additional costs for any of the other administrations, the body whose decision leads to the additional cost will meet that cost. Well, that suggests to me that, when the UK Government made its decision, it should reimburse Welsh public services for the actual costs of the increase in national insurance contributions, not a Barnett share of the costs in England. The result is, as the Member says, that we are now—and it could be as much as—£65 million short of what we estimate that public services in Wales, within the Chancellor's own definition, will have to pay. We continue to be in discussions, of course, with the Treasury on this matter, and those figures will not be confirmed until later in the spring. But the basic issue that Alun Davies has raised is one that I agree with. We should have been compensated for the actual costs, not the Barnett share of the costs in England.

There has been, for quite some time here, cross-party consensus in the Senedd around the need to reform the Welsh funding model. Despite the independent auditor general highlighting that, through the Barnett formula, £1.20 is allocated to Wales for every £1 spent on public services in England, the Holtham Commission found that, under current arrangements, Wales could be underfunded by some £300 million per year. So, the message is clear that Wales should be funded according to need and not based on population. An interesting point about the national insurance contributions also is the fact that, yet again, whilst there are moves to protect those in the public sector, the private sector—those running care homes—now will not receive any such support. So, could I ask the Cabinet Secretary how he intends to equalise and show equal parity, where you've got some care homes run by local authorities that will receive the national insurance amount, albeit coming from the UK Government? And what discussions have taken place with HM Treasury and the Secretary of State for Wales about the Holtham proposals, and do they agree that there now needs to be reform? Diolch.

Thank you very much to Janet Finch-Saunders for those additional questions, and thanks to her for expressing the support of her party for reform of the Barnett formula. When we hear Treasury voices say that Wales gets £1.20 for every £1 spent in England, what they tend not to tell you is that that includes all expenditure, not just expenditure that comes through this Senedd. It includes all the expenditure—on defence matters, on pensions, on the social security system. It, I think, tells you part of the picture but not the whole picture. Because, of course, the point of the Barnett formula, imperfect as it is, is to make sure that spending power is broadly equivalent over the United Kingdom, and that a broadly consistent level and quality of public goods can be achieved in all parts of the UK. We will continue to make that case I've made it at the FISC here. The real issue is the one I pointed to in my answer to Alun Davies—that you can only reform the Barnett formula if every part of the United Kingdom agrees. I think that's very hard to bring off, because some parts of the United Kingdom do rather well out of the Barnett formula, and the pressure on them to seek reform is not the same as it might be felt in this Chamber.

As to the point that the Member made about those parts of the Welsh economy that fall outside the Chancellor's definition—the definition she chose to adopt—I'm not in a position to use Welsh Government money to make up for the costs that those organisations will incur. The only way to do that would be to divert money away from the things for which we are responsible to things for which we are not responsible, and, I'm afraid, difficult though some of those choices are, I don't think that's a principle that we can easily override.

The fairly shocking revelation that we've just heard is one more example, isn't it, Cabinet Secretary, of the fact that the Barnett formula is not just clearly unfair, but it's also inconsistently applied and it lacks transparency. To give one example of that, I think I'm right in saying that the block grant transparency report hasn't been published since July 2023, and yet, that report, as the name suggests, is pretty essential to be able to work out, for example, how close we are to the needs-based funding floor in Wales and a similar mechanism that exists in Northern Ireland. So, it's not working at any level. Now, I understand what he says about the need for a four-nation approach overall. But I heard, in the brief interregnum that he was on the backbenches, he did suggest that we could make some progress, potentially, by invoking the clause in the fiscal agreement that would allow us in Wales unilaterally to ask for a review of that agreement. Has that time now come?

Thank you to Adam Price for a number of important points there. The proposals that we put forward in 'Reforming our Union' would not only have created a new rules-based system, with the transparency that that would bring, but also would have created a new independent oversight body, because we cannot, I believe, go on indefinitely having the Treasury the judge, the jury and, occasionally, the executioner, when it comes to the Barnett formula. We saw that in the £1 billion bung, as it was called, that went in order to secure the support of the DUP  to the minority administration led by Theresa May. Neither England, Scotland nor Wales had anything the equivalent, as the Barnett formula itself would have otherwise required. So, we do need something that is a good deal more transparent, rules based and independent than we have now.

I’m told by our colleagues in the Treasury that they do hope to publish a block grant transparency report before too long. And I should say that, in the FISC meeting, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did offer to codify some of the improvements that we’ve seen in the way that the Treasury has behaved in relation to the devolved Governments since July of last year. We’ve had earlier information, we’ve had better information, and the Chief Secretary has offered to make that a permanent part of the way that he conducts his office. So, I’m pleased about that.

As far as invoking the disputes mechanism is concerned, it has been invoked by the Northern Ireland Executive, not on this matter, but on another matter. And, just at the moment, I am watching how that dispute is being taken through the disputes mechanism, and I’ll watch that carefully to see whether that provides a route that we might wish to follow in those places where we think Wales has not been properly served by current arrangements. But I’m not at that point just yet.

Presiding Officer, I understand that you've given your permission for questions 2 and 8 to be grouped. 

I had given that permission, but I'm going to need to revise that position, if that's okay with the Cabinet Secretary, unusually, due to circumstances involving question 8 and James Evans. [Interruption.]

I'm about to revise the revision that I've just made and allow this question to be grouped, and carry on as if I'd never opened my mouth in the first place. [Laughter.]

The spring statement provides an additional £16 million for Wales in 2025-26. This builds on the significant rise in capital and revenue resources set out in the UK autumn budget. Together, these increases will support our efforts to cut waiting times, support schools, and restore our public services.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. Like many in the Chamber, I’ve received e-mails from constituents who are concerned about how the proposed welfare changes are going to impact upon them, and I do share those concerns. The Chancellor said in her statement that the UK Government will be investing £1.4 billion into a programme that will help people back into work. So, Cabinet Secretary, what assessment have you made regarding that additional funding from the UK Government to help people back into work in Wales?

Well, Llywydd, thanks to Joyce Watson for that. The first thing to say is that we don’t yet have a figure of the share of that investment that the Chancellor has announced—the share that will be spent in Wales. Of course, I do support any actions that can be taken to make the social security system more helpful to people who do wish to return to work. We know that one of the huge problems of the benefit system is that it traps people into that dependency when they would themselves far rather be in work. But if you have a universal credit system, for example, where you have to wait five weeks before you get any help at all, then taking the risk of leaving benefits and going into a job, where you don’t know whether that job will suit you, you don’t always know whether that job will last, that is to heap all the risks on the shoulder of the individual and none of the risks into the system. And I believe very firmly that those risks should be shared, and that we need, as Gordon Brown used to say, to create a social security system that is a springboard for those people who wish to overcome a temporary difficulty and find themselves back in work again.

When the Chancellor comes to look at the detail of what she intends to do, then I hope very much that she will look to Wales. The First Minister yesterday referred to the success of the young person’s guarantee here in Wales. If you look at what has happened to the year ending September of last year, youth unemployment in Wales was 6.5 per cent, down 3.6 percentage points compared to the previous year. At the same time, youth unemployment across the whole of the United Kingdom was 11.4 per cent, and rose over that previous year. There are things we are doing in Wales already that demonstrate that, when you use the system to stand alongside people and offer them the help they need, those people can make that journey from being out of work to being in work, and that’s the sort of system we would like to see in Wales.

James Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd, and apologies for being late to the Chamber. Cabinet Secretary, you’re well aware of the issues facing many third sector organisations across Wales and our general practitioners and pharmacies regarding the national insurance rise. Many people were expecting the spring budget to hear something about NI, but nothing came forward around that. So, I’m just interested in what work the Welsh Government is doing to make sure that those third sector organisations, our GPs, our pharmacy practices, and all those health professions across Wales who aren’t exempt from this, can get the support they need. Because what we don’t want to see is those charities and those organisations having to lose staff because of this unintentional NI rise that was imposed by the UK Government.

Well, Llywydd, I rehearsed some of these arguments a little earlier this afternoon. The Welsh Government has been able to provide additional support to the third sector in Wales through a significant rise in the budget available to the sector in the coming financial year. That is not specifically to deal with national insurance costs, it’s for all the different demands that the sector faces. My colleague Jeremy Miles was able to reach a settlement with general practitioners in Wales as well only a few weeks ago, with a very significant £27 million additional investment in GP services in Wales. The Government is in a position, because of the UK budget, to make those additional investments. What we can’t do is to divert money that is intended for public services in Wales to meet costs that were imposed completely outside our devolved responsibilities.

We know that the spring statement, don’t we, was anything but a spring statement. In fact, it was an emergency budget by a Chancellor completely out of her depth, a Chancellor that had taken the risk on higher taxes and more borrowing and spectacularly failed. And we know where that ends, we know from when Labour last left Government in the United Kingdom with that note being left behind saying that there is no money left. That’s exactly the path that we are on today.

The inheritance that this Chancellor received from the last Conservative Government was the fastest growing economy in the G7, inflation down to the target of 2 per cent, and falling unemployment. Just nine months on, we have taxes on the rise, an economy stagnating, and household bills, as of yesterday, increasing again.

So, how is the Welsh Government helping people with those increasing household bills as a result of decisions taken in Westminster by a UK Labour Government, and then pressure added on by increased taxes from this Welsh Labour Government in things like our tourism sector, which has been severely punished by a Welsh Labour Government? Why is it that every problem that this Labour Party sees on both ends of the M4 ends up with higher taxes?

Well, Llywydd, had there been a shred of credibility in what the Member has said, then he’d be asking himself how his party failed so spectacularly to convince people in Wales of that case when they went to the ballot box in July of this year. If everything was so wonderful in the economic garden, if everything that he said were true, how is it that not a single constituency in Wales was convinced by the case that he made? The reason why people weren’t convinced, of course, is because his case has no credibility. It rings hollow in the Chamber, and it rang very hollow indeed in the ears of people here in Wales. He’s wrong about what the Office for Budget Responsibility said in its report on the spring statement. The OBR revised growth in the UK economy down this year and then revised its growth forecasts up in every other year of its forecast. The UK economy, according to the OBR, will be larger in its forecast in the spring of this year than it was forecasting in the autumn of last year. The UK economy is on a path to growth. It is having to recover from—[Laughter.] Well, that's what the OBR says. You're very happy to laugh, of course; all I am telling you is what the OBR said. It believes, in March of this year, that the economy will be larger at the end of this period than it believed back in October. That's the path that the UK economy needs to be on; it's in recovery from 14 years of being bled dry by his party, and I look forward to the success of the policies rather than the evidence-free and bleak vision that he's offered us this afternoon.

'The real threat to the Welsh language in Ynys Môn...is a lack of well-paying jobs for locals',

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I'd just like to pick up on the national insurance responses that you gave to Alun Davies earlier. I'm glad that there was no ambiguity in terms of the Government's position; you've been very clear in terms of thinking that it's a fundamental unfairness, and again today saying that they were wrong to do so. What I'd like to know is what is the position around that shortfall now, that £65 million—or up to—you've identified? That's only for public sector, as we've heard; there will be implications for the third sector and so on. You mentioned the additional funding, but that's not specifically towards the national insurance contributions. So, what do you foresee happening, for instance, for local government? Are you expecting them to find the shortfall? Are you going to have to adjust the budget? And, if I may, why do you think your UK counterparts have failed to listen? Are there any other avenues that we can explore to ensure that they change their minds?

Well, Llywydd, Treasury Ministers had a choice to make. They could choose to take money through the Barnett formula or they could have chosen to fund the actual effect of their decision in the devolved Governments. I believe they made the wrong choice. Their view is that Barnett would be the normal way for this to happen, and they've just followed the normal path. I think that is disputable, and we will go on disputing it with them, and we won't be on our own as well. You may have seen that this has been extensively rehearsed in Scotland already, and they are, in many ways, more adversely affected than we are.

I'm not in a position this afternoon, Llywydd, to provide answers to the question that the Member raises, because we are still having to think those things through. The confirmation we had from the Treasury is very recent. I will want to look at how the Barnett formula has been applied, what strands in English decision making have led to the global sum we now believe will come to Wales, and then I will look to see whether there is anything further that we can do to support those public services. I'm not in a position this afternoon to say that there will be anything that I can do, but I will, with my officials, be exploring what choices now fall to us to make. And, of course, when we make them, then we will report them to the Senedd.

I'm grateful for that response. I'm sure you can see from the level of interest there's been on national insurance that every Member here has received so much correspondence, as has the Welsh Government, and there is real concern. You've also been, in the past, unambiguous when you denounced previous Conservative Government cuts to the welfare budget, describing them in November 2021 as

'the deliberate decisions of a Government that knows what it is doing, knows that there will be thousands more children in poverty in Wales because of their cuts...but simply don't care.'

Do you agree with me that the actions of the current UK Government deserve the same level of condemnation?

Well, the Member attempts to dig a pit in front of me and invites me to jump into it, and I'm afraid I'm a bit too old to follow her in that. No child chooses to be born in poverty, and the impact of poverty on the life of that child is profound. And Llywydd, I can remember every Labour Government since 1964, and I don't think any one of them did not have an ambition to lower rates of child poverty in the United Kingdom, and I expect this Labour Government at Westminster to have that same ambition. It may not be possible to make the progress we would like to see in the earliest stages of that UK term, but I would certainly look to a UK Labour Government to share the ambition of all previous Labour Governments, and certainly the ambition of this Labour Government, to see rates of child poverty reduce over the whole of its five-year term.

But their actions indicate differently, knowingly pushing 250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, into poverty, and, as always, Wales inevitably bearing the disproportionately heavier brunt of the fallout. I'd just like to understand, because, obviously, during the years of austerity, the Welsh Government had to find additional funding to ensure that we were supporting those most vulnerable. So, can I ask, in terms of that proportion of the £4.8 billion of cuts announced by the Chancellor, do you know what the impact will be on Wales? And are you also having to make any adjustments to the Welsh budget for this financial year to mitigate the policies of your UK counterparts that are going to impact so many people here in Wales, and actually cost us more in terms of the NHS and so on? If more people are in poverty, it also puts a greater strain on other services. So, I'd like to know your response in terms of the impacts on the budget specifically.

Well, Llywydd, the First Minister has asked Westminster Ministers to provide an impact assessment for Wales. We don't have that as yet. We have some preliminary, but I don't think hard to understand, analysis, for example, from the Wales Governance Centre, that points out that, whereas 7 per cent of the English population are recipients of personal independence payments, 11 per cent of the Welsh population are in that position. So, we have to expect that there will be an additionally adverse impact on Wales from some of those decisions. What we have done, using the responsibilities that are devolved to us, is to put in place a series of programmes, which are not available elsewhere in the United Kingdom, in order to mitigate the impact of some of those difficulties and to improve the lives of Welsh people. So, I could rehearse them all for you this afternoon. I won't, because you'll know them, but I'll just mention two or three of them, and these are things that aren't available across our border: the discretionary assistance fund, which has £38.5 million, the largest amount of money we've ever put in it; the council tax benefit scheme, which doesn't exist elsewhere, £244 million; £93 million for universal free school meals. These are all actions, and significant actions in terms of the Welsh Government's budget, that put money into the pockets of people who otherwise are struggling to be able to meet their ordinary expenses. Will we need to revisit some of that? Well, I was very pleased to secure agreement with the First Minister on the day of the spring statement; we got £16 million we weren't anticipating, and we've already allocated £1.4 million of that for a 10 per cent increase in our single advice fund services. We know that, as a minimum, every £1 we invest in that scheme brings £3 out of the UK Treasury into Wales and into the pockets of people who need it. And I will continue to review with all my colleagues as to whether or not there are further opportunities where we can use our powers and our budgets to have that positive impact on the budgets of people who need our help the most.

Rhys mentioned the meeting with the RCN that he, Jenny Rathbone and I had—his staff, Jenny Rathbone and I had—last week, and the importance of Welsh in nursing generally was certainly stressed in that meeting, but also the opportunities for Welsh research were mentioned. And obviously, I think we all know the importance of Welsh in nursing in terms of being able to communicate, and particularly with older people and people with dementia it's absolutely crucial that they're able to use their first language. But, as I understood it from the RCN, more advanced nursing roles have research as part of the core work, and it's one of the pillars of advanced practice. And obviously, if there is no longer a nursing school in Cardiff University, there will be fewer opportunities for that to be developed, and developed through the medium of Welsh. So, would the Cabinet Secretary agree that it is very important that we do keep nursing education and the research that may be there as part of the advanced nursing roles in Cardiff University?

Well, Llywydd, I think Vikki Howells has already explained to the Senedd that the Welsh Government was not engaged by the university in the proposal that it published for consultation and that we were somewhat surprised not to have been drawn into that conversation, given the amount of investment that is made via the Welsh Government in training nurses in Cardiff. I'm hopeful from all the discussions that have gone on during the consultation period—and I myself have met with individuals who teach at the university in the field of nursing who have alternative proposals that they wish to put to the university authorities—that there is further thinking going on that may lead to revised proposals at the end of the consultation period. From my portfolio responsibilities, of course I would wish to see opportunities in the nursing field for people who study partly through the medium of Welsh, because the ability to speak Welsh when people are unwell and would rather use their language of choice, that's absolutely consistent with 'Mwy na geiriau', our own policy in this field, and where there are opportunities for research, and that research can also be conducted either through the medium of Welsh or into policies and issues that are relevant to Welsh speaking services, I will be very disappointed if those opportunities no longer existed in Cardiff.

Thank you to the Member for that question. Llywydd, the third sector makes a significant contribution to the long-term well-being of Welsh communities. The Welsh Government provides dedicated support and guidance to enhance the effectiveness and value for money of grant management across the wider Welsh public sector.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. This question relates to town and community councils that the Auditor General for Wales highlighted recently, which I appreciate isn't directly in your portfolio, but he highlighted that nearly 70 councils do not file accounts with him to be signed off, and that situation is deteriorating rapidly. A lot of those town and community councils are partners to third sector organisations to apply for grants to improve the quality of life for many people in those particular areas across Wales. You, obviously being the source of finance out of the Welsh Government, would have an interest in making sure that those accounts are filed, are audited, and ultimately, the money can be proved value for money and spent wisely in those communities. What action are you taking, along with the local government Minister, to work with the auditor general, to make sure that town and community councils do improve their accounting procedures, so that when third sector organisations partner with them, they can have confidence that they have a fair crack of the whip in getting their share of the money to improve lives across Wales?

Llywydd, can I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for that important question and for shining a light on that auditor general's report? This is a long-standing problem in the sector. I have been a local government Minister, relatively briefly in the Welsh Government, and I was very well aware of it then in my discussions with One Voice Wales. The point the Member makes is, I think, a very real one. We know, in the work of community councils, the relatively small amounts of grant that they are sometimes able to make local organisations make a real difference on the ground and to the quality of services in those local areas.

So, I'm a strong supporter of community councils, when they are effective and well-run and well-managed. The dilemma we are faced with in Wales is while there are many community councils that operate at that end of the spectrum, there is a tail of community councils that lack ambition, lack capacity, and as you've seen in the auditor general's report, that translates into not being able properly to account for the money they spend and the way that they conduct their business. I will certainly be working with my colleague Jayne Bryant on those aspects of the report that fall directly in that finance field. What we want to see is a performance of all community councils being the performance of the best, because then they really do do good work and they work powerfully with third sector organisations at that local level.

Thank you for that response. In October 2024, the Chancellor announced a £2.3 billion increase in core funding for schools, including a £1 billion allocation for special needs education. I understand that consequential funding is not ring fenced, obviously, but unions were asked, I understand, by the Welsh Government to lobby the UK Government for additional education funding, and they're keen to understand how this money will be spent. Can I ask, therefore, are you able to share with us how much of the consequential funding was directed towards education?

Well, Llywydd, I think I've already provided that information to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee asked for further information about consequentials, where they came from, how they translated into money for Wales, and I've provided that information to the Finance Committee. Of course, here in Wales, the education sector is benefiting from £262.5 million additional funding in the financial year just ending, and a further—. Sorry, it's £151 million of that £262.5 million in the financial year just ending, and a further £111.5 million of extra funding in the financial year just beginning.

In Wales, we have a very different system of funding education, with money going to local authorities who then fund schools. The comparison with England is very hard to bring about, but the latest figures published by the UK Government—I think they were published under the previous regime—continue to show that since the pandemic, 2019-20, spend per person on education in Wales has increased by 24 per cent, larger than the increase in England, and 10 percentage points higher than the increase in Scotland.

Thank you to the Member. The Welsh Government recognises public procurement as a key driver for social, economic, environmental and cultural outcomes. We have developed progressive and forward-thinking legislation that puts social value, fair work and community well-being at the heart of our policies.

And, Llywydd, at the outset of my supplementary, I want to make clear that I am a member of two trade unions.

The Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 that both of us will be somewhat familiar with, Cabinet Secretary, will shift the dial on how procurement has traditionally been viewed through a lens of bureaucracy and the financial bottom line to procurement as a means to bring about broader benefits for our people and places. The power of the public purse to effect the change we want to see is one of the key levers at our devolved disposal here in Wales. With that in mind, it's my view that public money should not go to companies who do not align their own principles with the Welsh Government's position on fair work. I understand that the social partnership council is currently carrying out a piece of work looking at how the economic contract could potentially be strengthened in this respect. However, I believe that we should once again lead the way in Wales, and that a condition of receiving public funds should be that a business or organisation should simply allow access to trade unions. Cabinet Secretary, is this something that the Welsh Government will consider?

Well, Llywydd, can I thank Hannah Blythyn, not simply for the question, but for all the work that she invested in her time as Minister for Social Partnership, not simply on the social partnership and social procurement Bill, which she led on, but also the wider work on fair work? Trade union membership in Wales is something that we absolutely value. We have well-being goals under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and one of those goals tells us that an increase in trade union membership in Wales is to be regarded as a positive indicator of a fairer society. I firmly believe that fair work includes employers allowing access to trade unions.

I welcome the work that the Member referred to going on in Flintshire, but she will be aware, I know, that the social partnership council has established a sub-group on fair work and business grants. That will allow an opportunity to explore the issue that she has raised, and trade union access will certainly be part of the considerations of that working group. I'm sure that our colleague Jack Sargeant will be watching carefully the way that it navigates an answer to the question the Member has raised.

Thank you to the Member, Llywydd. The operational basis of the Barnett formula is set out in the UK statement of funding policy. The case for strengthening the constitutional basis of this and wider inter-governmental arrangements is persuasively set out in the Gordon Brown report on the United Kingdom's future.

Thank you for those comments, and also the comments that were made earlier, I think, in response to question 1, when you commented on issues, what I would call the abuses of the current system, for example, the way in which Northern Ireland funding was allocated, the so-called 'bung', and the issues that are now under way with regard to transport funding, HS2 and so on. Do you agree with me that the biggest issue with regard to the funding formula is the actual lack of a binding and constitutionally based structure? We may have an arrangement, but it seems to me that much of the arrangement is often subject to the whim of the Treasury. I wonder if you could expand a bit further on the way in which you would see a more solidly structured arrangement for ensuring that the funding that this place gets is based on a proper formula and one that has a constitutional structure to it.

I thank Mick Antoniw very much for that and echoing some of the points that Adam Price made earlier. I think the Gordon Brown report has a three-stranded answer to the Member's question. It does refer to the need for a fair funding formula, and we've rehearsed that extensively this afternoon, but beyond the formula itself, you need to have that formula entrenched in two ways. First of all, it needs parliamentary oversight, both at the UK Parliament but in the other Parliaments of the United Kingdom. And then, it needs a way of being justiciable. The problem with a formula and a convention is that when attempts were made to go to the Supreme Court to have the Sewel convention looked at, the courts concluded that there was nothing that the courts could do, because this was merely a convention despite the fact that it had been honoured for 20 years. So, what Gordon Brown says in his report is: reform of the formula, proper parliamentary oversight of it and a legally binding part of it, which means that if you believe that things have not been done properly, you have recourse to independent redress, rather than it simply being in the hands of the people who made the decision in the first place.

The Welsh Government is committed to ensuring that all learners feel safe and supported in school. The mandatory relationships and sexuality education, RSE, code and our peer-on-peer sexual harassment in education settings action plan are two examples of active measures that enable schools and colleges to address this.

Can I thank Mabon for the supplementary question? Like many of us, I watched Adolescence and it was a deeply worrying experience watching it, and I really welcome the debate that it's provoked. You raised the issue of mobile phones, and young people are growing up in a very different world to the one that we all grew up in. I think our RSE curriculum has a really important role to play in that, but what I'm worried about is how we keep pace as adults with a world that is so very different from our own. So, we are doing some work to strengthen our RSE provision.

The issue of mobile phones is really complex, because, as you've highlighted here, there's been a lot of research and some of the research suggests that what happens outside school is the huge problem with mobile phones. You’ll also be aware of the inquiry that Carolyn Thomas led in the Petitions Committee. We are actively discussing mobile phones with our schools. Schools have already got the power to ban mobile phone use during the school day. You’ll be aware that we’re having a behaviour summit in May, and one of the pieces of work that we’re doing in the run-up to that is to look specifically at the issue of mobile phones. It is a complex issue and there are reasons why some children do need access to a mobile phone, but that’s why we’re doing this work in a thorough way with a view to really considering what we do. You’ll be aware that the Petitions Committee didn’t call for a complete ban—they called for national guidance.

The other thing for me is I think we’ve got to do more to ensure that young people can use technology safely, being mindful of the fact that I don’t think we really understand what they’re dealing with. One of the things that I’ve asked, since watching Adolescence and the focus on this, is to meet—. We've got a group of learners who help us with our keeping safe online work, and I’ve asked to meet with them, as well as with the team that leads on that, so that we can really make sure that the resources that we’re providing via Hwb to children, parents and teachers are fully up to date and take account of the kind of things that are emerging now in society.

As the parent and grandparent of both girls and boys, I find incel culture extremely concerning. Until I watched the Adolescence series, I'd never heard of the term 'incel culture', but now I know that it's shorthand for 'involuntary celibate', and that, although the term was originally developed by an older woman as a positive thing, it now applies to online forums in which men discuss feeling angry and resentful towards women because they believe that women don't find them attractive. I'm sure you'll join me in seeing the irony in this, where these adolescent and adult men make themselves unattractive to women by doing this.

What action will you take to work, for example, with Hafan Cymru to capture incel culture within the Spectrum healthy relationships programme sessions delivered in schools, which I've attended in the past, and to broaden that programme's reach? And what action can and will you take to provide information and support to families for their early intervention in the home?

Thank you very much, Mark, for your question. As I said in response to Mabon, we’ve got our RSE provision, and Spectrum play an important role in that. We fund the Spectrum project and that supports schools across Wales with lessons on healthy relationships, violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence. But I am looking at what more we can do around RSE in Wales. I’m currently considering our Curriculum for Wales grant support programme, so I’m looking through that at what more we can do to really beef up the support for schools in this area. We’ve also got our new professional learning body coming online in the autumn and clearly there’s a key role for that.

But I mentioned as well that we have got good resources online that we provide as a Government on keeping safe online. I’ve looked at them as a parent, but young people can use them as well. But what we need to make sure, I think, is that they are keeping pace with what are some really quite scary developments that were highlighted by the programme. But I am really concerned about it; I’m concerned about it as a parent as well. It was a shocking programme, and we do need to make sure that we are doing absolutely everything that we can.

Through our reform of the education system, we are supporting neurodiverse boys to engage, learn and thrive. Our new curriculum, additional learning needs system and whole-school approach to mental health and well-being are creating a change to the school environment that supports all learners to reach their full potential.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I am disappointed about the treatment of Kian Mills, whose parents have been forced to remove him from St Joseph's Catholic School in Port Talbot. We know boys have higher rates of diagnosis of ADHD—four times higher than girls, according to ADHD UK. We also know they face significant stigma, with behaviours often characterised as disruptive, and that such people are punished unfairly, with detentions, isolation, and even exclusion. At the same time, Wales's NHS executive estimates that autism or ADHD assessment backlogs could triple over the next three years. We therefore are unaware of the true scale of the problem. How many more Kians are suffering in our schools? Cabinet Secretary, what will you do to ensure all neurodiverse pupils are sufficiently supported?

Thank you very much, Altaf. I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to go into an individual case in the Chamber today, but I will try and deal with the general issues that you've raised. Obviously, it's really important that we support all our learners, and I think we are very well equipped to do that, with the new curriculum and with our ALN reforms in Wales. I do think there's more work to do in terms of equipping schools with the knowledge to support neurodiverse learners. You've highlighted some of the things that can happen when that doesn't happen, because they don't understand the behaviour, and that's when you see inappropriate punishments, exclusions, et cetera.

One of the things that we're doing at the moment is working with Education Support to develop a new professional learning programme for schools that's focused on developing education practitioners' understanding of neurodivergence, child development, and our whole-school approach to mental health. Initial teacher education partnerships are doing good work around ALN, but I want to make sure that we've got a consistent approach to upskilling our new teachers to learn about how to support learners who are neurodiverse or who have other additional learning needs.

In terms of the issues you've raised about waiting times, I think it's important to emphasise again that children do not need a diagnosis to get support in a school. That is something that's been made very clear. Schools should be responding to the needs of individual children. But I completely understand why families want that diagnosis. As you've highlighted, there is a very significant backlog, and that has been made worse, unfortunately, by the pandemic. My colleague Sarah Murphy has announced—. There's been £12 million invested in the neurodivergence improvement programme. That was added to by a further £3 million for waiting times initiatives in relation to neurodivergence, before Christmas. So, there is a plan to drive down those waiting times.

The neurodivergence improvement team are also working with schools. There's a community of practice, to try and improve the understanding. And also, as a Government, we've been leading inclusive practice events, sharing good practice across Wales, to try and make sure that all schools are coming up to the level of the best in terms of supporting neurodiverse children and young people.

Thank you so much, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, private and independent schools play an incredibly important role in our education system. There seems to be a common misconception, and, sadly, it's prevalent amongst the Labour benches, that these schools are only for the rich. In reality, this couldn't be further from the truth. Having visited many private schools since taking up my role, including Kings Monkton School in Cardiff, as well as Monmouth Haberdashers', many families actually scrimp and save to send their children to private school, making many and countless sacrifices along the way.

When we discussed independent schools in the Chamber a few weeks ago, the disdain radiated from the former First Minster, now Cabinet Secretary for finance—he deliberately misconstrued my points and proceeded on a rant about privilege. So, Cabinet Secretary, do you share your colleague’s contempt for private and independent schools, or do you recognise that they have an important role to play? And I’d urge you to think very carefully about your answer, given that both the First Minister, Baroness Eluned Morgan, and the Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, have received this type of schooling. 

Thank you, Natasha. I can assure you that I always think really carefully about the answers that I give here. I didn’t hear the exchange with my colleague Mark Drakeford, but what I can tell you is that I know my colleague Mark Drakeford is as intent as I am on maximising the resources available for our state schools in Wales. The measures that we have supported as a Government have been about making sure that the schools most of our families use are well funded.

Cabinet Secretary, it is evident that Labour politicians both here and at the other end of the M4 seem hell-bent on attacking our private and independent schools. There has been a triple-whammy of higher taxes for them, with the national insurance hike, removing rate relief for charity-run schools, and, of course, adding VAT on to school fees.

The decision to impose VAT alone has had a major impact on the sector, with parents pulling students out of school, applications for the upcoming year dropping, teaching staff being axed, and subjects being slashed. Labour’s Treasury Minister, Torsten Bell, has admitted that around 100 private schools will be forced to close because of this tax rate, although the Independent Schools Bursars Association believes that the true number is actually set to be around 300.

Let’s go with the Swansea MP’s prediction of 100 schools closing. That would mean around 40,000 students being displaced, and 11,000 jobs lost, according to this analysis. Many of these students will transition to our already overstretched state schools, which I don’t have any problem with. But I’d like to know what assessment has the Welsh Government made of the impact Labour’s VAT hike will have on our already under pressure and underfunded Welsh state schools.

Thank you, Natasha. Obviously, we’ve discussed this quite a few times in the Chamber. I’m sure that you recognise that the intent of the UK Labour Government in asking private schools to pay VAT was so that there is an appropriate contribution for our state schools, which we know are under huge pressure financially. I very much welcome that, and, indeed, the commitment to use that money to get more teachers in front of our children.

In terms of the analysis, I can assure you that my officials monitor carefully the demand on the school system. As I’ve highlighted before in the Chamber, we actually have a surplus of places in Wales in our schools, so there is plenty of room to accommodate any other children who want to move to our state schools.

Cabinet Secretary, I’m glad you mentioned choice, but I’d like to talk a bit about figures. One particular private school in Wales supports 86 pupils with additional learning needs. I know you’re very passionate about ALN, so let’s talk about this. Just for the record, their places are funded privately by their families. Let’s say those 86 students are forced to leave private schools due to spiralling costs, and transition into state school. Based on the average cost per pupil, that would cost the state nearly £628,360 extra per year. There have been estimates that anywhere between 90,000 and 135,000 students across the UK could leave the independent sector.

So, let’s go with this. Ninety thousand pupils leaving would cost the taxpayer £648 million, and if we saw 135,000 leaving, that would cost a staggering £972 million. Despite what Labour politicians say, this isn’t about boosting education. In my view, it’s a vindictive and ideologically driven attack on the private school sector. This isn’t about fairness; it’s about resentment, as I can hear from your backbencher there, who’s more than welcome to make a contribution in his own time rather than hindering mine. It’s an attack on aspiration, and an attack on parental choice.

Wales’s First Minister, and also the UK’s Prime Minister, were able to thrive in the education that they were afforded. If it was good enough for a humble toolmaker’s son, and a daughter of a vicar, why is Labour determined to stifle aspiration and remove choice, instead of focusing on improving standards in our state sector?

There’s no question of removing choice. People can still send their children to private school if they choose to. The choice we have made as a Government is that we want to prioritise our investment in our state publicly funded schools, and that’s exactly the choice that has been made by the UK Government.

As you’re aware, I believe, Natasha, we do place some young people with very complex needs in independent schools, and that is funded by the public purse. There are arrangements under this new legislation to make sure that the VAT can be recouped for that, so that there is no loss of income.

I appreciate that it’s challenging for families who are self-funding children with ALN in private schools, but what I would advise to them is to have that discussion about their child’s needs. We’ve got a new system in Wales that is geared to meeting the needs of all children. If they’re entitled to an IDP, they should get one, and they’re entitled to information, they’re entitled to advocacy. So, those options are there for them.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. It's a question to the Minister. Minister, in a written statement published last month, you said that you would be, and I’m quoting,

‘working with UK Government on their plans for higher education reform.’

Why then, in response to Plaid Cymru’s written questions both here in the Senedd and in Westminster, neither you nor the UK Government could confirm that Wales would have an official role as part of the UK Government’s plans to reform the sector? Would you like to respond to that?

Yes. Thank you, Cefin Campbell, for that opening question and I’m very happy to respond to that. What the UK Government has announced is that it’s developing a plan for higher education reform, which is due to be published this summer. So, it’s a plan for reform. What it’s not is a formal review of higher education. So, without it being classed as a formal review, then we can’t say that we have a formal role in it. But, given the interconnected challenges facing the HE sector across the UK, I think it’s very important that I and my officials play a key role within that piece of work, and that’s exactly what we are doing.

I find it incredible that you have no formal role, because you’ve made great play on how you would partake in that review. Whilst it may seem to be an issue of semantics, it actually touches on a crucial principle, because Wales was promised a partnership in power—that is, two Labour Governments working together each side of the M4. Just as we’ve seen this week with the cruel cuts to welfare benefits, the Welsh Government may well be talking to the UK Government, but it’s clear to me they’re not listening.

In that same written statement, you also said you’d be seeking clarity from UK Government on, and I’m quoting again,

‘fees policy…the details of HM Treasury’s rules on our student loans budget…the future of shared prosperity and research funding’,

and also

‘the future of the graduate visa.’

Can I just ask simply, have you succeeded in getting clarity on those issues?

Thank you very much, Cefin. I was going to use the word 'semantics' but you used it yourself. If the UK Government are calling it a plan, then a plan is not something that you can have a formal role in. So, it is semantics. It doesn’t undermine the key role that we are playing just because I can’t reply to you formally in a letter and say, 'Yes, we can class that as a formal role.' So, what I and my officials are working closely with the UK Government on is the future of the UK international education strategy, the future of structural investment and research funding across the UK, the future oversight of student finance and funding, and a UK-wide review of governance and leadership in universities.

The fees policy is very important. In the round-table that I held with the First Minister and all the vice-chancellors of universities in Wales, it was the No.1 ask from those VCs. They really want certainty about fees policy for the rest of this parliamentary term—that’s the UK Government’s parliamentary term—because that enables them to forward plan for their finances. So, I’m committed to ensuring that that is the case. That’s my No.1 ask of the UK Government.

With student loans as well, it’s really important that we work closely with the UK Government on that because our student loan envelope is tied to the spending and the envelope within England as well. Under HM Treasury rules, we’re not permitted to spend more than the English system. So, it is really important that I engage on that, because that's a key part of the way in which we support our students and the way in which our universities are funded.

You mentioned SPF funding as well. Yes, absolutely, it's really important that we feed into that. That was another thing that vice-chancellors asked of me and the First Minister, to try and get, again, a longer term funding stream and some certainty there. And the graduate visa issue is a really important one, because the household income threshold for that, we believe, needs to be lower in Wales to reflect the fact of our average graduate incomes here.

So, let's be clear then, because it's called a 'plan' you can't play a formal role in that, although you previously have suggested that you would play a part in any review led by the UK Government. So, that's not the kind of clarity that our university institutions are looking for. And it's probably emphasising the importance, more than ever, that we need to find a Welsh way forward when it comes to protecting Welsh universities.

The written statement also outlined other actions you are taking to try and support the sector, but as Professor Dylan Jones Evans has said recently, and I quote,

'most of these actions are a short term political response...rather than a coherent strategy for the sustainable future of the higher education sector.'

So, why, therefore, can’t you respond constructively to my call, and Plaid Cymru’s call, for a cross-party, independent, wholesale review into our higher education sector to resolve these issues and place our institutions on a more sustainable financial footing, not just for now, but for years to come? Or do you honestly believe that Labour knows best?

You've mentioned the word 'formal' again for the third time, and so I'll reply to you again, for the third time, we have an intrinsic role in this work that is being brought forward by the UK Government. You might want to come here every time you question me and say that the most important thing to you is whether we can use the word 'formal' or not; the most important thing to me when I come here every week is what we're able to get out of that work with the UK Government to deliver for our universities, to deliver for the students and to deliver for the staff within those universities as well. 

We are doing a tremendous amount of work here in Wales on the issues that we are able to control. And I would say to you that the most important one of those is the evaluation of the Diamond student support package. That is a very comprehensive piece of work, with initial findings due in the autumn. I've also asked Medr, as you're aware, to begin an overview of subject demand, provision and distribution in HE in Wales, and that will provide a really important evidence base for me in order to consider where interventions might be required to ensure the continuation of strategically important subject areas in Wales that are vital to the success of public services. Within that, as well, we're also looking at the spread of Welsh language provision in HE. I believe that is a very important commitment for us to hold to. And, of course, as well, I have been able to secure an additional £28.5 million-worth of funding for the sector during this financial year.

We will review the early impact of the threshold increase I announced in January, as EMA applications start to be submitted for academic year 2025-26, and consider any further changes to policy and scheme rules alongside our budget and participation discussions for academic year 2026-27.

Thank you for that answer. Of course, when you made that announcement back in January, I was incredibly proud of the campaign that had been, ultimately, led by students to get to this point, and it was a very welcome announcement, but now what we are looking for is simply clarification. So, could you clarify whether the review process will be purely desk based, or if there will be consultation with colleges, students and other stakeholders to gather their feedback on the effectiveness of the current system? In addition, clarification around whether the review will be extended to the administration of the allowance would also be very helpful. As I mentioned back in January, over the years, the application process has become increasingly complicated and there have been significant delays in the payment of allowances. These delays have, ultimately, left many students struggling to attend college or school, therefore creating a cycle of financial strain.

Thank you, Luke, for those follow-up questions. To me, it's very important that this review is as all-encompassing as possible. For officials who crunch the numbers, those desk-based analyses are very important, but I think it's important also to get that human side—that human feedback—so I fully intend to take account of the views of learners, colleges and other stakeholders as well. NUS Cymru are a very important voice within that, but there are also many others as well, and I do agree with you that it is vital for us to also look at the administration of EMA to ensure that it is always paid accurately and in a timely manner as well.

Rising energy costs will have an impact on all public services, including our schools. Decisions on the level of funding available to schools are made by each local authority as part of their overall budget setting. To mitigate the impact, we are increasing the local government settlement by 4.5 per cent in 2025-26.

Thank you. Exchange Utility have highlighted that the average annual energy cost per school in the UK is £27,000—some, actually, can be over £80,000. Now, at a time when a lot of schools are struggling to balance their budgets, with some having to file a deficit budget, more needs to be done to reduce the strain of these energy costs. In 2024, five schools in Powys were fitted with solar panels, batteries, LED lighting and loft insulation in a bid to make them more sustainable. I've been asked by headteachers at primary school and secondary school level—. You know, they really find their energy bills quite daunting, yet they say, 'Look, we would love solar panels on our school roofs, but we've raised it with the education department and nobody ever gets back to us.' What guidance can you give to education authorities and schools themselves, where we can actually see buildings that can be used to bring reducing energy costs, but also new technologies—renewable technologies—so that you're working across Government on addressing climate change issues? Thanks.

Thank you very much, Janet. Obviously, I recognise the pressures school budgets are under and what a worry the increased energy costs can be. That's why we did make such a significant increase in funding to the local government settlement, and why we've also provided an additional £402 million through the local authority education grant this year. So, we've done our very best to try and make sure that we get as much money into schools as we possibly can.

In terms of the point you raise, we are committed to net-zero schools. As part of our Sustainable Communities for Learning programme, there is investment available for net-zero schools. In terms of the point you've made specifically about solar panels et cetera, I would advise that that's probably a matter that should be discussed with the local authority, because we provide the funding to the local authority. But I will pick up the point you've raised about that particular local authority with officials.

Careers Wales are supporting 72 schools across all 22 local authorities to generate alumni networks. In total, Careers Wales have 1,859 individual alumni recorded against 137 schools on their Careers Wales education business exchange database, which schools can access.

Thank you. There's a reason why most elite schools and universities have an alumni scheme: to draw upon the resources, the connections and the ideas of their former pupils, and far too few of our comprehensive schools follow suit. That is why the Valleys taskforce piloted a project in 10 schools and produced, as a result of that, a toolkit that Careers Wales now are meant to be promoting, though it's quite hard to find it on their website. Encouraged by those figures the Cabinet Secretary mentioned, clearly there's potential to do far more than that. Would she please work with other Ministers to encourage the uptake of this scheme and to remind schools of this resource and the potential it has to provide them and their pupils with practical help?

Thank you, Lee. I'm very happy to give you that commitment. Careers Wales sits with Jack Sargeant, but the issue here is also about how effectively schools are engaging with Careers Wales. I think it's a great idea, it also seems like an idea that doesn't cost a lot of money, which is always really welcome, and I also take on board the point you've made about alumni and connections, and we need to make sure that our children are able to access those. I've looked at the figures. There's clearly more that we can do. I don't think it should be a burdensome thing for schools, if we've got families and parents that are happy to come and give that service, so I will have that discussion with Jack Sargeant. 

Estyn’s annual report provides a valuable, independent account of how the education system is performing across Wales. Within South Wales East, there are significant strengths but also aspects to improve. I am committed to addressing the challenges we still face.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary.  Estyn's annual report really wasn't anything to be proud of, was it? This Government really needs to take heed of it and do a lot better.

One of the problems we're facing, which is having an impact on outcomes in our schools, and children's outcomes, is absenteeism. Recently I attended the Council of Europe in Strasbourg and it became very apparent to me that absenteeism is a growing problem across Europe since COVID. What conversations have you had as a Government and as a Cabinet Secretary with other countries about this escalating issue? And have any new ideas stemmed from those conversations? Diolch.

Thank you very much. Can I start by expressing my gratitude to all our leaders and teachers within south-east Wales and throughout Wales? I'd also like to congratulate those schools from South Wales East who've been showcased within the annual report, so that's Langstone Primary School in Newport, Cyfarthfa Park Primary School in Merthyr Tydfil, and Undy Primary School in Monmouthshire. Can I say to the Member that I am very proud of those schools? I think it is about celebrating the things that we do well but never being complacent about what we need to improve.

Attendance was a key issue raised in the Estyn report. That wasn't a surprise to us as a Government, because obviously we've identified improving attendance rates as a top priority. If children aren't in school then we are not going to raise standards. That's why as a Government we have announced over this year and last year £8.8 million to support attendance, and the aim is to recover our position to the position it was in before the pandemic.

Now, you asked a question about international comparisons. I met with Andreas Schleicher, who leads the education team in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a few months ago, and one of the issues we discussed was absenteeism, attendance and what we can do. Last week I attended the international summit for the teaching profession in Iceland, which was jointly hosted by the OECD and Education International, and attendance was a key theme at that. Later on in the summer we are very committed to learning from good practice elsewhere, and we are hosting an OECD peer learning event in Wales, and we will be discussing attendance at that.

Local authorities and governing bodies asses the standard of food in schools and are required to adhere to the healthy eating in schools regulations and guidance. These set out the standards for food and drink provided in maintained schools in Wales. These regulations are currently being reviewed and updated.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that response. Providing free school meals to pupils across Wales may be lauded as a positive step. However, if we are not giving our children healthy unprocessed or nutritious food, we are actually not helping them at all to become healthy. Free school meals should not just be about feeding our young people; the policy should be used as a vehicle to improve their health and well-being, which, in turn, will translate into improved life chances for them. As Professor Kevin Morgan from Cardiff University said, there is no good in universalising poor-quality food. Sadly, there is far too much inconsistency across local authorities as to the standard of food that our children are receiving, and I also know too often the meals are too small for growing kids. Your Government said that you are working closely with local authorities to offer the best possible food in schools. So, with that in mind, Cabinet Secretary, when can Welsh primary schoolchildren expect to see the improvements they deserve? 

Thank you very much, Peter, and I'm aware of your long-standing interest in this issue, and I do think our universal primary free-school-meal offer is really important. We don't want hungry children—they won't learn—but it is vital that we provide them with a healthy meal, and I think there is really good work going on in Wales to provide a healthy offer to children and young people. But as I said when I come to the cross-party group on food, we have got more work to do. That's why we're reviewing the healthy eating in schools regulations and statutory guidance, and we've worked closely with local government on that. We'll be going out to consult on the new regulations in the not-too-distant future. We'll also be looking at the guidance that focuses on the role of the governing body, Estyn, and the local authority in relation to their requirements to promote healthy eating and drinking. And I've already given an assurance that the issue of portion sizes will be looked at as part of that work.

The sustainable communities for learning capital programme has seen an investment of over £3.7 billion since 2014. I've also approved plans for a further 316 projects, equating to £5.4 billion, as part of the programme’s nine-year rolling programme.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Our young people deserve the best opportunities to learn. High-quality facilities play a crucial role. Over Christmas, thanks to the sustainable communities for learning programme, pupils and staff at Ysgol Gynradd Gymraeg Llyn y Forwyn moved from their old site to a brand-new facility in Maerdy. The learning and play facilities are exceptional and the school community already feels at home. Looking ahead, we will soon see new school buildings for Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhondda and Penrhys Primary School, both of which have waited far too long for the facilities they deserve. I'm proud to have played a small part in securing these improvements for staff and pupils. I know I'm not the only one looking forward to seeing the plans. Can the Cabinet Secretary provide an update on the progress for the new buildings at Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhondda and Penrhys Primary School, and does she agree with me that the sustainable communities for learning programme is essential to improving standards across education in Wales?

Can I thank Buffy Williams for her question and for highlighting the new school and the excellent experience that children are having in it? I think it does make a huge difference to the education of children, but also I think it says something to those children about their worth to us as a society that we are valuing the buildings that they are operating in. She'll be aware that there is a process that is undertaken when we invest in funding our schools. It follows an outline business case, full business case et cetera, and there is an investment board. So, I will write to her with an update on the specific project that she mentioned, but just to assure her that we work really closely with local authorities—it's a joint programme. We've increased our intervention rates as a Government, and I regard it as a huge success.  

The steps that will be taken were outlined in the written statement of 31 March. We intend to take forward the recommendations in full and at pace.

Well, thank you for your response. This was clearly an opportunity for the Government to listen to the genuine concerns of farmers and to introduce much-needed changes, yet the response from the farming sector, of course, to the review, has been one of deep frustration and disappointment. Now, farmers were promised that it would provide a meaningful assessment of the impact of these regulations and lead to proportionate, evidence-based improvements. But instead, what we saw in the Cabinet Secretary's statement was a response that failed to recognise the urgency of their situation. The regulations remain unchanged, of course, despite mounting evidence that they impose an unworkable, costly and bureaucratic burden on farm businesses, businesses that are already struggling with financial pressures, market instability and a host of other challenges.

The National Farmers Union Cymru's survey of over 400 farmers paints a stark picture. It confirms that the worst fears of the sector have materialised in relation to huge compliance costs, an unmanageable regulatory framework, and, of course, an impact on the mental health and well-being of farming families, many of whom feel that these regulations threaten the viability of their livelihoods. Now, farmers are being told that they may have to wait up to three more years for potential adjustments, following this review, and that simply isn't good enough. The Government shouldn't be looking to add further layers of regulations, when the existing framework is already seen as disproportionate and impractical; it should be listening to the sector and taking immediate steps to make sure that regulation is better targeted, evidence led and fair. I heard you say that you will take this on at pace. That certainly wasn't reflected in the statement on 31 March.

So, will you now commit to urgent changes to these regulations, to reduce their complexity and their impracticality, particularly given that the review concludes that the burden of regulation should be lower for farms that present the lowest risk of pollution? Secondly, do you accept that the farming-by-calendar approach now has to come to an end? Because, as the review says, it's not compatible with the principle of the right nutrient application at the right time. And finally, do you acknowledge that failing to act swiftly on these recommendations will seriously add to the worry and desperation of those out there who really are grappling with these regulations? As I say, waiting up to three years for the implementation of some of these recommendations will have serious impacts on the mental health and well-being of many of those who are already struggling to cope.

Well, thank you, Llyr. Look, I think we've got to start from the point of view that the health of the water bodies across Wales are critical for every person in Wales. From access to water for drinking, for recreation, for food production, for healthy, thriving ecosystems, the well-being of current and future generations is heavily dependent on clean water, and that is no different for farming families or businesses than for anyone else at all. Water quality in Wales is still detrimentally impacted, and we've got to make improvements to that. We talk all the time in this Chamber about the need to protect our watercourses, and in particular our special areas of conservation rivers, which are very heavily impacted as well, and we absolutely acknowledge, and have done for some considerable time, that the causes of pollutions are not limited to any one sector, and agriculture remains as one of the main contributors.

Llyr, I know you're familiar with the summit process that took place under the previous First Minister, which I was very much a part of. The written statement sets out that we will continue to do that, and very much central to the action plan that came out of that process was an acknowledgement from each sector contributing to water quality, and to improved water quality as well as to water detriment, that they would look to see what their own particular industry could do to improve practice. That's the same for the farming industry as it is for the water companies, as it is for the house builders, as it is for everybody else who took part in that summit, and an action plan was agreed.

In the meantime, one of the things that we also did was we decided to have an independently chaired review of these regulations, and we did that because we wanted to be sure that they were—well, we wanted to see what their impact was, and we wanted to make sure that they fit within a new summit process and the action plan and so on. The review has come back for us, and it's highlighted that there is significant scope to improve the regulations, and for those regulations to be improved for the benefit of both the farming industry and, more broadly, of course, for the environment and, indeed, specifically for water quality.

We are going to recommend—. We have accepted all the recommendations. We will implement them in full and at pace. The recommendations, as I'm you know, are split up, very usefully, into short, medium and long-term actions that we can do. They reflect that some of the changes should be relatively quick and easy to make, but also that some of the recommendations require consideration of very complex interlocking issues. I think you probably have read through it. So, one of the things it recommends very specifically is that we should address imminently the issue about making the regulations more accessible to farmers. So, they're hard to understand; we need to make sure that people understand what's required of them on a farming business and that they're able to comply with what that is. They do want to look at the closed period, and also at the storage issues, but they are quite complicated, as you know. And what we all want to see is that a farmer spreading nutrients on the land is doing so in accordance with the needs of the crop that they are about to produce and is not doing so in a way that, you know, frankly, it just tips into the local river.

I'll just say a personal reflection, for example. I was actually on a trip to the Cleddau, and I watched a contractor spread on a field in between two very heavy rain showers because they'd been contracted to spread on the field. And the fact that that—. I mean, it went straight into the river. I watched it; I actually took a photograph of it. We have to get to a point where—. You know, a lot of the spreading is done by contractors. We have to get to a point where the regulations are clear-cut for farmers. We know what can be done; we know that something as, frankly, idiotic as doing it in between two clearly forecasted rain showers is not something we should do. You know—[Interruption.] Absolutely. Absolutely, most farmers don't want to do that; I'm just pointing out that I watched it. But I also was part of a summit where a number of farmers came and showed us a whole series of small improvements they had made to their farms about this. Just a slightly different spreading practice on a particular field prevented the run-off, made sure the nutrients stayed in the soil and made sure the soil stayed on the field. It was a delightful thing to watch and I was very impressed by the farmer who had come to show us and the community of practice.

And I'm telling you those two anecdotes because I think we have got to make sure that the regulations are effective, that they drive the right kinds of practice, but that they don't drive insecurity and any kind of isolation, that people feel that they understand what those regulations are asking of them, that they buy in, frankly, to the outcome of the regulations, which is better watercourses for everyone—. And who needs that more than farmers? Of course, they need it.

So, we will implement the recommendations, we will take forward those short-term—. It's worth going through—. The Llywydd will not want me to read them out, because they're very long, but the short-term ones do address many of the issues around understanding and access to the regulations, but there's no getting away from the fact that some of them are more complicated, and the report is very clear about why they're more complicated, and it's clear about the fact that they impact particular types of intensive animal farming in a way that is more impactful than for other farmers. It says a lot of interesting things about upland grazing and lowland arable, for example, that I thought was most interesting.

So, the answer is: we will implement them, we will take account of the short, medium and long-term recommendations as well, we will look to make sure that we have the right people in the room. So, it doesn't actually make any provisions for specific changes to the regulations; it says that we need to get a group of people together and make sure that we do that properly. And for those longer term ones, it will be pivotal to make sure that the right people are in the room to make sure that those regulations stay fit for purpose. But we are going to leave the regulations in place while that process occurs; we will, though, take forward the short-term ones immediately.

So, I think, in hitting the difficult but correct balance between ensuring that a very pivotal part of our economy—farming—is able to thrive and making sure that our watercourses are absolutely fit for purpose, we need to just hit that sweet spot in the middle.

I'd better declare an interest as a farmer for the record. I thank Llyr for bringing the topical question forward, and, Cabinet Secretary, you will have answered some of my points, but I think they're so important that we need to reiterate some of them. Dr Susannah Bolton's review provides some hope of change in some areas, but also additional concerns for the farming community in others. I welcome the tone of the review, and it has at least listened to stakeholders to understand better their concerns and the impacts that the regulations will have, or have had, on farmers' well-being, and some of the recommendations acknowledge this. However, farmers will be frustrated that many things are likely to stay just the same for the foreseeable future.

Cabinet Secretary, you've said that all 23 recommendations will be implemented. Recommendations require a lot of work before they can be implemented, but our farmers need to see the progress on that as soon as possible, and I think you've given us some reassurance that things are going to happen quickly. I welcome the fact that the review recognises the bureaucratic nature of the regs and the lack of clarity to farmers—a key issue if we do want them to positively engage. Anything we can do around that needs to be enacted very quickly.

The more targeted approach of the regs is also welcome, but the detail of what this could mean will be keenly anticipated. I welcome the consideration of the closed periods and of the 170 kg nitrogen limits, as well as what seems to be more of a pragmatic and targeted approach, as farming by calendar remains a real issue as it fails to reflect the reality of farming life and practice, and anybody who doesn't get that needs to come out on a farm and experience it.

I welcome the recommendations to look at innovative ways to manage manure, also the exemptions for farms that are under TB restrictions. That will be very welcomed by some of those farmers. However, whilst some of the recommendations give a modicum of hope, there are things that will raise anxieties even more. For instance, in the long term, all slurry stores will have to be covered over. Well, that's a huge capital cost that could fall on farmers. Also the anxiety of older stores for both silage and slurry to be inspected. What this could lead to is possibly huge replacement costs, which—again, how will that be funded? And of course, this new focus on air quality adds a new dimension of anxiety to the industry if those recommendations are brought in.

So, Cabinet Secretary, there is a huge amount to digest from this review, and clarity on the Government's next steps will be crucial. I'm conscious you've given us some of that. But can you give further indication of what farmers can expect now? Will you immediately apply any pragmatic approach to some of the recommendations that can be delivered in the short term—I think you've said you can—because farmers continue to have so much to contend with, and these water regulations have driven huge anxiety and concern, and we need to be able to move forward? Thank you.

Thank you, Peter. So, in response, I would say that the FUW, for example, in responding to the review, highlighted the need to take forward the recommendations in collaboration, and I think that's really what you're saying as well. So, obviously we will do that. We will absolutely make sure we do it in collaboration. As I said, the whole point of the summit process was that we did it in collaboration with every industry that had a footprint in our watercourses. It is absolute axiomatic, and I know it's impossible to argue otherwise, that clean watercourses are as important, if not more important, for most farm businesses, than they are for the general population. So, it's in farmers' interests to make sure that we have a set of regulations in place that, obviously, enables them to farm, but also enables them to make sure that they're not polluting our waterways, and I know that most farmers want to do that.

So, we will absolutely follow the proper process of consulting and developing a regulatory impact assessment and making sure that there's a cost-benefit analysis for that and making sure that it's targeted in the right way. So, I already mentioned a couple of the targeting points that the review highlights, and we will make sure—. So, what we want to make sure that we have is a set of regulations that regulate appropriately, in the right place, that, obviously, allow people to understand what the burden of complying with the regulations looks like and to plan that out over a period of time, but primarily what we want is to make sure that we have a fit-for-purpose sector that is able to produce valuable food and valuable exports—because, of course, a lot of it is exported—and to do that, actually, on that point alone, we also need to make sure that we're compliant with EU regulations, because most of our food is exported into the EU. So, actually making sure that we have a robust set of circumstances in place that farmers absolutely understand how to access, they absolutely understand the asks on them, but also that reassures our export markets that we're doing it properly, is paramount.

So, I can't emphasise enough that we want to do this in collaboration. We're really grateful to the stakeholders who took part in the review. It's been a long, arduous process for them. I'm very grateful for that, but the review is very straightforward. It sets out what we need to do in the short, medium and long term. We've accepted all the recommendations, and we will be implementing them.

I want to welcome the report, and also the commitment by the Welsh Government to accept the recommendations, and the further commitment to work with farmers and landowners in realising the aims of the report.

So, Dr Susannah Bolton has stressed, rightly, that the ultimate review is about reducing and preventing water pollution from agriculture. I'm not going to rehearse everything. There are some short-term wins, medium term, and longer term, and I think that the actions as identified will produce those. You're right—you've reiterated it, but this is something I will reiterate—that our environment and our river status is critical to everything that we see about us. And whilst you're right that most farmers don't pollute, there have been cases where that isn't, actually, the reality, and there have been significant pollutions along the rivers in my area, and there was evidence that it was being built into their business plan. Now, I stress that I'm not laying that at every farmer, because I'm not, and that is recognised in this report, that, those who are farming with really good examples of looking after their environment, the asks will be, of course, much smaller. And there is, within this report, the suggestion that finance will go towards realising some of those aims. So, I do welcome it. I think, with climate change happening, we've got very, very heavy downpours of rain unexpectedly now, and, on the other hand, drought. It is critical that action for our waterways happens and it happens now. So, I do welcome the report, I do welcome the engagement, and I'm sure that the Chair of the environment committee will be as committed to looking after the environment as he is to protecting those businesses.

Thank you very much, Joyce. I think you're absolutely right, and I'm very delighted that we're still doing the 'source to sea' review of the Teifi in your area. The Teifi was chosen by the summit process. We're literally looking at every single inch of it, from source to sea, and we're working with all the landowners, right along the length of the Teifi, to develop a bespoke service to make sure that that river gets into absolutely tip-tip environmental condition, with a view to understanding the lessons from that, to be spread out across the other special areas of conservation rivers in Wales.

It's worth reiterating, Llywydd, that we chose the Teifi because it's the only river in Wales that doesn't have agricultural pollution as the top polluter, and we did that because we wanted the farmers to engage in it without feeling that their industry was being highlighted. That was very deliberate, and it's part of the collaborative process that we've been using. But the end result is a clean waterway, because a clean waterway helps everyone. So, this is about targeting. Llyr, you said it—I think Peter said it as well; Joyce probably said it too—each farm is different. So, what we've got to do is we've got to help farmers understand what is necessary on their farm for their best practice, and we need to assist them to do that by understanding the regulatory regime, making sure it's fit for purpose, but also making sure, because I know they don't want to, that they are not contributing to the water pollution that we know—. It's the highest polluter right across the rest.

So, the general approach we've taken has been endorsed by the review. We aren't revoking the regulations as we review them. Agricultural pollution remains one of the main causes of water pollution in Wales. So, we're not looking to increase levels of pollution, obviously, we're looking to reduce those, but we absolutely want to do that in collaboration with our farmers and with all our other landowners and all our other land users, and I mentioned a couple of the other sectors as well, and there was a general consensus that this is the way forward.

Whilst I agree that it's really good that you're prepared to work with farmers and look at these recommendations, I know of just one farmer in Aberconwy who's had to spend £50,000 on extending his lagoon—sounds lavish that, doesn't it? And despite there being a pre-1991 exemption on his silage pit, he's now been told, following a recent NRW inspection, that he's no longer exempt and he has to spend another £70,000 on a new silage pit. They'll also have to switch from silage pit to round bales, because who's going to spend £120,000 of capital investment with zero returns? It is causing immense mental health problems to a lot of farmers.

But today, I had a presentation, Cabinet Secretary, on the fact that there are 1,300 mines, particularly metal mines, across the length and breadth of Wales and they themselves are leaching—leaching—so much toxic pollution into our waters. Now, when we've all blamed the water companies, and you've blame the farmers, I wasn't aware that we had—. And you've taken the responsibility, I believe, today to actually—I can't think of the word—remediate—

Well, can I just remind you that this is a topical question on agricultural pollution? So, if you could address your question to agricultural pollution, because we're out of time.

Yes, so I think at some stage in your contributions, as for pollution, maybe less blame for the farmers and more blame for these mines that you've assumed some responsibility for. Thanks.

Well, you know, Janet, once again, you leave me just almost speechless. [Interruption.] So, I have gone out of my way in my contribution, which you clearly did not listen to, but I have gone out of my way in my contribution to say that each sector needs to look to what it needs to do—[Interruption.]—to clear up its—

Allow the Minister to carry on and stop repeating your question. Allow the Minister to answer, please, Janet Finch-Saunders.

I didn't list every single sector—you're quite right, Janet—but I made it more than plain that the purpose of the whole summit process has been for each sector that contributes to pollution in Wales to look to its own particular purpose and to clean up its own act. That absolutely goes for mines; it absolutely goes for every other polluter. But the absolute bottom line is that, for all the rivers in Wales except the Teifi—all the special areas of conservation rivers in Wales, except the Teifi— agricultural pollution is the top polluter. We have to do something about that, and I know that farmers want to do that. We will do that in collaboration with our farmers; we will do that so that their farm businesses are viable, but we will clean up the waters.

I will be brief, Llywydd. I recently met with campaigners from the Save our Rivers campaign, Cabinet Secretary, and they were talking to me primarily about the River Usk and the River Wye. They carry out citizen science, they work with academics. They're absolutely appalled at the levels of pollution in the rivers. Some of them are wild swimmers, some of them are campaigners that connect local communities to nature through wild camping. They're all concerned with the depletion of nature, biodiversity and the quality of our environment, and they want to see speedy and effective progress in cleaning up our rivers right across Wales, and for me, locally, primarily, the Usk and the Wye.

And they are clear, as you have said, that it is predominantly agriculture that is the main polluter of those rivers—the rivers Wye and Usk. They want to be more involved in this process and have taken a very close interest in the review and now the report on the review. They want to be involved, they want to get local communities involved, but most of all, they want to see that pollution—and for them, mainly agricultural pollution—dealt with effectively in as timely a way as possible.

Yes, thank you, John. I should at this point, I suppose, declare an interest, as I always point out that I am also very keen on wild swimming and very keen on the regulations that make sure that bathing waters are clean and accessible. It's also a major part of our tourism offer, of course, so it's very important indeed.

And you're absolutely right: we need to harness the strength of citizen science. We are absolutely doing that. We have worked with NRW for years, making sure that NRW are able to harness citizen science. It's not amateur at all; it's perfectly good science. People spend hours and hours and hours and hours and many, many thousands of pounds of their own money on doing it, and of course we should harness that. And I'm very familiar with the group that you're talking about, and I know Huw is as well. So, in our consultation, and in our stakeholder groups, we will absolutely make sure that the particular group that you mention is included and has their views reflected.

And then just, Llywydd, to reiterate, in the overall discussion, what these regulations are there to do is to make sure that they are a proportionate response to what we know is a problem. In doing the review, we will make sure that we review it so that it remains proportionate and fit for purpose. But the review also addressed the fact that there are regulatory gaps. So, I don't want Members to come away with the idea that this is somehow just about one particular type of pollution. So, for example, they address the regulatory gap in relation to phosphorus. So, we will need to explore alternative measures in respect of polluting substances being put on our land. And as I've already said, one of the reasons we're doing the Teifi source to sea review is to make sure that we understand the impact of that on every landowner and every land use all the way along the length of the river. Mark Drakeford, when he was First Minister, put that process in place; I'm very pleased that the Government is still taking it forward. I just mention it because it goes hand in hand with the review of these regulations, and that Senedd Members should be aware that this is obviously not the only thing we're doing in this space.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you, Counsel General, for leading on this topical in the absence of the Deputy First Minister, who isn't here. But what I would quite like, with the Trefnydd in her place, is a statement from the Deputy First Minister when we return from recess on this, given that he's the portfolio lead. I think that would be fair that we get the opportunity to question him directly.

I note from your responses there the repetition of the word 'collaboration', and I greatly welcome that. The farming unions have always wanted to be involved in the discussion around improving water qualities in Wales. But there is a level of frustration following this announcement yesterday, because a lot of the issues that they raised as potential problems down the line have been highlighted now in this report. So, they feel that they weren't listened to initially when they brought forward some of their concerns, for example, around the closed period. And we can just look to Ireland and the Irish Environmental Protection Agency, where closed periods around NVZ showed that peak nitrates happen once the closed period becomes an open period, showing that evidence that this system doesn't work. So, the frustration lies now that we've come this far down the channel to be told what we knew four, five years ago with regards to this policy.

So, I really welcome the collaborative messaging that you're putting forward on this, but what guarantees can you give to the farming unions, and the farming industry, that they will be listened to on this policy, going forward? Because they feel like they haven't been listened to previously.

Well, just on the point of the statement, that's obviously a matter for the Trefnydd, but I would refer you to the fact that the Government put out a written statement on this only yesterday, so there's plenty of evidence for you to have a look at there. And, obviously, there are many opportunities to question the Deputy First Minister, but that's a matter for the Trefnydd, not me. Not quite sure what that implied, actually, but feel free to ask me any question that you have on the subject.

Just in terms of listening, not really quite sure what you're trying to get at there. Because, obviously, the whole point of the review was in response to the fact that we had listened to people's concerns and we had a review done as a result of having listened to their concerns. So, I'm genuinely not quite sure what you're saying. So, we listened, we've done a review, I've just said we're going to implement the review in collaboration, so I'm not quite sure what further listening you had in mind.

But just to reiterate, this is an iterative, collaborative process, and the stakeholders are very much engaged. Anyone who wants to be engaged in the process should absolutely put their hand up via the unions, or indeed directly to the Deputy First Minister, or indeed to me, or to the First Minister, to say they want to be involved in that review. We will be taking it forward. The panel has come forward with a set of recommendations that are very helpfully set out in short, medium and longer term sets. We absolutely accept the recommendations, we've been very clear about that. All of that information is in the written statement.

There is a pattern of four nations ministerial meetings to discuss infected blood, and my officials continue to press for progress between meetings. On 3 March, I met with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Nick Thomas-Symonds, and Ministers from Scotland and Northern Ireland, to discuss the arrangements to support people infected and affected by the scandal, including the need for timely delivery of compensation claims from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

It’s now two years since Sir Brian Langstaff published his second interim report on compensation, and he published this report early, as he recognised that a delay to compensation would cause further harm to those infected and affected. On 20 May, it will be one year since Sir Brian Langstaff published his final inquiry report, in which he highlighted his damning findings. And we are now expecting him to report again, outlining his concerns about the completely unacceptable delay in setting up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and issuing compensation to victims. This should not be happening.

For more than 40 years, the infected and affected have been campaigning for justice. And I’ve been in this campaign for coming up to 30 years. And this is a cross-party campaign, because we have Rhun ap Iorwerth here, who’s the chair of the cross-party group on infected blood. We have other campaigners here—Mick and Hefin, and others—who have campaigned for years on this issue.

And last year, we were so pleased to welcome the news that £11.8 billion had been set aside for compensation. But I can’t support the way in which the setting up of the compensation framework, and the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, has caused significant delays, and the delays in registering for the affected. And I’m very pleased that we have got people here in the gallery today from Haemophilia Wales, and these are the people who are suffering because of these delays.

We heard on the weekend that two people are dying every week while they wait for compensation. Twenty-five infected or affected people that were known to Haemophilia Wales have died since the inquiry began. And I’ve been told that the compensation tariffs are so complex that it’s extremely difficult to gauge who will be eligible. However, Haemophilia Wales estimate that there’ll be around 300 infected and affected entitled to compensation in Wales. And, in Wales, at the moment, there are 213 infected and bereaved partners registered with the Wales infected blood support scheme for ex gratia payments. This cohort should have been paid compensation, as they are known to the Government, have already received an interim compensation payment, and they’ve already satisfied the necessary criteria for the interim compensation payment to be made.

I understand that there are a further 30 previously unrecognised deaths in Wales that are known to Haemophilia Wales, where no interim compensation payment has been made. These consist of affected parents, children who lost parents and siblings, and details of these people were passed on to the UK Government, Welsh Government and WIBSS in May last year. Thirteen have now received interim compensation, but 17 have not.

I’ve also heard that there have been rejections of transfusion estate applications, due to the destruction of medical records held at the University Hospital of Wales. And campaign groups, and, I think, Senedd Members, are very frustrated by this, Cabinet Secretary, because it does cause—. The delays do have practical impacts. If an infected person dies during this period, the compensation can be claimed through their estate, but if an affected person, like a widow or a widower dies, the claim to compensation dies with them.

In Wales, we’ve always been firm here in our position that we are on the side of the infected and the affected. We stand by them. We want justice to be served, and for victims to get their compensation. Would the Cabinet Secretary therefore push the UK Government in the strongest possible terms to speed up this process? Because I absolutely accept that the process has got to be done fairly, and it’s got to be a good process, but everything I’ve heard and seen makes me feel that there are unnecessary delays, unnecessary bureaucracy, and I think it’s up to us in this Senedd to do all we possibly can to urge the UK Government, and say, 'Look, just get on with it, it’s just been far too long.' This has been going on for years and years, and, as I’ve already said, people are dying.

I really feel that this extremely vulnerable group have been failed for more than 40 years, and I think we’re all proud that they’ve come here to the Senedd today. There was a considerable number of them outside on the Senedd steps, and some of them have come in to listen to the debate. They are looking to us to do what we can in order to urge the UK Government to move forward. Diolch. 

I thank Julie Morgan for her question. It’s a very important question, and the way in which she put it reminds us all of the very human impact of the arrangements that are being put in place and being discussed.

In my discussions with the UK Government, who obviously are responsible for the scheme, as she clearly is aware, I’m informed that the IBCA are still building and testing their compensation service, and they are working to start claims for estates, affected people and infected people who are not registered with the support scheme, with the aim of starting payments to some people in all of these groups by the end of this year. They won’t have finished paying people in these groups in that time frame, but they will have started.

Across all the infection groups, when they open, they will prioritise claims for those who are nearing the end of their life. This is for those who have been told by a medical professional that they might have 12 months or less to live. During April, I’m informed that they will write to everyone who’s registered with the support scheme to confirm that they have their correct details and to explain how to contact them if prioritising end-of-life claims applies to them. I’m also aware that the IBCA is recruiting hundreds of claims managers at the moment to help with compensation claims as soon as possible.

I want to identify myself with the comments that she made at the end of her statement about standing firm in support of infected and affected people and to see them having justice. I will press the case, as I have done, with the UK Government in my next meeting, and I shall make sure to be in touch with the Minister before that. I’m aware that Haemophilia Wales, who she referred to in her question, is I believe meeting with the Minister for the Cabinet Office later this week to discuss these very issues.

I’d like to associate myself with all the comments made by Julie Morgan. This infected blood scandal is probably one of the biggest devastating impacts that’s ever been in our health service right the way across our country, and my thoughts and my group’s thoughts are with all those people who were affected or infected. 

Cabinet Secretary, one thing I think I’d like to hear more of from you is actually the advocacy support and the mental health support that you are giving to those individuals. Some of these people, as Julie Morgan has said, have waited an awful long time, and there are now further delays in accessing the compensation that they can get. So, I’d just like to hear further from you what work you're doing in this space to make sure that those individuals and their families are supported through this process so nobody has to go through this alone. Most of them have gone through it alone for so many years before.

I associate myself with the comments that James Evans made at the start in relation to the campaigning work that a number of Members have been pursuing, including, very markedly, Julie Morgan and others. He’s right to say that the support available to those affected in Wales is absolutely critical, and there is a range of support available, which I think is generally well received, but there is obviously more that we will always look to do to provide the support that people need. I hope that he found the answer I gave to Julie Morgan of some reassurance.

I’d like to raise the case of a constituent of mine who has been ably supported as well by Julie Morgan. To follow on from her concerns about the IBCA, the new compensation scheme may unfairly discriminate against spouses and partners who become widowers and widows from here on in. For example, if my constituent had passed away before the end of March 2025—these are his words, by the way—his wife would have received 100 per cent of his support payments for the first year after his death, and then 75 per cent every year thereafter for the remainder of her life. However, from now on, as his wife is not currently signed up to the new scheme, she would be forced to take out a lump sum payment in return for the loss of her late husband’s earnings, which works out at a lot less over time than ongoing support payments. He and others who have been affected by the scandal were relieved last year when they were informed that support payments would continue for life. But they believe that this is a loophole, which potentially leaves families unsupported if something were to happen to loved ones. So, when the Cabinet Secretary has further meetings with UK counterparts, could he please raise that issue as well?

It is an issue that has been discussed at a four-nation level, recognising the concerns that the Member and others have outlined. All ex-gratia payments made through the support scheme after 1 April will be counted towards the compensation paid to an individual. This applies to a living or bereaved beneficiary, and they won't be disadvantaged. All compensation payments are calculated using a tariff model. In this case, the widow or a partner will have their compensation claim based, of course, on their particular circumstances and they can decide how they wish to receive their payment. They can choose to receive their compensation as either one single lump sum payment or a series of regular payments over five, 10 or 25 years, and those payments will increase each year with inflation. But I'd be very happy to look at the particular circumstances that the Member has raised in the Chamber today. 

Cabinet Secretary, if I could add my name to all the comments that have been made, and particularly to thank Julie Morgan for not only the work she's done over many years, but also for raising this again today. Because it's clear, despite all the high hopes after Brian Langstaff's inquiry, that we still have these delays and it's obviously concerning. I would like to raise two particular points. There are 213 registered with the Welsh infected blood scheme. What I think we could be asking the UK Government to resolve is this: why can't the data that is on that scheme be transferred to the new scheme, so that people can be paid immediately? It's difficult to understand why that would not be possible, why it would not be the case.

The second point is that, for the remainder, which are the affected people, who are predominantly siblings, they've been told that they will be invited in 2029, that's in four years' time, to start their claim. But the question is how does UK Government know who to write to, who they are, when there was actually no register of those who are affected who may be invited in 2029. It seems to me that there's a need to fill some of these gaps in the processing of these. If those matters could be taken up and added to the list of all the other issues that have been raised, because these must be capable of prompt resolution. Obviously, the solution to all the compensation claims may take longer, but one does have concerns that this matter is not being expedited with the urgency that I think everyone here has been expressing.

I'm grateful to Mick Antoniw for raising those two particular points. I'd be happy to make sure that my officials raise those directly with the UK Government.

I'm going to read the words of a constituent of mine. I won't name them. They know who they are. But they've been very influential on me in relation to this issue. It's quite clear, they say, that 'the Government line is to meet its legal responsibilities as slowly as possible, in the hope that we will all die soon and stop bothering them. We feel that we are again being bullied by those in power, adding insult to severe injury. The situation cannot go on. The 4,000 or so infected victims must be compensated immediately so that they can put the past behind them and enjoy the time they have left in peace.' I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for agreeing to press the case again for rapid movement on compensation, but will he agree in pressing the case to express it in those terms of frustration and anger, and making it very clear that we in the Senedd believe there can be no further delay?

I think the strength of feeling in the Chamber is clear, and I think it's important to have a set of arrangements that can command confidence, so I'd be very happy to put the points to the UK Government in those terms.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. As with so many other Senedd Members, I have constituents who were and are affected by the infected blood scandal, and that word 'scandal' certainly applies to these matters, doesn't it? It really is a shocking scandal and absolutely heartbreaking for the families affected. It was informative to meet the campaigners here today, Cabinet Secretary, and lots of Senedd Members had very useful discussions with them in terms of the up-to-date situation.

Many of the matters I was going to raise have been raised by Senedd Members already, but I would very much like to join them in paying tribute to Julie Morgan and all of the campaigners outside of the Senedd in Wales for the strength of their commitment and the work that they do. I was going to ask if you would meet with Haemophilia Wales, but you've already answered that point from Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Could I just ask, in addition to that, Cabinet Secretary, could you ensure that the ongoing communication with Haemophilia Wales and affected families here in our country is everything it needs to be? Because it is sometimes quite a fast-changing situation. And as well as an initial meeting, I think having a system in place to allow for communication on an ongoing basis is absolutely crucial as well.

I thank John Griffiths for that, and I will certainly look to my officials to make sure that we have arrangements in place that make sure that, when we have information, that is shared in the way that he suggests.

May I also take the opportunity of echoing his thanks to Julie Morgan once again for bringing this important question to the Senedd today and to thank families and campaigners who are here to witness and share the debate with us today? 

Diolch. In 2008, the United Nations General Assembly designated 2 April each year as World Autism Awareness Day. Today is therefore World Autism Awareness Day 2025, with the theme of advancing neurodiversity and the UN sustainable development goals, which include reducing inequalities, good health and well-being and ensuring inclusive and equitable education for all. The day highlights the need for increased awareness and understanding of autism spectrum conditions, promoting acceptance, inclusion and support for autistic individuals. However, too many senior public officials in Wales still rely on tick-box autism awareness training and refuse to understand and meet the communication, sensory and processing needs of autistic individuals. This too often leads to bullying, blaming and punishing, pushing autistic people into crisis, rather than providing the care, health, education, housing and employment support needed. 

At the last cross-party autism group, it was noted that many neurodiverse children are being educated at home, not by parental choice but due to inadequate support in mainstream school. A Gwynedd mum recently wrote stating that her autistic son's school is facing cuts, meaning that he is not receiving the support he needs. An autistic Anglesey constituent recently wrote, stating that autistic individuals are facing an increasingly hostile environment. And an autistic Flintshire mum wrote last Friday, describing discrimination and victimisation of the families who make complaints. Wales therefore needs action to turn professed autism awareness, understanding and acceptance from an unaccountable veneer into a living reality across our public and private sectors. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. For any party claiming to represent the principles of equality, fairness and justice, eradicating the scourge of poverty should be their unshakeable lodestar, their unconditional purpose. And we were always led to believe that this was the case with the Labour Party. To quote the Cabinet Secretary for finance at the 2023 Labour Party conference, an incoming Starmer administration would be guided by a burning sense that

'this party’s mission is not to tinker at the edges, not to offer some mild amelioration, but to eradicate poverty'.

That's why the Welsh Government should have brought this debate to the floor of our Senedd today. It's extremely disappointing that it took a motion to call an urgent debate to force the Government to debate this issue, which will have, in the words of the Bevan Foundation, a huge and concerning impact on 275,000 people in Wales—to discuss the impact on Wales of the biggest cuts to disability benefits on record, which will push thousands into poverty.

We know that Labour isn't honouring long-held promises to Wales, as we've seen with their refusal to reform the outdated Barnett formula, devolving the Crown Estate and their failure to provide Wales with a single penny of HS2 consequentials. But we've now reached the stage where Labour is not only ignoring Welsh interests but actively working against them. How else to explain a decision to unleash welfare cuts that even George Osborne winces at, in the full knowledge that they will push hundreds of thousands of people into poverty, in the full knowledge that it will impact Wales harder. What's particularly shameful, as was reflected in the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions's letter to the First Minister, is that they haven't bothered with the pretence that the implications for Wales were even given a moment's thought. Instead, we have insulting blandishments about a broken benefits system, singularly failing to recognise that it is Labour's moral compass that is truly broken. An admission that no Wales-specific analysis has been undertaken. The sheer hollowness of the so-called partnership of power is plain for all to see. And to borrow the words of the Cabinet Secretary for finance once again, from a time when the Welsh Government was far more prepared to denounce the actions of Westminster, these are 

'the deliberate decisions of a Government that knows what it is doing, knows that there will be thousands more children in poverty in Wales because of their cuts...but simply don't care.'

And while this was a decision taken in Westminster, because Wales has higher rates of disabled people of working age than the UK average and five of the UK's 10 local authorities with the highest rates of economic inactivity because of long-term illness, the impact of these unprecedented cuts to disability benefits on Wales will be devastating, and we need to know now what the Welsh Government's position is. After refusing to state what that position was in response to questions to the First Minister, to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and to a topical question tabled by Plaid Cymru, the First Minister finally said that she was reserving her position when the Secretary of State for Wales suggested she had written to the UK Government in support of the welfare reforms. So, we need to hear clarity on a few issues this afternoon, don’t we?

Now that the First Minister has seen the response from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on which she said she would be basing her response, what is her position and that of her Government on these reforms? Does the Welsh Government agree with the loud and unified chorus of condemnation from inequality and poverty policy experts, social justice campaigners, disability rights campaigners, social policy researchers, disabled people’s organisations and, most importantly, disabled people themselves that these are short-sighted, immoral and unethical, and who say that these will have a chilling effect on engagement with support, leading not to increased employment, but to increased poverty? And what action is now being taken, therefore, by the Welsh Labour Government to address the impact of these cuts that the UK Labour Westminster Government didn’t even bother consulting with you on?

As no assessment has been provided to the Welsh Government, how will Ministers act to mitigate the impact of these reforms on the way it supports disabled people and people in poverty, and on the capacity and costs of the services it provides, the demand for welfare advice, the devolved grants and allowances, such as the discretionary assistance fund, for social and health services, for mental health support—the demand on which will all be disproportionately higher in Wales than in England? Additional resource will be needed for these services, so will the Welsh Government be asking for funding matched to this higher need, higher than the Barnettised uplift from the Chancellor? Will you be setting up a ministerial task and finish group on welfare reform, as you did in 2015 to consider the actions needed by Welsh Government in response to the consequences of Westminster cuts to welfare? That could also consider, of course, the continuing impact of the retention of the two-child cap, the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners, and the effect of the pension injustice suffered by 1950s-born women. I’d like answers, please, to those points in your response, as the Senedd and the people we all represent deserve answers. The time for spin is over and the time for opaqueness is over, because the impact of what the Government’s benefit cuts mean for ill and disabled people is even worse than first thought, according to the New Economics Foundation. While they say the widely reported numbers were concerning enough, that £4.8 billion-worth of cuts would lead to 250,000 people being pushed into poverty, including 50,000 children, they now say that the way these figures have been presented has concealed the fact that these cuts will hit ill and disabled people by almost £2 billion more than the reported figures, and could see around 100,000 additional people pushed into poverty.

So, we know now the UK Government has provided no assessment of the impact of these welfare reforms on Wales, no disaggregated data, so what work is now being done to conduct your own assessment, and when can we expect that to be published? How will the forthcoming disability rights plan and the child poverty strategy address these serious new challenges? I urge the Government to show leadership on this matter, which up to now has been conspicuous by its absence, evidenced by the fact that we had to force you to debate this issue, force you to reveal how you had engaged with the UK Government on this, force you ultimately to be answerable to the thousands of disabled people out there, many already facing financial and mental—[Interruption.] If you want to intervene, Hefin, intervene; otherwise, can you please be quiet?

The Government voted to have this debate, and I think—

Because I put forward a—

Can the Member put his intervention forward, please?

Go for it.

This is a serious issue, and I think just trying to gain party political advantage without taking the issue seriously is very disappointing.

Okay—[Interruption.]—I'll answer, I'll answer. We asked for this debate. We asked for it through Business Committee. We asked for it in business statement. We had to put forward topical questions. We only had a written statement in response to the spring statement. I had to table for an urgent debate to get this to happen. [Interruption.] You voted for it then because it was rather embarrassing, wasn't it? The Government should have put this forward. [Interruption.] I've answered you. There's your answer. [Interruption.]

Can I—? [Interruption.] Alun—[Interruption.] Alun—

Well, perhaps you could tell your Government what to table, then, Alun Davies. Perhaps you should tell your business manager and Chief Whip. Perhaps you should tell your Cabinet Secretaries—

Wait a second. Let's not have the conversation across the Chamber from either side. An intervention was had, you responded, there should be no other conversations. Let's continue with the contribution.

I will. I think you can see many of us have had e-mails from our constituents that have made us become very, very concerned and extremely disappointed by this, and that's what I'm trying to reflect in my contribution today. So, I'm going to continue.

I urge the Government to show leadership on this matter, which up to now has been conspicuous by its absence, evidenced by the fact that we had to force you to debate this issue, force you to reveal how you had engaged with the UK Government on this, forced you ultimately to be answerable to the thousands of disabled people out there, many already facing serious financial and mental health challenges, who are telling us and those who are supporting them that they are scared, that they don't know how they will cope physically, financially and mentally, that they feel under attack and stigmatised, with harmful and false narratives around disability and entitlement to social security being bolstered by these plans. So, please respond today to these real fears, these real concerns, with strong condemnation and real actions.

I thank Sioned for pushing for this debate today. However, I am of the opinion that whatever is said here today will have little to no impact on UK Government policy. This is not a UK Government known for listening to the Labour cliques in the Welsh Government. Why should they pay any attention to what we say here today?

The pathways to work Green Paper is causing real and deep concern amongst those in receipt of health-related benefits across the length and breadth of Wales. According to the First Minister, the UK Government cuts to welfare will fall more heavily in Wales. This is just adding to the concerns for our disabled constituents, which will not be addressed by this debate today. We need greater clarity, not more noise. Surely we would be better off calling the Secretary of State for Wales to come to this Chamber to address concerns and thoroughly outline the UK Government's plans. After all, this is not legislation, it is a Green Paper, the start of the process, not the end. The Senedd and the representatives of the people of Wales should be able to feed their views into the process, but this is a reserved matter. We have no direct role in these UK reforms.

We on this side of the Chamber believe that it should remain that way. Unlike Plaid and many in the Labour group, Welsh Conservatives don't support the devolution of welfare. If it was devolved, would you be doing anything different? I would like for Plaid and the Welsh Government to outline what steps they would take to ensure the long-term sustainability of the welfare system and to restore fairness. Doing nothing is not an option; the bill for health and related benefits for people of working age is set to rise to £71 billion a year by the end of the decade, far more than we spend on defending our nation. Something has to be done, and I congratulate the UK Government for finally realising this, but they are being disingenuous and hypocritical. Rachel Reeves has stated that designing a benefits system to save money is wrong. Liz Kendall has said that cutting disability support goes against the values of a decent society. According to Sir Keir Starmer, cutting disability benefits is unfair and unacceptable.

What we need is clear direction and, above all, assurances that disabled people will not be forced into poverty as a result of the UK Government's proposals. But these are questions that only the UK Government can address, so either the Welsh Government needs to be more forthcoming with their correspondence with the UK Ministers, or we need to be able to question the UK Government directly. Diolch yn fawr.

I declare an interest in this debate as my daughter is in receipt of disability living allowance, and in seven years' time, when she's 16, she'll be moving on to personal independence payments. And the fact is that she's disabled—that is something that a parent with a child who is disabled comes to terms with over time—and the benefits system is there to support her. But after I'm no longer here to look after her she'll still be reliant on the benefits system, and what I don't want to do is get into a position where anything I say is frightening those people who are in a similar position to me. I'm connected to the autism community in Caerphilly and parents of disabled children, and I would reassure them that, where a child is disabled or with a disability that is getting worse, the benefits cuts will not have an impact on them and their children will continue to be supported.

The other thing I'd say about my daughter and children like her is that, one day, I want her to be able to work. At the moment, I don't know if she can. She's struggling to read and she's struggling to write, but she's very creative and I would hope that the system will find, one day, a job for her. And that is the role, I think, of the benefits system. At the moment, it is not achieving that; it is trapping people with autism, learning disabilities and other disabilities out of work and in poverty. The reform of the system requires individuals to be supported, and the First Minister said on Wales Online, and it was reported by the BBC, that she's concerned about those individuals who may be affected by these changes, and that's absolutely right. But we've seen where it can work.

A few weeks ago, at First Minister's questions, I made reference to Engage to Change, an organisation that was run through Cardiff University, which introduced job coaching and job carving for 1,300 autistic and/or learning disabled young people. And of those, 41 per cent of them found work. Across the UK, the average number of people finding work in those same situations is 4 per cent, and what that tells us is that our benefits system is working in the wrong direction and not enough of it is going to supporting people into work through things like job coaching. That can happen and that is the lesson and the legacy of Engage to Change. And I know that when my daughter and people like her reach that age when they will be looking for work, there's—

Would you give way?

Just two seconds.

There's an opportunity for the benefits system to support them into that. Yes, Mark Isherwood, who I know is a long-standing campaigner on autism and learning support.

Thank you. As you are a fellow member of the cross-party autism group, who also periodically attends the cross-party group on disability, will you confirm my statement that we've taken evidence in both those cross-party groups on disability and employment, and disabled and autistic people are telling us that they want to work, the problem is the barriers to employment and benefits accessibility that they encounter?

That's absolutely the case and I've heard learning disabled and autistic people say that, and we've seen that through Engage to Change. I listened very carefully to your 90-second statement, which made that clear, in Autism Awareness Month as well.

I also have got concerns that I want to raise about people with mental health diagnoses, also in this case. We cannot stigmatise people with mental health conditions and I am concerned about some of the language in the Green Paper on those individuals with mental health conditions. Where someone has a mental health condition, there could be an underlying undiagnosed cause. So, people in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s could be undiagnosed autistic and therefore suffering from mental health conditions as a result of that. Now, if the level that they have to reach in order to qualify for a PIP is raised, yet they have an underlying condition, I would like the UK Government to consider that those PIPs cannot be removed, or any support be removed, until they've gone through the diagnostic process, however long that takes. That'll be part of what I'll be feeding back in my response to the Green Paper.

Chris Evans, MP for Caerphilly, and I will be issuing a joint response to the Green Paper. I've read through it. We are happy to take Liz Kendall at her word when she said in the letter to the First Minister that the Green Paper is the beginning of the conversation and not the end point. I'm willing to take that as an opportunity to recommend these changes to the Government's paper, both from my lived experience, but also from listening to those constituents who've contacted me and other stakeholders in my constituency and beyond who have these experiences and know what needs to change, both to help them and to mitigate the consequences of what's been announced.

Would you take an intervention, Hefin?

Yes.

I recognise what you're saying, but the thing I think that we need to make clear also, though, is that there are 12 measures, changes, that are not being consulted on—they're not in the Green Paper—such as the requirement to score at least four points to get the daily living element of PIP; that 87 conditions, which include things like fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis, which can really impact you, are not now going to be included. So, they are not up for discussion.

Okay. So, they are up for discussion in the Green Paper, in that the four-points point is mentioned, because that's where I read it, in the Green Paper. But also one of the consultation questions asks us what would we like to see in place of PIP, what kind of support should be there in place where those four points have not been reached. So, there is an opportunity to make representations there. 

I'm going to close my speech now because I'm out of time, but I would say that the responsible thing is that, collectively as a Senedd, we make our representations, that the Welsh Government makes a representation back, and that we work with our Members of Parliament in our communities to make sure the voices of those people who are concerned are heard by the Westminster Government.

Let me take Members back through the timeline of events to better understand the Welsh Government's position and approach to the Chancellor's reforms. On 11 March, the First Minister wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, a letter that didn't raise one concern about the impacts of the reforms on the people of Wales—not one concern. Subsequently, on 18 March, the First Minister told me that she had raised concerns with No. 10—a yet unnamed official whom she spoke to—but there's no record of the conversation. What particular concerns did she raise on behalf of the Welsh Government then? We need an answer to that rather important question.

She said that she was:

'very pleased to see that many of those concerns have been taken on board and that the most vulnerable will continue to be protected',

yet eight days later the Chancellor went further and deeper with her welfare cuts than we had previously expected. So, what exactly did the First Minister influence?

Yesterday, a source close to the First Minister let it be known that she was displeased with the Secretary of State for Wales, Jo Stevens, for saying that she had supported the cuts. Why didn't the First Minister say so explicitly herself, rather than make some ambiguous comments about others speaking on her behalf? If she wasn't to show her displeasure—though we're still waiting for her condemnation, of course, rather than displeasure—how about saying unequivocally which elements of the UK Government's reforms she disagrees with and explain how the Welsh end of the so-called partnership in power will try to influence the Westminster end to change course?

Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice committed to publishing a letter she wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As of 3 o'clock this afternoon, when I last checked, that hasn't happened, as far as I'm aware—nothing on the Welsh Government's website whatsoever. How are we to scrutinise? Then we have Liz Kendall's letter—a response to the First Minister's cursory note—that makes only a passing reference to working with Welsh Government on the impacts on Wales. It's nothing short of contemptuous.

What is the Welsh Government's understanding of when a Welsh-specific impact assessment will be made available? What consideration has Welsh Government given to undertaking their own assessment with the information available to them? I'll add here that, alongside complete ignorance of the impact in Wales of the welfare cuts, we've had it confirmed today that the national insurance changes, which come with full reimbursement for the public sector in England, only come with a Barnett consequential for Wales, leaving Wales, perhaps, we think, around £66 million short—another sign that this UK Labour Government cares not one bit about Wales. Dirprwy Lywydd, under Labour we have been taken back to a time reminiscent of Conservative rule at Westminster, unleashing austerity—because that's what this is—failing to consult with Welsh Government, and showing a carefree attitude to the impact of decisions on the people of Wales. This morning the First Minister said, and I quote again, ‘This is a UK Government decision, it's not my decision. This is absolutely the UK Government that's got to defend this position.’ It will not wash.

On 3 July last year, in Carmarthen—I was there on the same day—the First Minister said she was proud to stand alongside Keir Starmer. She can't distance herself from him now on this issue. And neither can she forget that she is the leader of the Labour Party in Wales, including its MPs. So, in her absence here this afternoon, I ask her: will she be instructing those MPs to vote against these cuts? If not, we know which side she's on.

Before we move forward, can I remind Members that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice is responding to the debate today? Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and grateful that this debate is taking place today. I think it is an important debate, and I think we should take seriously the impacts that are potentially going to be felt by some of the most vulnerable people in this country. I regret sometimes that the tone of some speeches can forget the people who are impacted by these decisions, and I very much welcome the contribution from Hefin David, which brought these debates into focus on the people that are affected, rather than political point-scoring.

Will you take a very brief intervention? I'm glad that he welcomes the opportunity to have this debate. Does he not think that Government should have provided time to debate something that is so important to the constituents that we represent?

The Government has ensured that this debate takes place, as far as I can see, and certainly there's never been any conversation that I've been a part of that the Government weren't going to be doing that. So, I think you can lose the focus on the people here.

But I think this is an important debate because of the impact on people, and some of the most vulnerable people, in the constituencies we all represent, but also because this speaks and goes to the heart of who we are as politicians and what is the purpose of government. And it is about our priorities, and it is about where we come from and what we want to achieve.

I would have preferred the UK Government to make a clear statement that its purpose is the eradication of poverty, that it seeks—actively seeks—a reduction in inequality across the whole of the United Kingdom. And my fear at the moment is that this current UK Government is in danger of repeating the same mistakes as the Liberal Democrats made in 2010, by accepting a Conservative economic analysis and then becoming the over-enthusiastic supporters of Tory austerity, with the damage that's been done to people, and the most vulnerable people and the most vulnerable communities, that we've all witnessed since then.

I prefer a different way, and this is a Labour way, because I remember the Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and I remember Rhodri Morgan here in this Chamber, and I remember a Welsh Government in the first years after it was established—after democratic self-government was established in this country, its first priority was to reduce inequality. And it worked with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in order to reduce child poverty, and we saw child poverty reduced in my constituency as a consequence of that, because the Government took different decisions and made the eradication of poverty and inequality part of what it is, its purpose, its objectives, and, because you've done that, you then take different decisions. And it is those different decisions that I would like us to see.

We need to understand the impacts that this is going to have in different communities and on different people. I regret greatly that the UK Government did not seek to publish or carry out assessments of the impact this would have in Wales. Because this will have a significant impact on the work of the Welsh Government and the priorities of the Welsh Government. This will have an impact on some of the poorest communities in our country, and my constituency in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney will be the test. If this constituency is not able to receive the help and support, and if people in this constituency are not able to receive the support they need as a consequence of these decisions, then they will be the wrong decisions. And it is right and proper that two Governments working together respect each other, and respect means more than resolutions and speeches: it means actions. It certainly means a reversal of the decision the finance Cabinet Secretary referred to earlier this afternoon in questions, but it also means conversations taking place before Green Papers are published, that Wales is protected and the most vulnerable people in Wales are protected from the damaging consequences of some of these decisions. 

So, I hope that in debating these matters today this afternoon, what this Parliament can do is to speak as one to say that we will prioritise the most vulnerable people in our country and in our communities, and that we will seek a different way. We will seek a way that seeks to respect the most vulnerable people. We will not accept the Tory arguments on the economy. We know the Conservatives trashed the economy and have essentially eradicated growth. What we need to do is to eradicate poverty, and what I want to do is to work with a UK Government that is committed to the eradication of poverty and the eradication of inequality, because Labour Governments have done it before and it is time for a Labour Government to do it again.

For me, this debate is actually about dignity—dignity for those people who are disabled. If you are disabled, it costs more money to live on, more to heat your home, more to travel, more to find money for food. And yet we've heard—and perhaps there is cross-party agreement—that the Labour Government plan to cut the money that they actually rely on. Whether they're working or not, disabled people need more money in order just to survive. Cutting their benefits is a total false economy. Their medical needs will increase, more people will be pushed into poverty rather than being pushed into jobs, and homelessness will increase as well. Polly Neate, the chief executive of Shelter, has said that this benefit change is going to push more households into homelessness, and that cuts to benefits will increase homelessness among disabled people.

While disabled people are being asked to sacrifice, the richest in our country continue to see their wealth grow. Last year, UK billionaires saw their collective wealth increase by £35 million a day. Four new billionaires were created last year in the UK, taking the current total to 57. There's more than enough money here in the UK to make sure that we don't have to cut these benefits. Labour had the opportunity to tax the wealthiest, but they chose not to. I've mentioned in this Siambr before the organisation Patriotic Millionaires UK. This is their response to the spring 2025 budget announcement: 

'As Patriotic Millionaires we have all benefited greatly from living in this country and understand that a strong economy depends on well-funded public services...Instead of asking those who have benefited most from our economy...the Government is choosing to further cut welfare—despite over a decade of austerity that has already eroded the social safety net for disabled people. This is a decision they do not have to make.'

So, there is a choice—there is a clear choice. We do not have to make disabled people poorer. We don't have to stress them out. We don't have to create the situation where, unfortunately, the Labour Government are picking once again on the little people. There's a long list now, I'm afraid, of those who are affected by this Labour Government's choices: WASPI women, as you've heard, not getting the compensation that they deserve; not scrapping the two-child benefit cap; taxing our farmers; increasing national insurance on our small businesses; cutting international aid to the poorest in the world; putting online videos showing the deportation of refugees and asylum seekers, therefore demonising them even further. It's a shameful situation, and we in Wales need to do better.

I'm pleased to hear from Alun and also from Altaf that there may be cross-party support to demonstrate that, here in Wales, we don't want to see this. We need to make sure that we stand up for the people of Wales. We need to make sure that we tackle, obviously, the situation where we want more people to get into work—of course we do—but where that's not possible, or where that has to be subsidised, and surely our disabled people have to be our priority.

So, I am going to finish, and I'm going to ask the Cabinet Secretary two questions here. The first is: will you agree to meet with Patriotic Millionaires, some of whom are here in Wales, and hear their view of how we can create a much fairer society? And that, I hope, will be something I'll hear about in your response. And then we do need to hear, as we've heard from some of the Labour backbenchers here, that you are concerned about the benefit cuts, that you want to represent Wales, and want to make sure that there is an impact assessment. Because we are here as the voice of the voiceless. We are here to make sure we represent our most vulnerable. They may not vote for us, they may not support us in any way in any elections, but that's not what we're here for; we are here to make sure we represent the most vulnerable in our society. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I note, whilst this debate has been taking place, that we've received a copy of the letter that the Cabinet Secretary sent to the UK Government. I'm not sure if there was another letter, because what we were told was that there was a comprehensive letter, with the Welsh Government's concerns outlined. I would like that clarity, perhaps, in the response today.

In terms of the debate today, it is an important one. It is one many constituents have contacted me about, and one of my constituents is actually here today, watching the debate, and she would like nothing more than to actually be able to speak for herself. She has shared some words with me that I'd like to share with everyone: 'Disability has cost me £14,000 just to be able to leave the house.' That's the cost of her wheelchair. 'That doesn't include the wheelchair accessible car, with costs starting at £30,000. Under the proposed new rules, as I can walk a few steps and sometimes wash my hair myself, I risk losing PIP and the limited capability for work employment and support allowance. How do they expect us to contribute to society when our access to the outside world is so expensive, with them also intending to cut our income? And, of course, the extra costs of things to help me eat, cook food, the medication that helps my symptoms that I can't get on the NHS, on my £28,000-a-year job, I couldn't afford those things. Expecting people not earning that to survive is absurd. You can reform the benefit system without chopping money off. And giving people a chance to work via trials and them not losing their benefits is great, but cutting the money we get won't help that; it's a separate issue.' Also, AJ says quite clearly, 'I want nothing more than to work, but my disability means I cannot any more. I didn't give up my career for fun; I gave it up because it was literally killing me to keep it going.'

So, we talk about getting people back into work, but this is the reality of what's happening, and the stress on constituents like AJ should not be happening. And the discourse is happening, talking about people, rather than with people, listening to those lived experiences. And that's why I've been so disappointed by the Welsh Government's response to date. And it's a shame that the First Minister's not here, because watching that scrutiny session on Friday—'reserving judgment'. Reserving judgment. Isn't she the First Minister that said she was listening to the people of Wales? Well, she hasn't been listening or actually reading about the impact on all those organisations that have outlined why we in Wales are especially vulnerable.

Now, I've been looking back at the Cofnod, when we've seen the austerity years, and the responses from the Welsh Government then were quite clear in terms of not wanting to see those most vulnerable impacted. They were very, very clear statements; why so silent now? And it is a shame that we have had to have an urgent debate. I would like to know where we go from here. How are we now going to see that clear position from Welsh Government?

There are some practical things that we'd like to know as well. So, previously, in response to the Welfare Reform Act 2012, the Welsh Government set up a ministerial task and finish group and commissioned research to understand the impact on household income in Wales, the wider economic and social impacts of welfare reform, and the potential impact on devolved public services in Wales. Are there any plans to do so this time? Because, obviously, we know the huge range of different things that the Welsh Government has had to put in place in order to counter austerity. Are we in a position where you're also going to have to extend that support in order to mitigate the impact on our already fragile public services?

When it comes to local authorities, we already know that they've been extremely concerned about the impact on some of their commissioned services or their work with agencies such as Citizens Advice because of the changes to national insurance. We know that Citizens Advice across Wales have had to actually undergo redundancies because of the proposed changes—because of the changes and the strain on budgets. Well, we are going to need these people now more than ever, aren't we? We've talked about maximising the amount of benefits that people claim and ensuring that people claim every pound they're entitled to. How are we going to do that without the expertise and those services if they're being reduced? So, can I ask, what assessment have you undertaken in terms of the impact on local authorities and other support agencies, and what assurances can you give that you will look to support local authorities and other support agencies?

These are the questions that we need clarity on and I would be grateful for those today.

I want to start by answering Altaf Hussain: what would the Welsh Government do differently if we had control over the administration of benefits? Well, I think one of the things we would do differently is what Hefin was talking about. Engage to Change is a really important initiative to enable people with disabilities—and particularly learning disabilities—to be able to work. And we want everybody who can work to have that dignity.

I think, secondly, we have the young person's guarantee. We—

Would you take a very brief intervention? Thank you so much.

You mentioned Engage to Change; as we understand it, the funding has stopped to Engage to Change, and isn't going to continue. [Inaudible.] I'm sorry? [Inaudible.]

I wonder if you could just clarify: is there going to be continued funding, or maybe the Cabinet Secretary could clarify that? As we understand it, there are concerns that it won't continue. It's been a fabulous project, as we've all heard. Thank you.

Wrong person to ask, I'm afraid. I'm not in the Government.

The young person's guarantee supports people who are 16 to 24 to avoid being not in education, employment or training. So, the UK Government put a lot of emphasis on the fact that there's one in eight young people of that age not in work, not in training, not in education; that's absolutely shocking. Well, the initiative that the Welsh Government has, I want to have a really close look at it, to learn from it, because the First Minister, on more than one occasion, has said that we have half that rate in Wales, and if that is actually the case, we really do need to get the UK Government to learn from us.

This morning, I visited a charity that manages supported housing for people who have experienced homelessness. They have a great track record of working with people who have suffered adverse childhood experiences, addictions, gender-based violence, as well as the actual trauma of becoming homeless. Normally, they expect their tenants to live there for six months before moving into their own tenancy in the private rented sector, but the demand for affordable housing makes it almost impossible to become a social housing tenant with an affordable, secure tenancy. And even in the private rented sector in Cardiff, there's so little affordable housing, that those people typically remain in this supported housing for two to three years. Most PRS landlords refuse to take tenants in receipt of benefits, and insist on a UK home owner to be a guarantor of any tenancy. So, you can just see, illustrating this particular group of vulnerable people, all of whom, I imagine, are on benefits, just how difficult their lives are, and how much more difficult they're likely to be as a result of these benefit cuts.

Yes, there's going to be a £3-a-week increase in universal credit, and that's welcome, but it's overwhelmingly overshadowed by the £5 billion that the UK Government is wanting to cut from these benefits. I just can't overemphasise the importance of the need to have much more housing that people can afford so that everybody is appropriately housed. I just don't see that coming from the UK Government.

Last week, Rachel Reeves visited a construction site in Radyr to see what Wales is doing to tackle our housing crisis. I'm glad to hear that 30 per cent of the homes at Plasdŵr are social housing, and that's how it should be wherever housing is being built. But I'm given to understand that, of this 1.5 million houses that the UK Government is promising for England, a mere 1.2 per cent of them is social housing.

The UK Government has yet to get round to suspending the right to buy amongst council tenants. I mean, this is absolutely ridiculous. There's no use building housing at one end if you aren't dealing with the speculation on public housing at the other. It really pains me, in a way, to say that we are having this debate in the middle of what is an existential crisis.

Donald Trump is calling this day 'liberation day'. Well, I'm sure everybody in Argentina is having a big laugh on that because many of you may not realise that today is the anniversary of the invasion of the Falkland islands. The United States are no longer our friends. They didn't support the UK in the Falklands, and they won't take any notice of us under Trump if it gets in any way in the way of their conquest of precious resources in Ukraine, Greenland, Gaza, or anywhere else.

I'm not arguing against an increase in defence spending because of the way in which so much of the world is dominated by people who absolutely have no regard for the rule of law, but we have to ask what is this spending going to be put on—nuclear submarines that the US Government will never give us permission to use, and we frankly wouldn't want to use anyway because there is no winner in that. But we absolutely have to address these benefit cuts in the context of the recession—

You need to conclude now, please, Jenny.

—that must be likely to happen with the 20 per cent tariff on goods entering the United States. The upheavals are enormous, and I'm sad to say that I'm not sure that the UK Government is on top of this. 

The Chancellor at Westminster, with her Cabinet colleagues, have collectively unveiled a plan so callous in its conception that it stands as nothing less than a betrayal of everything Labour once represented. Billions of pounds not taken from the coffers of privilege, not drawn from the vaults of excess, but torn from the threadbare pockets of those already struggling to survive.

We stand at a fairly stark crossroads, don't we? Down one path lies the continuation, as we've heard, of a cruel orthodoxy that measures a nation's success by the cold arithmetic of spreadsheets rather than the warmth of its compassion. Down the other, a recommitment to the principles that once made Labour the party of Bevan and Griffiths, Welsh architects of a welfare state born from the conviction that dignity is not a luxury to be afforded only to the fortunate few.

The economic folly of these cuts is matched only by their moral bankruptcy. Every £1 stripped from welfare is £1 removed from our local economies; it's £1 that would have been spent in our corner shops, our cafes, our small businesses. The Chancellor speaks of fiscal responsibility, while implementing policies, as we've heard, that will necessitate greater expenditure in the years to come, as children raised in deepening poverty require more intensive support, as communities hollowed out by desperation fall into crisis, as the social fabric that binds us together frays beyond repair.

We've witnessed this tragedy before. After 2008, successive Westminster Governments chose austerity over investment, punishment over compassion. The results speak for themselves—lost decade after lost decade, where child poverty surged, where foodbanks became more common than post offices, where the gap between the haves and have-nots has widened into an unbridgeable chasm. Andy Burnham in Manchester understands this and has condemned these proposals. So have the First Ministers in Edinburgh and Belfast.

The First Minister here and this Senedd possess a power that must not be squandered. Together with our counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, we can forge an alliance of conscience that Westminster cannot ignore. Where we have no power, then we must use our voice. And where have power, we must our imagination.

If Labour in Westminster persist in this betrayal of its founding principles, then let us here chart a different course. Where they dismantle the welfare state, then let us begin to build a Welsh well-care state that rejects the false choice between economic growth and social justice, one that recognises that investment in human potential is the surest path to sustainable prosperity, one that understands that a nation’s greatness is measured not by the wealth of its richest citizens, but how it treats the most vulnerable.

This is not idealism alone—it's sound economics. It's the insight of Keynes a century ago, who understood that, in times of hardship, the state must step up, not step back. It's the insight of modern economists, who have demonstrated time and time again that societies with stronger safety nets recover faster from economic shocks and grow more sustainably in the long term.

The times that we're living in demand courage, not capitulation. They require vision, not the recycling of failed policies. While others abandon the principles that once guided them, let us uphold them. While others sacrifice the vulnerable on the altar of political expediency, let us defend them. And when the history of these troubled times is written, let it be said that, here in Wales, when darkness threatened to engulf the most needy among us, we did not merely light a candle—we ignited a beacon of hope.

Since the UK Government's announcement on welfare reform, Dirprwy Lywydd, I've had many conversations with constituents, as I'm sure other Members here have had as well. And I must say, I agree with the majority of my constituents that I've spoken to, in as much as what they believe is: that reform of welfare benefits should help people move from worklessness into work, because that's very good for those individuals, their families, and communities, and, of course, that in itself will reduce the benefits bill; that there must be a safety net for those unable to work, and we should not cut benefits for those in that position; we need to support the vulnerable; and they should not pay the price in terms of the challenge of balancing the UK Government's books.

There's a huge amount of worry and anxiety in our communities at the moment, which has been created by the communication around the announcement, which has worried so many people who are dependent on benefits. We do know, Dirprwy Lywydd, that there's a great deal of good work in Wales with devolved services working with the DWP and jobcentres to move people closer to the jobs market, as it's described, and get them into work. That's, sometimes, a long process, but it does bear fruit, and I do think we should take a longer term view on these matters, which, indeed, the well-being of future generations Act here in Wales directs us to do. There is much good work in Wales that we can build on, and further devolution in terms of what ability Wales has to help people move closer to the jobs market and into work would be very useful indeed. I believe discussions are very much under way in terms of that.

I have examples in Newport—and I'm sure there are examples right across Wales—of some very good work. Newport City Council, for example, runs job clubs at community centres for people over the age of 16 who are unemployed. It involves support for CV writing and writing job applications, developing interview skills, getting accredited qualifications, and it has free employment-related courses. Newport Mind, through their six-month Kickstart programme for young people, helps them to claim universal credit where they need to do that, but also supports them to improve their employability and, indeed, to get them into work and bridge the gap between those two things—being workless and eventually getting that paid employment.

And of course, Dirprwy Lywydd, several years ago now, when I chaired the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, we did some work on the way that the UK benefits system works in Wales. We recommended, amongst other things, that the administration of that benefit system should be devolved to Wales. We believed very strongly—I still believe very strongly—that that would bring many advantages. We heard so often that it's dignity and respect that counts for a lot and needs to be embedded in the culture of the way the benefit system is administered, that there needs to be a different approach to assessments for disability and illness benefits, for example, and a different approach to the way that the sanctions regime operates—just a few examples of the way that I think we could be far more constructive and effective in the way that we operate here in Wales.

I think at the heart of this debate is recognising the particular impact that cuts to benefits would have here in Wales, and, as a result of that, the particular need for the UK Government to work very closely with the Welsh Government to get our people here in Wales in a position where they can move from worklessness into work, and in doing so, cut that UK benefits bill. I think that's the constructive approach, that's the best approach, and that's the approach we should see.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you for the opportunity to respond to this important debate, which I welcome. I welcome the opportunity to respond to it as Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, fully aware that when we discuss welfare reforms, we must remember that this is fundamentally about people across Wales who are concerned about what their futures may hold.

Our debate today is important, your voices across the Chamber are valued, and they will all help to contribute to the way in which we are engaging to present our response to the Green Paper. Of course, it is the UK Government's Green Paper, which includes a mix of reforms, which will require legislative changes to be approved by the UK Parliament. But I want to reassure people that the Welsh Government will make sure our voices and, most importantly, the voices of disabled people and their representatives are heard by the UK Government on all their proposed reforms.

Yes, I have shared the letter. It's actually the only letter that I've issued. To explain, in my letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which was my initial response when we heard about the reforms, I did say in that letter, which I've shared now across the Chamber, and indeed it's out in public domain, that it would be beneficial if the Department for Work and Pensions organised face-to-face consultation events here in Wales to ensure those who are digitally excluded have the opportunity to share their views. And of course, we also have an opportunity on a four-nations basis, with a commitment to meet with the Department for Work and Pensions, and this clearly will be an opportunity to share this on a wider basis.

Our work establishing and working with the disability rights taskforce, which colleagues are very aware of, to develop the disabled people's rights plan, shortly to go out to consultation, reflects our commitment to listen to—not just listen to, but to collaborate and work with disabled people. And next week I'm meeting with the disability rights taskforce to discuss the Green Paper, and that will be followed by a meeting with the disability equality forum.

The views of people with lived experience—and I have to say that that includes all of the experiences that you fed back to me today from constituents and from your own observations and comments—will be at the heart of our cross-Government response to the welfare reforms. Every voice counts, all contributions matter. This is the start of our contribution to influence our response to the Green Paper on welfare reforms.

Will you take an intervention? I want to hear—. I think we've made it clear that on these benches we want to hear Welsh Government raise concerns. We have now a copy of your letter to Liz Kendall, which does not raise concerns about what we understood were going to be deep cuts to the welfare state. Did you not think it was in the interests of Wales, perhaps, for you to take that earliest opportunity to actually raise some concerns?

You have received my letter, and, of course, it is, as I said, the start of my responses and my engagement with the UK Government in terms of the impact of the Green Paper on welfare reforms. And I think that it is important that that point I made, which was very much an initial point—that they must meet with and engage with disabled people. That was the point that I was making. And of course I will share all future correspondence, but the most important response will be our response to the Green Paper, and you are playing a part in this debate in influencing that.

And I think it's important that we recognise that the people of Wales should be served by a welfare system that provides meaningful support to help those who can work into sustainable employment, but also offers an effective financial safety net to people who are unable to work. And can I thank Hefin David for your contribution this afternoon, for sharing your concerns and based on experience? And as the First Minister has also recognised, it's looking also at opportunities that should lie in welfare benefit reforms. There have been many responses from disabled people's organisations saying, 'Yes, there needs to be change.' We need to seek now to influence the changes that are being proposed. And we recognise that, for many disabled people and people with long-term health conditions, the current benefits system doesn't always encourage or enable people to consider entering employment. Some people feel cautious about stepping out on their pathway to employment.

Thank you. I think we agree with that, but isn't the problem the feeling that the savings are motivated by a need to meet a notional cut in the Office for Budgetary Responsibility forecasts, not in a first-principles exercise about how to deliver an optimal welfare state system? And the Welsh Government should say loud and clear that that is the wrong starting point.

Well, I think we have reserved judgment, haven't we, and the First Minister has made that very clear. What we do need to do is that we need to understand the evidence that is coming forward about the impacts of these proposals in the Green Paper. And as I say, just in terms of some of the prospects and the opportunities that should come from welfare reform, we just need to recognise what it means when you are making changes, where people may be fearful of immediately losing their disability benefits when they are seeking to progress onto a pathway to employment. And of course, at present, there's a very protracted and complicated assessment process. And we all know the positive impact that people gain from working in terms of greater income, improved mental health and physical health, as John Griffiths has said. But people do need reassurance, and that's what we've got to make sure in terms of our response, that we are clear.

And understanding the impact on people in Wales—preparing for starting work will not mean that they will end up in a worse financial situation. And these words are important from me as the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice; they are important words that are now in the public domain in terms of responding to these reforms. But we must recognise that the proposal from the UK Government to introduce legislation in 2026 that will guarantee that a person will not automatically face a reassessment of their benefit entitlements if they enter employment is to be welcomed.

Now, I think, Deputy Llywydd, I do want to have the opportunity to say that we have got to show where our powers and responsibilities are having a beneficial impact, wanting to make sure people in Wales who can work receive the support they need to find employment, so our employability programmes, supporting 15,000 people who are out of work, and the success of our young person’s guarantee is evident, with the youth unemployment rate in Wales, in the year ending September 2024, 6.5 per cent down, 3.6 percentage points, compared to the previous year. I just want to go onto the next point: our network of disabled people's employment champions working with employers to remove the barriers. These are things that we are doing, that we're responsible for in Wales, and they are working to help disabled people and employers to understand the barriers to finding work, and we will take part in the design of the trailblazer in Wales to tackle economic inactivity, and we'll get an additional £10 million funding from the UK Government for that as well. So, it is about reassuring people that we are engaging to look at what are the ways in which we have been helping disabled people to return to work, and also hopefully the UK Government can learn from that as well. But I particularly understand the specific impacts of these welfare reforms in Wales.

You need to conclude now, Cabinet Secretary.

I will conclude now. I have to say that it is important in terms of concluding this debate today that I say again that Welsh Government will carefully consider the implications of the proposed welfare reforms. We'll respond to the consultation on the Green Paper, we'll ensure that the voices of disabled people in Wales are heard. I urge disabled people and their organisations that support them in Wales to ensure their voices are heard by responding to the consultation that closes on 30 June. I will meet Patriotic Millionaires, Jane, and I'm meeting disabled people and organisations, as I've said. We will continue to invest here in Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, I've been generous, but you need to conclude, please.

And finally, Deputy Llywydd—I have taken a few interventions—

Yes, I've given you time.

I want to finally say, in respect of the debate today, that we will draw contributions from this debate in our response to the Green Paper, and I do thank all who have contributed. Your voices have and will be heard. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr. I must say, I'm very disappointed by that result. We are doing a lot of good things in Wales, and some of those you listed there, Cabinet Secretary, but we want to know what your view is, like we've heard what the view is from the First Minister of Scotland, like we've heard what the view is from the First Minister of Northern Ireland. In response to the UK budget of 2023, when the Conservatives were in power, the then Minister for finance, Rebecca Evans, said:

'While the Chancellor has announced further support to help people into work, we will not and cannot support any action which will make it difficult for people to access benefits or place conditions and sanction those currently receiving benefits.'

That's pretty unequivocal, isn't it? Why are we still not hearing that view? You can take an initial view, and you say you want to listen to the voices of disabled people; they've been made loud and clear. Yes, they do want to have more support into work, but they have been telling us, and they told us in the Equality and Social Justice Committee, that we need to have more focus on employers, and the attitudes of employers and the prejudice of employers, in order to that. The onus shouldn't be on the disabled people themselves. So, I'm extremely disappointed that you're still saying you're reserving judgment. You haven't got the courage of your convictions. You were there with us during those austerity years, when austerity was unleashed. As Adam Price rightly outlined, the terrible price, the terrible toll it took on Wales. You were all in Government. You've been in Government during all those times, Cabinet Secretary. You've known about those holes being torn in the fabric of society, as Adam outlined. And there are alternatives, aren't there? I agree with Alun Davies, the current UK Government is accepting the Conservative economic analysis, and that's shameful. And as Jane Dodds also outlined—. And I reject the fact that we don't have politics in these debates, Hefin David, because these are political decisions. These are political choices, as Jane Dodds outlined, so we have to have a political debate about them—[Interruption.] The fact that the Chancellor, as Lee Waters—. Opportunism, really? You must have a different inbox to me.

The fact that the Chancellor cut deeper, as Lee Waters rightly pointed out, when the OBR forecasts of her self-imposed fiscal rules proved that this was driven more by cutting costs than any altruistic reason. And now we've seen the letter—again, dropped into our inbox during the debate. No condemnation, it wasn't substantial. Yes, of course we want the UK Government to properly consult with disabled people, we want them also to hear the view of the Welsh Government. So, I'm glad that we've had this debate. I regret, as I said at the beginning, that we've had to use all the Senedd tools at our disposal in order to get the Senedd to be able to have a voice on this issue and properly debate this.

I just want to say as well that, yes, disabled people are right at the centre of this debate, and I want to put on record the utter condemnation of the fact that the UK Government not only paid no attention and no heed to the needs of the people of Wales, but paid no heed either to the needs of disabled people. They didn't put that Green Paper out in accessible formats, in easy read, in Braille. They weren't available. I mean, that's absolutely unforgivable. What happened to 'Nothing about us without us'?

I just want to say that I'm the chair of the cross-party group on learning disability; I know what the views of those people in that group were when I met with them this week. We will be writing unequivocally to the UK Government expressing our views and our utter dismay at and condemnation of these cuts. Again, as a representative of areas with above average Welsh levels of disability, I can assure you that I will put my constituents first, and on these benches, we will put our constituents first.

So, we need to hear stronger condemnation, we need to hear an advocacy for the different choices that Adam Price outlined, that these billions don't need to be taken from those who are most vulnerable in this way. We need to understand what—. We're standing at that stark crossroads as Adam Price outlined. In which direction does the Welsh Government want this UK Government to go, because it's Wales that'll suffer? As the pounds will be stripped from our local economies, our people will be pushed further into poverty, and it's the Welsh Government that will have to pick up the pieces yet again, and it's Wales that will suffer as a result.

So, I just want to say we have to remind, unfortunately, again, the Welsh Government what standing up for Wales really looks like. It means demanding a Welsh-specific assessment for these changes without delay, and I'd like to know a timeline on that, actually—if we could ask the UK Government when we're going to get that. And I would like to see an unambiguous condemning of this utter contempt of Westminster for failing to do so in the first place. Standing up for Wales means dispensing with the harmful rhetoric—that really harmful rhetoric—as we heard from Heledd Fychan, about a broken benefits system, and expressing firm solidarity with thousands of people across Wales who are terrified by this further weakening of an already frayed safety net. It means straining every sinew to mitigate the worst excesses of this devastating continuation of an austerity agenda, otherwise—

Sioned, you need to conclude now, please.

This is my final sentence, Dirprwy Lywydd. Otherwise, that burning sense of duty to the cause of fighting poverty will have been reduced to nothing more than a smouldering cinder, and that clear red water will have finally run dry.

The issue of trust in politics is not a new one. Honesty is enshrined in the Nolan principles, the ethical foundation expected of public office holders, and it is there for a reason. The public expect those who hold, and those who seek to hold, public office to act and speak truthfully. That’s why the statements we choose to make and the motivation for making them matters. Getting it wrong has far-reaching consequences for the trust that binds us as politicians to the people we serve, and those who do so deliberately for political gain need to be held to account. The exchanging of views and passionate, healthy debate is at the heart of democracy and should be protected. However, these debates should be rooted in fact. The committee recognises that changes in technology, social media, and their use to spread disinformation rapidly, are real and serious threats, bringing deliberate deception even further to the forefront.

When we began this inquiry, it became apparent that the practical complexities of tackling deliberate deception, as well as respecting the overarching principles of the right to freedom of expression and the autonomy of Parliaments to self-regulate, was going to be a challenge. But the committee agreed that the difficulty of the task should not deter us from seeking pragmatic solutions. With that in mind, I would like to thank all of those who not only provided evidence and engaged with us throughout this inquiry, but who are doing important work behind the scenes to push for change and keep this issue firmly on the agenda. We are aware that we're entering new territory with this report and are grateful to all who shared their expertise and provided innovative ideas, all with a common goal of improving the status quo.

The terms of reference for the inquiry set out that it would gather evidence on the merits of introducing further mechanisms for the disqualification of Members and candidates found to have deliberately deceived the electorate, including through an independent judicial process. The compelling arguments for and against introducing a criminal or civil offence are set out in the report, as are our detailed committee views. However, we had significant concerns about the practical implications of such an offence—for example, the difficulties of proving false statements and the negative impact on court and police resources. We also considered the unintended consequences this may have on important democratic principles, such as the right to freedom of expression, parliamentary autonomy and the politicisation of the courts. On balance, the committee therefore concluded that it could not support such an offence. We did however, identify a number of changes that could be made across the existing standards regime and mechanisms that relate to candidates that would amount to a pioneering programme of reform.

We have made 11 recommendations aimed at confronting the issue head on with tools we already have. Taken together, they will make our rules clearer by embedding deliberate deception into the code of conduct, a code that, unlike other legislatures', applies to Members at all times. They will introduce more independence at every stage of the Senedd’s standards process and they will improve transparency when politicians do break the rules and broaden the sanctions available to hold those individuals to account. For the Senedd to enact some of these recommendations, the Welsh Government will need to make changes to existing legislation, which the committee believes will be achievable in time for the seventh Senedd. I am pleased that the Welsh Government have agreed to all of the recommendations directed to it, either in full or in principle.  

Our first recommendation calls on the Welsh Government to provide a clear definition of deliberate deception in legislation relating to Senedd elections that is consistently applied by the Senedd in any associated Standing Orders and guidance. The conduct Order that governs Senedd elections already makes it an offence for candidates to make or publish a false statement of fact about the personal conduct or character of another candidate in order to affect the way a vote is cast in an election. As referred to in recommendations 3 and 4, broadening the scope of the existing offence to cover false statements of fact made by a candidate we believe would improve the accountability of those seeking to hold public office.

The Counsel General’s response suggests that broadening the existing scope is not possible and rather the introduction of a new offence would be required. While we are encouraged that this has been accepted in principle and that work will be done to develop a new offence in line with what the committee has recommended, understandably, Counsel General, Members are disappointed that it won't be included in the final conduct Order for the 2026 election, particularly as the Welsh Government had made a commitment to put time aside in its programme to legislate in this area.

The committee is unclear as to whether the proposed new offence would relate only to candidates, or also include Senedd Members, and we’d welcome further information on this from the Counsel General. However, we are pleased that the Counsel General intends to bring forward a definition of deliberate deception in this Senedd that will support the new offence for the conduct Order and how it's enshrined in the code of conduct and in Senedd procedures. We would encourage the Welsh Government to consider the evidence already gathered by the committee on related definitions within existing legislation, such as the Fraud Act 2006 and the Defamation Act 2013.

Recommendation 5, which requires candidates who have made or disseminated deliberately deceptive statements to correct the record clearly and at the earliest opportunity has been accepted in full. This should serve as a deterrent and improve accountability and transparency. 

Recommendations 2 and 6 call on the Welsh Government to amend existing legislation to introduce more independence into the Senedd’s standards regime, including giving the commissioner for standards powers to initiate investigations and for the Senedd to appoint lay members to the Standards of Conduct Committee. This will bring more independence and expertise to the decision-making stage of the standards process and the committee’s broader policy work. We are pleased that these recommendations have been accepted in full.

Recommendations 7 through 10 are directed at the Senedd, and we intend to work with the Business Committee to bring these to fruition. We are proposing changing the code of conduct to expressly state that Members must not make deliberately misleading statements and to compel Members to correct factually incorrect statements at the earliest opportunity. This will give further weight to the fundamental requirement of Members to speak truthfully and put honesty at the heart of the respectful culture we are trying to nurture here. 

Recommendation 8 proposes a formal two-stage procedure for correcting the record via Standing Orders—the first to address unintentional and minor inaccuracies, the second to allow for more formal correction notices to be issued by the commissioner for standards. Failure to comply with a correction notice would be considered a breach of the code of conduct and sanctioned as deceptive conduct by the Member. In both instances, Members would be required to publish corrections with equal prominence to the inaccurate statement at the earliest opportunity. For transparency, we are also proposing that such notices, as well as reports on breaches of the code of conduct, are published on Members of the Senedd’s webpages and, where applicable, to the Record of Proceedings.

Recommendation 10 relates to the proposed new recall procedure that the Welsh Government intends to bring forward, and for any guidelines containing deliberate deception as a trigger to specify that it is only recommended when the breach is severe in nature. We are also proposing that an appeals structure is established to provide additional safeguards for bringing in stronger sanctioning powers. Although it is for the Senedd to decide on the appropriate appeals process, to do so would require legislative change, and we are pleased that the Counsel General has agreed to explore options within the recall Bill to allow such a mechanism.

By making incremental changes to existing legislation in this way and strengthening the standards regime, we can make a real difference and position the Senedd at the forefront of the global effort to restore trust in politics. Our procedures must reflect our ambitions for a respectful and compassionate culture here in the Senedd. It is in all of our interests to keep on improving the integrity of our democratic institutions. We know that there is more to do, but this is a good place to start. Diolch.

Can I thank the Chair of the committee, and the committee clerk and legal team, and all of those who have given evidence in this inquiry? As a Member of the standards committee, I welcome the chance to speak on this. Deception is a complicated and, in many ways, unique issue when we consider it in the context of our democratic processes. It raises valid concerns from all sides, and rightly so. The concept of deliberate deception is not merely about misinformation or misspeaking, but about the intentional misleading of voters. It strikes at the core of trust in our democracy, as the Chair rightly pointed out, yet defining and addressing it presents significant challenges. There are concerns, as was outlined, around freedom of speech and privilege, about political rhetoric and about the practicalities of enforcement. As a Senedd, we must tread carefully to ensure that we get the balance right.

I'll start by addressing one of the key distinctions that should be recognised, which is the fundamental difference between candidates and Members of the Senedd. These are two distinct entities, and, as such, they should require separate systems of accountability. A candidate aims to persuade voters, often making promises and claims that are subject to political scrutiny through debates, hustings, conversations with the public or through the media. A Member of the Senedd, however, has taken on the responsibility of representing their constituents, adhering to the Nolan principles of public service, as the Chair mentioned, and upholding the integrity of this institution. It is for this reason that I believe that we cannot simply apply the same rules to both.

Holding candidates accountable for deliberate deception poses significant legal and procedural challenges, particularly when considering the dynamic nature of political campaigns. Meanwhile, Members of the Senedd are bound by a clear set of ethical expectations, and the mechanisms for ensuring accountability must reflect that distinction. However, for both candidates and Members, political rhetoric is employed on a daily basis, and that should, rightly, be scrutinised.

Would you give way?

Happily.

Thank you. Well, a statement is deceptive if it's false or misleading, untrue or untrue in a material particular. The World Economic Forum has stated that the soaring cost of food and energy is affecting people across the globe. Speaking here last July, the month of the UK general election, I noted that:

'33 European countries, the euro area and 17 G20 countries currently have higher inflation rates than the UK in consequence of the global cost-of-living crisis.'

However, Welsh Government Members keep stating here that the cost-of-living crisis was entirely precipitated by the former UK Government. Do you therefore agree that they should be careful what they wish for?

I thank Mark Isherwood for making the political point there. As a representative of the committee, I will try to keep my views as a committee member on a cross-party basis, but Mark Isherwood has made his views on the Government's rhetoric very clear in his contribution.

But this debate also forms part of the broader process of strengthening the standards framework within the Senedd. The ongoing efforts to introduce a recall process and ensure a standards process fit for an expanded Senedd is vital in maintaining public confidence in our institution. A strong standards process is not just about punishment, it's about ensuring transparency, fairness and accountability. The work under way must continue to be refined to strike the right balance, ensuring that it is robust enough to deter misconduct, but also fair in its implementation. However, it is important to acknowledge that the process leading to these conclusions has been complex, and I do believe that additional time should have been allocated to fully consider the implications of these reforms. Hastening such an important process risks creating unintended consequences, and we must always be mindful of the need for thorough deliberation when making decisions that affect democratic accountability.

Finally, one particular aspect of the process that, for me, I believe warrants further examination is the role of the observer Members in the committee process. This is no judgment on the Members themselves, but I believe, in a committee context, having Members who are clearly with a defined pre-position on this makes it somewhat more difficult to gain some level of cross-party consensus on this. The Members were excellent contributors in this inquiry, and I thank them for that, but the system that was brought forward for this process I don't think was the best way of doing it. I would have preferred, with Adam Price's experience and past experience in this case, him being a witness to this committee, rather than an observer Member.

Will you take an intervention?

Happily.

I think what you're saying is totally invalid, because what you're saying is actually questioning the Chair of the committee and her position in relation to being able to distinguish between observer status and those of you who are on the committee. I don't think it's a fair position and I'd like you to consider the criticisms you're making of the Chair of the committee, in all seriousness.

I've considered this in great detail, Jane, and there's no criticism of the Chair and her chairing of this. Indeed, I've never been a member of the standards committee under any other chairmanship, and Hannah's chairmanship has been excellent. I just think if we are looking to do something like this in the future, with observer Members, which we do do in the Senedd in the context where other members of committees sit on other committees while looking at specific points, where they are then accountable to that committee to feed back, that is a premise that is already established and works well. Observer Members in this context I just don't think is the best way and format to move this forward. It's no feedback on the individuals themselves; it's the process more so that I think needs further consideration in the future. But it's no criticism of the chairmanship or indeed the Members, as I pointed out.

To close, Dirprwy Lywydd, as I'm conscious the clock has gone very red, concerns surrounding deception are valid and the need for accountability is clear. The way forward requires careful and considered policy making. We must continue to refine the mechanisms that uphold the integrity of the Senedd, ensuring that any reforms are both effective and fair. That means drawing clear distinctions between different roles in our democratic system, ensuring that scrutiny mechanisms are truly impartial, and allowing adequate time for meaningful deliberation.

This is an issue of trust: trust in our representatives, trust in our processes and trust in the standards that we uphold. It's important that we get it right. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

As we gather in this Chamber for the final time before its transformation, I'm struck by both history and possibility. These walls will soon give way to a new design, but, as we rebuild this physical space, I think we face a more fundamental question at the heart of our debate on this report: what values will we inscribe not in the shape of our Chamber, but at the heart of our democracy? I believe that chief among them must be an unwavering commitment to truth, the covenant, really, that binds democracy together.

We've witnessed elsewhere, haven't we, in the first 70 days of the second Trump presidency, the corrosive impact of systematic dishonesty. Each deception erodes the shared reality upon which democratic governance depends. Nobel laureate Maria Ressa puts it plainly: 'Without facts, you can’t have truth. Without truth, you can’t have trust, and without trust, we have no shared reality and democracy dies.' Let those words echo here today and resonate in our rebuilt Chamber tomorrow: without truth, democracy dies. This is not hyperbole, this is not partisan alarm; this is history's cold, hard lesson. When truth becomes optional, democracy becomes impossible. 

Wales faces a choice. We can observe from a distance as other democracies struggle against waves of deliberate deception, or draw a line and say, 'Not here, not in our democracy, not while we stand watch.' Happy to give way. 

Thank you very much, Adam. I struggle because democracy means that we have rule of law, we have liberty, we have freedom of speech, but that's not enough. When we talk about democracy, there is some obligation on you. There is something that you have to give in return because you have made it. So, that return is that obedience, and that obedience becomes the rule of law, which you have accepted, and deception is eliminated that time because you joined the democratic set-up and you have that rule of law that you have to abide by. And you have to look into it, whether somebody has deceived you; how can he join that? So, I'm struggling, really, in this because I say the other name for democracy is obedience and deception has no role there because you are otherwise going against the law. Thank you.

You are making an intervention, not a speech. 

I think that the fundamental imperative for us as democratic representatives is to tell the truth. That is the first principle, the foundation of our entire democracy. Last year, I remember, I think it was in a windowless room behind us, myself and Lee Waters witnessed the former Counsel General putting his name to three historic commitments on behalf of this Government that were then later repeated to the whole of the Senedd: first, the deliberate deception by anyone seeking or holding elected office would become a disqualifying offence; second, that the standard would be enforced through an independent judicial process; and third, that these protections would be in place by the end of this year, well before the next Senedd election. It wasn't a suggestion; it was an unambiguous pledge.

The committee's report and Government's response contain important elements of progress. For existing Members, the committee couldn't reach unanimous agreement regarding legislation and the Government's response is therefore silent on that, so I'd be grateful to the Counsel General if she could set out the Government's legislative proposals for Members, the Bill's timetable and how these plans align with the pledge.

For candidates, the committee recommended widening the existing criminal offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 through the conduct Order for the coming Senedd election, and through amending the Government of Wales Act 2006 for future elections. Here, the Government's response, I have to say, is concerning. It has only accepted the committee's recommendation in principle, claiming changes cannot be delivered before the next election. I understand, based on legal assessments, that a new 12-week public consultation will be needed, that the Electoral Commission must be consulted, and these consultations extend beyond the six-month time limit before elections—the so-called Gould principle.

Can I ask the Counsel General if she herself accepts those legal assessments? I can't come across any specific duty to consult the Electoral Commission. We didn't do it over Senedd reform at any point; indeed, nor did we hold a public consultation in that regard. The Standards of Conduct Committee has already effectively run a public consultation for its inquiry, and the Gould principle is not statutory—as its name suggests, it's a convention. We didn't allow technical challenges to stop Senedd expansion. We didn't allow procedural complexity to prevent us from changing our voting system, and we must not now accept excuses for undermining the pledge given by the Government.

It seems to me the question before us is simple: will the Government deliver on its promise? I choose to trust that they will, because otherwise, they would confirm the cynical view out there, that politicians cannot be—

Adam, you need to conclude now, please.

I took an intervention, and—

You did, and I gave you the time for it. And I've given you the time for it.

Well, okay. We are discussing quite an important matter, and I did take a lengthy intervention, Chair, but—

I appreciate that. And I've given you plenty of time.

Well, okay. I'll get to the nub of it: I think that it's absolutely essential that we take this step. Democracy must be defended by every generation, and that defence begins with truth, Deputy Presiding Officer. Truth in our words, truth in our actions, truth in our promise to the people of Wales, and it's that principle, as we expand the breadth and depth of this democracy, that should become the foundation of the democracy we're about to build.

Can I first of all just say that I think the Government has a challenge now in terms of converting the recommendations into legislation? But I think it is very much achievable, and I think there is a will within this Chamber that we do legislate, and we legislate for 2026. Can I also say that the recommendations, if they are implemented, will create what I think will be the most effective and most stringent standard of conduct of any of the Parliaments of the United Kingdom? So, the recommendations and the potential legislation for that will actually be groundbreaking and will set, probably, the highest standard of all the Parliaments of the United Kingdom.

Can I say, overall, I welcomed the report and I welcome very much the considerable amount of evidence that was brought into that? Evidence that was, in the earlier stages during the elections Bill, and other discussions, not available. And, of course, it was one of the concerns I remember raising at that time, that we needed to see that evidence and to hear it. Can I say the evidence that particularly influenced me was the evidence from the criminal bar, from the chief constables, from the Law Society and from the Crown Prosecution Service? That related very specifically to the issue of the creation of a criminal offence, and I think that the report deals very properly with that in terms of how deception could actually be dealt with, but does not support the idea of the creation of a very specific criminal offence, for all the reasons that came out within that particular evidence: it would not work, there would be all sorts of unforeseen consequences, and a potential to actually undermine the very foundation of parliamentary democracy, part of which is parliamentary privilege. The evidence was, I think, very impressive.

Can I just say, out of the report, the challenges that now come in converting this into legislation? First is the appropriateness and clarity of the definition that is used. Various options have been put forward, but it is something that needs considerable thought. Can I say also that the issue of lay members of the committee is an interesting idea? There is a power, if the recommendation is implemented, to achieve that. It needs to be thought about very, very carefully.

And can I say also, then, that one of the other challenges that comes out in the legislation is the ability to legislate in respect of candidates, as opposed to Members, once people are actually elected? Now, both are desirable, and the recommendation within the report with regard to strengthening section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, which of course goes beyond competence, would require support at the Westminster level as well for that, but also the potential changes to the conduct Order, whether that is feasible. Clearly, I think there is some thought that needs to go into that, because actually strengthening the legislation that would impact on candidates is clearly something that is desirable to do. Actually implementing it for candidates, the hundreds of candidates, the onus and the potential for difficulties that would arise in the pre-election period are obviously very, very challenging, and it may be that these things need to be taken in different parts in order to deal with them.

But dealing, certainly, with, in terms of Senedd Members, in terms of the strengthening of the code of conduct and the interaction that it will have with the previous report and the proposed legislation for recall, they go hand in hand. Because I certainly take the view that you get to a stage when deception where it hasn't been corrected, where it has been clearly established and is of such severity or a repetitive nature, should be such that it should trigger the ability for Members to be recalled for that. And I believe that goes further than any of the other Parliaments of the UK, and I think that is a very, very significant step forward.

Can I say, one of the areas that is obviously going to need careful consideration is the need for an appeals process? I believe if there is to be a recall of someone for a breach of conduct in respect of deception, then it is very necessary that there probably needs to be an appeal process. My desire would be that that would be within our own tribunal system or it would be by the empowerment of the committee within that, but that's a matter, obviously, Counsel General, for you to give further consideration to. Thank you.

I'm grateful to the committee Chair and to the committee as well for the opportunity to be able to contribute to the committee. I found it very interesting, and I'm grateful to the Chair for including myself and others as well.

Where we're at is that there has been a global trustworthiness index survey and, last year, it found that people across the world did not trust politicians. Just 15 per cent of people globally trusted politicians, making them—making us—the least trusted profession in the whole of the world. So, clearly, what we've got in place, not just here in Wales, but in the UK and further afield, is not working. Trust in politics, as we know, is at an all-time low. We know that polls found that 45 per cent of the public believe that politicians are more likely to lie now than in the past.

So, the reason way we're here right now, today, debating this, and hopefully moving forward on this in a Bill, is because we want to restore that trust in us. That has to be a fundamental position that we take. And right now, globally, we can see exactly what is happening when untruths are told, and we have certain political parties already in this country starting to go unchallenged for some of their statements. When lies go unchallenged, democracy weakens, public faith erodes and accountability disappears.

If we look to the next generation, the Electoral Commission found that only 62 per cent of young people here in Wales feel they have a good understanding of democracy. We need to contribute to that and make sure that we're producing a next generation of politicians who not only understand that they need to be truthful, but that they want to partake in this democratic process. 

I'm grateful to the standards committee for setting out a clear and practical step forward, and it is—. There were obviously clear differences that were acknowledged and reflected in the report. From my perspective, I believe that Members and candidates should be treated exactly the same; there should be no distinction. That makes it cleaner and very much clearer, and candidates have a responsibility from the point that they are selected. 

Will the Member give way?

Of course.

Thank you very much; I'm grateful to you for giving way. The point is that candidates and Members don't exist at the same time. Once the dissolution of this place becomes apparent, we cease to be Members of the Senedd and we become candidates. So, that is the reason for a need for two separate courses of action should there be any deception from candidates and MSs—the fact that they don't co-exist.

Thank you, Sam, and I know that there was some discussion on this. My understanding is that you become a candidate from the point that you're selected by your own political party. And, actually, there is a point at which we are all, as you say, in this pool, where we are not Members or candidates. So, actually, it creates an uneasy distinction if you say one set of rules applies to one set of Members—one set of people—and the others don't. But there are disagreements on this, and, obviously, as we go forward, we can debate that further.

My second issue—and I would welcome this being specifically responded to by the Counsel General—is a concern that the Government response to the report seemed to weaken in terms of the timescale and the timetable. I believe very clearly that this needs to be brought forward; this Bill and the legislation needs to be passed ready for 2026. In fact, there was a commitment, as you've heard, of it happening this year, that is, before the end of 2025. So, I would welcome the Counsel General's response to that particular issue, and having clarity on being able to achieve this, if possible by the end of 2025, but certainly by the end of the Senedd term in 2026. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

What politicians say, how they say it and the impact it has matters, so says the standards report. I think the process that we've gone through has been a robust one, it has been a useful one, but it is one that has resulted in a compromise, and it's resulted in a compromise because there's no agreement, and I think that's fair enough. As Hannah Blythyn said, the recommendations represent incremental changes, and I think that's, in all honesty, where the committee's discussion ended.

The big question here is—and I think this is the difference—do we think that the deliberate act of deceiving, setting out to deceive on purpose, not accidentally, not a slip of the tongue, not a misunderstanding of the facts that then is corrected, or, as Mark Isherwood tried to interject into the debate earlier, a difference of interpretation of the politics or the evidence, but a deliberate act to say something that they know not to be true in order to mislead—. That's what this debate is about, and in the face of that, is that something that can be dealt with within the Parliament, within the standards process, or is it so externally threatening to the fabric of democracy that it needs to be dealt with through the legal process?

That's still the fundamental question, and that's one that's not really been resolved by the committee report. I think it's a fair enough reflection that a lot of the democratic world is in paralysis in the face of this threat that's coming at us. We don't know what is the best way to deal with Donald Trump and Elon Musk and the way that they are weaponising misinformation in order to deliberately destabilise our democratic cultures and societies. We look at the US Senate this week, where they are so confounded by it they've given into filibustering as a way of responding to it, which is an act of impotence. But it's another attempt to say, 'We don't know how to deal with this. What is the best way?'

I don't think we should beat ourselves about the head that we've failed to reach a consensus, and there are tortured arguments on both sides, and Members have made several practical points here about how it can be done. But these are second-order issues, I think, because what they don't deal with is the fundamental point.

Sam Kurtz's point about the role of observer Members, I think, is a perfectly valid observation, and I thought Mick Antoniw's interjection reinforced the point. For me, it wasn't really about that. The idea that people in the standards committee came to this neutrally without any thoughts beforehand is clearly not the case, and why should it be? We all have views. I think what was quite interesting is how conventional most of the responses to this debate were: this sense that it should be left to the institution; it should be democratic Members elected who are accountable to their voters who should deal with this in the normal way, that was most appropriate.

I don't decry that; I understand that. That is a perfectly conventional, orthodox, standard view of the way we deal with these things, and that was certainly reflected in a lot of the evidence we had and the advice we received from the committee service. And I think that is to be expected, but, having reflected on this and having come to this debate pretty neutral myself, I don't think it meets the order of the challenge of the threat that democracy is under. I don't think it meets the level of peril that our democratic fabric faces at the moment around the world, and Wales is no different from it. And in that sense, I think there's been a failure of imagination in the committee's response to deal with that level of assault.

However, I do recognise it does reflect a genuine level of disagreement, and also, I think, a failure on the part of Adam Price, Jane Dodds and myself to make the case to people that we need a leap of imagination here, we need a different approach. I don't think we have succeeded in getting the majority of people to agree with us on that. That's why we've ended up with this compromise report, and it's a compromise report that takes us further than we were before, and I think that's useful. The challenge now does fall to the Government, who, as Adam Price has reminded us, regardless of what the committee report says, have given a commitment to this Senedd. Adam read out what was signed last year—and it is now a challenge for the Government to know how to respond to honouring that—which said that, before 2026, there will be legislation

'for the disqualification of Members and candidates found guilty of deliberate deception, through an independent judicial process.'

I look forward to hearing how the Government intends to deal with that. Diolch.

Thanks to everybody who took part in this inquiry and in bringing this report forward. I was a member of the committee, and the work is part of the individual Member accountability work that we've been carrying out as a committee, with recall already being report on, and other work carrying on on sexual harassment and bullying and other standards issues.

I've learnt an awful lot in the evidence that we've heard, things that I didn't really understand before, but I understand a bit better now. And that's thanks to the patience of committee clerks and the research team as well in explaining, patiently, how administrative models work and how civil and criminal offences work, and burdens of proof, and all these aspects that come into a complex but simple concept. 'Don't lie' is basically the simple concept, but when you start unpicking it and trying to come up with a definition of 'deception', and we've heard a number of different definitions—.

We've heard from Sam about the differences between a Member and a candidate, and I was one that came down on a different side of that argument. I thought that it could be done through an administrative model where it could be outsourced to an independent panel to do that. Maybe something like the Adjudication Panel for Wales could differentiate and come to a conclusion that could have been used. I was minded for that, and that's why there's a minority view within the report to try and put that case forward and to say that we did hear that case being made.

I'm slightly disappointed that the conduct Order changes that could have been brought in by 2026 seem to have been pushed out because of some of the aspects that came back in your response, Cabinet Secretary. Maybe you could go into a little bit more detail as to why that delay would happen and not maybe come in place by 2026, because I think it could have been a groundbreaking element that we could have put in place for the next election that would have made political deception an offence in a fairly straightforward way and within frameworks that are already available.

I've got to thank my fellow members and the observer members for making this a very interesting report to be part of. As a member of the committee, and I'm sure the other members, we’ll continue to do that incremental change and to do those changes to the code of conduct, to strengthen this democracy, and strengthen this place as we move into a new world of a larger Senedd in the future. I'd just like to finish with that and say thanks to everybody who was involved in this report. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to also start by thanking the Standards of Conduct Committee, and its chair in particular, for all of your hard work on this very important topic. There's no doubt that these are complex issues, and every option comes with risks and opportunities. I also want to thank the observer members for their input. Clearly, you all care very deeply about getting this right, and I think that's really shone through.

I was really pleased to see cross-party support in our recent debate on recall as well, and I think, Dirprwy Lywydd, that we need to build on that consensus as we move forward. As many Members today have said, every one of us in this Senedd has a duty to be honest with the people we represent. Their trust in us, in this institution, and in our democracy absolutely depends on it. The decisions we take here impact their daily lives, and while we may disagree on many things, I'm sure we all agree that public trust is fundamental—and that trust is under threat. We've all seen it, and we all need to act, and that does mean tackling deliberate deception in politics head-on.

The committee has taken a sensible approach, looking separately at standards for Members and candidates. I agree with their assessment that these are distinct roles subject to different rules, although I too agree that actually sometimes we have those roles simultaneously. I think it's very hard to argue in public that once you are selected by an approved political party to be its candidate, that you are not a candidate, even if you are currently elected. So, I think there's a right on both of those sides. You can hold both roles simultaneously. We need to make sure that people are held to the same standards of conduct.

For Members, though, the recommendation is to strengthen the existing standards regime while introducing a recall system. I've already committed to bringing forward a Bill before the 2026 election to make that happen. Dirprwy Lywydd, we need to all agree across this Chamber that that Bill is important, and that we need to agree a timetable for that Bill to come forward, because we are now right up against it. We are in the last year of this Senedd term, and we need to make sure that we expedite a Bill to make sure that this happens.

The Government is committing to making that system stronger by accepting recommendation 2, allowing lay members onto the standards committee. This brings independence, external perspective and expertise. We're also accepting recommendation 6, which lets the commissioner for standards start their own investigations. Both these changes will be included in the recall Bill.

For candidates, the committee, in recommendation 3, suggests the Welsh Government should create a new criminal offence of deliberate deception, broadening the existing offence in article 75 of the draft conduct Order, making false statements about a candidate's character, as it is at the moment. We do accept this in principle, but as I've outlined to the committee, we can't just tweak the existing offence. What's needed is something different, and that does require careful consideration.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to tell the Senedd today that I've asked my officials to develop a new offence reflecting the committee's intent. It isn't something we can rush. We do need a full assessment of the impact on the justice system and wider electoral law and a consultation. That means it probably won't be in place for next year's election, but I'm not saying definitely, and I am very happy, Dirprwy Lywydd, to offer to meet with Members, including the Chair of the committee, and any other Members who are interested, with my officials, to discuss what is possible, given the time constraints we are up against.

In terms of the conduct Order, Members always find it very hard to believe quite how long these things take in their gestation. But it is nearly drafted, and we will be laying it shortly, so we are right up against the time limits for this. [Interruption.] Sure. 

In terms of the legislation that you referred to earlier, will that contain the element in the report related to future conduct Orders, so the change in the Government of Wales Act so that all future conduct Orders will have this offence of deliberate deception within it? And in relation to Members, I understand that you're bringing forward legislation in relation to recall, but your commitment is to legislate to introduce disqualification via an independent judicial process for Members. The committee's proposals relate to the standards process, so they are out of scope for that. So, are you committing in your legislation to legislating for an independent judicial process in relation to Members as well?

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm going to make a bit of progress, and then you'll see where I'm getting on some of that. I was about to say, actually, Adam, that we need to consider whether changes to the Government of Wales Act 2006 are required to make this possible, and we need to do that properly. We need to make a proper assessment of that, but I'm happy to do that with Members who are interested, as well as with my officials, to see what is possible.

We've got to work very closely with the Senedd Commission to keep everything aligned here as well, and I want to make sure that we work with the Commission so the Government is not overstepping. So, it's a matter for the Commission how the standards system works, but the Government is prepared to legislate to put that into place on a statutory footing, and that's why I want to include Members in the conversation, including members of the Commission.

We want to carefully co-ordinate the timelines for both, but what you've just suggested is perfectly possible. We need the Commission to agree, though, that its procedures be dealt with in that way, so we need a collective agreement. The Government can't just legislate for the parliamentary Commission, and does not want to do so, but it is perfectly possible to do so. So, I've asked my officials to work closely with the Senedd Commission to keep everything lined up, and to make sure that we're working together on that. The Dirprwy Lywydd and the Llywydd are aware that we've asked to do that.

We also welcome recommendation 5, which proposes a new way for candidates to correct the record quickly alongside the new offence, and we'll consider that as part of the work on recommendation 3.

On recommendation 11, on appeals, I know that the Senedd removed its previous process in 2022. That's a decision for the Senedd. But, as I've just said, the Government's ready to support any discussions on possible options, taking into account why that previous process was scrapped. Whether legislation is required depends on the scope of the desired appeals process that the Senedd wishes to adopt, but the Government is interested in exploring an appeals process by way of a judge-led panel, effectively, for the appeal process, outside of the Commission, and we are very keen to discuss that. And that could be put into the Bill. That would be my intention, subject to a discussion with the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee and with the Llywydd and Dirprwy Lywydd. And so we get a little bit of a combination of both in the same Bill.

Some Members, Dirprwy Lywydd, will know that I've discussed with them the fact that I don't think it's possible—and I have oversight of the legislation programme overall—to get two Bills in play and get them both passed. So, I want to be absolutely straightforward here: we gave a commitment to bring a Bill forward, and I want to get a Bill passed, and those are very different things. So, I'm very happy to work with people to see what it's possible to do, given the time constraints we're up against—and boy are we up against them. So, I've instructed officials already to explore what provisions may be required and included in the Bill that I will bring forward to establish a system of recall to encompass the offence of deliberate deception. And actually, for the record, Dirprwy Lywydd, and expressing a personal view, I think that there are other offences that could also be included in that that are equally egregious—for example, offences of a sexual nature, which I think also require serious consideration. 

So, I want to thank the committee Chair for today's debate on this important topic, and I want to thank all of the Members who have contributed. We don't agree on every detail, but we all agree that deliberate deception by politicians is wrong. It undermines our democracy and we must tackle it head on. It is essential that we restore trust in politics. People need to believe that the decisions that we make on their behalf are the right decisions, done honestly. I look forward to continuing this work and bringing about important changes to strengthen our democracy, and I look forward to working intensively with Members across the Chamber in order to make this happen. Diolch.

When I thanked everybody previously in my opening remarks for their contributions to the evidence sessions we took, I didn't actually thank those who sat on the committee for all of their contributions, too, and I think that it was certainly a very interesting piece of work to cover. I'd also like to express my thanks, as Chair, to the whole committee team for all of their work, because I know that this wasn't a simple task, and I know that they put a lot of effort in to try and bring us to a place where we could suggest some practical solutions to take us in the direction that we wanted to go in. And I take on board the comments from those who would wish for this report to go further. I think that we can agree that they are a step in the right direction and there are things that we can build upon here in our Senedd. 

Thanks to Mick for passing this piece of work to the committee in a former role, before I was Chair— 

And then sitting on it. 

Yes, and then contributing as a member. 

I just want to focus on one specific point and then just address a couple of things more generally, and that is some of the points around the differentiation in recommendations for candidates and Members. I just want to refer colleagues to a point in the committee's report, where we say that adopting

'different mechanisms for addressing deliberate deception recognises the unique status and different governance and characteristics of these two groups, but still allows the issue of deliberate deception to be addressed with equal gravity.'

So, that was one of the rationales behind it, but I take on board the comments, as we said, that we've also heard from the Counsel General, too. And thank you to the Counsel General for her offer to meet with me as Chair and other interested Members to take this work forward, because we've heard in many contributions—from Jane, from Adam, from Lee, from Sam—that this is part of a bigger picture, a bigger problem, a bigger challenge that we need to rise to, and we need to build progressive coalitions not just here in the Senedd, but right around the world as well. I know, when we were discussing this as a committee, it went beyond the issue of a politician deliberately deceiving, but actually then how that can potentially travel the world and how misinformation is a growing problem. I only wish that we did have the powers within this place to tackle Trump and Elon Musk, but that is beyond the gift we have at the moment. But it did raise, for us as a committee, in all seriousness, in the discussions, other things that we might need to be able to look at as a committee, and as a Senedd, around how we can perhaps have greater transparency on things like political advertising and donations, and a range of issues like that that also serve to undermine our democracy. And hopefully, as Jane Dodds was saying, all of this work, all the work of the committee that I'm proud to chair, is about restoring trust and transparency in our politics, and not just in our politics, but our politicians and this place. Given the support I've heard here today, and I welcome the commitments and the comments from the Counsel General to do the best we can to get to the point to legislate ahead of the Senedd selections, if that's not possible, I think, as a committee, we very much and sincerely hope that any remaining work would be undertaken at speed by a future administration after the 2026 election.

In closing, we do have a chance here, in the heart of our devolved democracy, to set not just higher standards, but to set our future Senedd's standards as an institution that not just expects integrity and honesty, but actually very much values it as something that is essential to our democracy to restore trust and transparency, and I'm very much looking forward to continuing this work and working with colleagues across parties and within this place and with the Welsh Government. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. In Wales today, we bear a scar of injustice, a national stain of inequality that stretches across our communities from north to south, east to west, rural to urban, and that stain is child poverty. It is nothing short of a disgrace that 32.3 per cent of children in Wales live in poverty, a figure set to rise by January 2029 to 34.4 per cent, making us the worst in the UK. Think about that for moment. That's almost one in three of all of our children, one in three of our children going to bed hungry. Parents working every hour they can and still not being able to meet ends meet, and the social security, the support they receive, not adequate. Barnardo's Cymru say they are seeing an increasing number of families coming to them for crisis support, and those are parents that are working, their social security not sufficient. These are families forced to make impossible choices that result in unconscionable inequalities of outcome for our youngest citizens.

Responding to the recent welfare cuts made by the Labour Government in Westminster, Oxfam Cymru said,

'We live in the sixth richest country in the world where billionaires alone saw their wealth soar by £11 billion last year. It is morally repugnant that children, disabled people and carers are the ones who are taking the hit',

and Plaid Cymru agrees. But child poverty is not an intractable problem. We must always remember that it's political choices that leads to child poverty, that deepen child poverty, and thus it takes political will, deliberate political decisions to eradicate it. And safeguarding the future of the nation, the well-being of its children, is every Government's responsibility.

I'd remind you all of the frank words of Chris Birt, associate director at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to the Equality and Social Justice Committee when we were scrutinising the Government's child poverty strategy. He said,

'Now, I know he Welsh Government says its powers are more restricted than those of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, but if we think that there is nothing that the Welsh Government or Senedd can do to reduce poverty in Wales, I’d pack up. Of course there are things to do.'

And yet, what has this Labour Welsh Government done? They scrapped child poverty targets and then instituted a monitoring framework for their new child poverty strategy that has no teeth. They're refusing to call out a UK Government that refuses to scrap the two-child cap, a policy that actively pushes families deeper into hardship and which they themselves denounced before their party got the keys to No. 10, and we have just disappointingly heard them refuse to denounce the welfare cuts that will push more children into poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group says that, since 2010, about £50 billion has been taken from the annual social security budget through policies such as benefit freezes, the two-child limit, the bedroom tax and the benefit cap. Cuts in housing benefit mean that many families have to make up a shortfall in rent. The support net that needs to cope with rising costs and global economic shocks, they say, is actually weaker when it needs to be stronger, and the misguided welfare cuts announced last week by a Labour Chancellor will tear even more holes in that net. The Welsh Government speak of ambition, yet these are warm words while children go without. How long have we been calling for the powers we need to make a difference, such as those over welfare, to make the fairer Wales we all say we want to see a reality? The Government amendment notes a commitment

'to engage with the Scottish Government to better understand the Scottish Child Payment and how it operates.'

Great. But where have you been? We can't support more of this exploring, engaging and considering when what we need is action. Universal free school meals for primary children—that was something we in Wales, in Chris Birt's phrase, could do, and something we did, though, of course, time and again, it was dismissed as unworkable, unaffordable and voted down by the Labour benches. It was a matter of political will, and we were able to persuade you to find that will through your need to work with us, and you now shout about this policy from the rooftops, as do we, and rightly so. That's the kind of action we need more of, action that ensured there are no gaps of geography and circumstance that can reduce the effectiveness of purely targeted measures. That's the kind of action we've outlined in our motion, the kind of action that won't be driven by a child poverty strategy that has no targets.

We have seen how the Scottish statutory and target-driven overall child poverty approach works, and the latest poverty data has borne this approach out. We must remember deepest poverty lies in those families with children aged under four. So, support delivered through school will not help them, and that's why we are committed to delivering a transformational child payment, learning from Scotland, where their equivalent scheme is already lifting tens of thousands of children out of poverty. Scotland is set to be the only UK nation where child poverty is falling. Meanwhile, here in Wales, under Labour in Cardiff Bay and Westminster, it's rising.

Our plan, Cynnal, will do exactly that: sustain families, support communities, give every child the start in life they deserve. And this is not just about tackling poverty in the here and now, it's about the future. A child lifted out of poverty today grows up to be healthier, happier, more prosperous as an adult. Money spent in struggling households is money reinvested in our high streets, in our local businesses, in our economy. Pressures and costs on our public services will be reduced.

Professor Ruth Patrick, professor in social policy at the University of York, has said

'The progress Scotland has made on driving poverty rates down shows another way is possible. The UK government could lift 700,000 children out of poverty overnight by matching Scotland’s fiscal commitment to driving poverty down.'

And this is the time. I've no doubt, in her response, that the Cabinet Secretary will refer to the work of the child poverty taskforce set up by the Labour UK Government. Devolution of welfare so that devolved nations can ensure support is more effective and more responsive to the needs of its citizens must be central to that work. Children in Wales otherwise suffer what has been called by members of the End Child Poverty Network a particular disadvantage resulting from our devolution settlement. So, can you confirm that the taskforce is taking this approach? Are you asking for these powers?

Labour insists they're not continuing with austerity politics, but it doesn't feel that way to the children in poverty in Wales. We need to take a different path. I urge you to vote for those children today. This is something we can do and we can afford. Our young people deserve it, and Wales demands it.

Diolch, Llywydd. It is vital that the Welsh Government uses every lever available to it in order to reduce child poverty, whilst we, of course, recognise that we are dependent on the UK Government ensuring that its policies have the same effect, and that was certainly something we didn't see under successive Tory Governments.

One UK Government policy that I think would have a significant impact on reducing child poverty is the removal of the two-child benefit cap. And I really would urge the Welsh Government to continue to exert as much pressure as possible on the UK Government to do so, because it was a cruel policy when the Tories introduced it in 2017 and it remains a cruel policy in 2025.

Will you take an intervention? Thank you. For a short time, you were the Cabinet Secretary for social justice—did you make that ask of the UK Government?

Absolutely I did, and if you remember—

And what was the response?

I absolutely made that ask, because I think it's very important. Research I saw showed that it would lift thousands of children out of poverty, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary continues to try and exert that pressure, and that's why I'm encouraging her to continue to do so.

So, the response was 'no' from the UK Labour Government.

Sorry, I wasn't a Minister with the Labour Government.

It is absolutely imperative that every pound that the Welsh Government spends to alleviate child poverty gives it the desired outcomes. It is difficult, sometimes, to stop programmes and introduce new ones, but I think what we need to see is some really bold action here. And now that we have two Labour Governments at either end of the M4, we need to make the most of the increased funding that we have seen come to the Welsh Government and ensure that any policies or initiatives to tackle child poverty are successful.

In relation to Welsh Government policies, next year's budget will, I know, build on additional investments such as universal free school meals, the holiday hunger programme and support for our foodbanks. So, I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary, in her response to this debate, updates Members on her officials' discussions with the Scottish Government regarding the Scottish child payment. This scheme has now been operating for a year, so has there been a meaningful assessment undertaken that will help the Welsh Government come to a policy position about the introduction of such a scheme here in Wales? I appreciate fully that the financial position would be for another day. Diolch.

As we've heard, one child in three—that's what poverty means in Wales today, not some abstract statistic, not a line on a graph; real children, with names and faces and dreams, trapped in circumstances that crush hope as surely as the empty stomachs. Across our nation, parents make impossible choices daily: heat or eat? Warm coats or full lunch boxes? Dignity or despair? This isn't happening in some distant land, it's happening here on our doorstep, in our midst. We call Wales a nation of compassion. We celebrate our solidarity, our sense of justice, but what justice allows one child in three to grow up knowing only hardship? What compassion permits talent to wither and potentially to die before it's even had the chance to grow? Make no mistake, child poverty, as we've heard, isn't inevitable, it's a political choice, and we in this Chamber can make a different choice. Scotland has. Their child payment has turned the tide, not through complex schemes or vague targets, but through direct action that puts money into the pockets of those families who need it most. While child poverty rises across these islands, in Scotland, it falls. That's not coincidence, that's not luck, that's political will made real.

The Government of Wales Act 2006 gives us that power. Our existing budgets give us the means, if we have the courage to prioritise what truly matters. Ten pounds a week per child, through Cynnal—the Welsh child payment would transform lives. Some people might think that, for them, £10 is insignificant. Well, I'll tell you this, £10 can mean a child sleeping warm at night. It means a kitchen cupboard that isn't bare by month's end. It means the chance of dignity—that precious thing that poverty strips away first and most cruelly. This isn't charity we propose, this is justice, this is investment in our collective future. Every pound spent lifting a child from poverty produces a return many times over, in better health, better education, greater prosperity. The economic case is overwhelming, but the moral case is unanswerable. I've heard some of the excuses: too difficult, too expensive, too complex. But when the history of this moment is written, these excuses will ring hollow indeed. What price do you put on a child's future? What budget priority ranks higher than ending the scandal of children going hungry in a wealthy nation? I've sat in this Chamber and heard the words, fine words, about Welsh values, about our compassion, about our commitment to future generations. But values without action are merely sentiment, and sentiment never filled an empty stomach or warmed a freezing home. Scotland found the will. Scotland found the way. Are we in Wales to confess that we care less for our children, that we lack the courage to follow where others have led?

The choice before us is simple. We can continue to manage poverty or we can begin to end it. We can draft another strategy or we can deliver tangible change. We can offer more sympathy or we can provide real support. So, let us today resolve, tonight, to create the Welsh child payment, not as a political gesture but as a covenant with our children. A covenant that says poverty will not be your inheritance. A covenant that says your birthplace will not determine your future. A covenant that says that the measure of our nation is how we treat our most vulnerable. History will judge us, not by our words but by our deeds, and when that judgment comes, let it be said of our Senedd, 'They saw what needed to be done, and they did it.'

As we know, poverty isn't just about lacking basic goods, lacking services or lacking social participation. It's also about the limited opportunity to improve one's own economic situation, the limited opportunity to withstand economic changes, and the limited opportunity to prevent future generations from experiencing the same cycle.

For decades the Welsh Government have tried to reduce poverty, especially child poverty, by attempting to increase living standards through financial aid. However, this approach is limited because it can only really provide temporary relief. Economic shocks like the 2008 financial crash, COVID-19 and even the current war in Ukraine will, I'm afraid, always feature. Therefore, the economically vulnerable and those living in poverty almost always are continuously exposed. And whilst I believe that providing financial assistance is important to relieve poverty, we have to face the fact that it will always require more and more money.

The Welsh Government have also attempted to increase the services available to those in poverty and reduce the stigma associated with it, in the hope that people will be able to access work, feel more positive and improve their situation. But this, however noble the intention, hasn't worked. The poverty rates in Wales are persistently stagnant, and I would argue that the reason for this is that they have fundamentally failed to grasp and properly address some of the root causes as to why this poverty cycle continues. Some of the most advanced research within this field—and this chimes with what I've previously discussed in this chamber—shows that factors such as speech and language development play just an important role in poverty creation as ever more well-known factors. Struggles in language development affect executive function and memory and the neurological stress found in adults with poor language skills means that they face challenges that others don't, in terms of securing employment, in terms of advancing to higher paying positions and even in terms of making financial decisions, all of which we probably take for granted in this Chamber and give no second thought to.

The cycle continues across generations and shows how important it is to take a wider look at poverty and indeed child poverty across Wales. The evidence shows that parents with poor language skills use less effective communication, leading their children to also struggle with language development. If we are to break the cycle of poverty, we need to fundamentally improve how we look at the root societal causes of it. I honestly think that speech and language development is key. This is something that I've repeatedly called for in this Chamber, and we have all seen the evidence that shows it is at the heart of many of our societal problems. We just have to look at the numbers that are in the youth and adult criminal justice system who suffer from speech and language difficulties.

Ultimately, Plaid Cymru's proposed child payment won't solve these issues in the long term. I have no doubt that it may provide some financial relief, but with water bills up 27 per cent, council tax up on average just over 7 per cent and energy bills up by £111 per year, this money will be quickly absorbed. It won't be enough to permanently lift families out of poverty and, as we have seen in Scotland, will need to be continually raised. So, I'm concerned that whilst it might help meet the statistical criteria for children who no longer will be in poverty, it won't fundamentally change their long-term prospects. It won't help prevent them from poverty in the future.

Llywydd, to eradicate child poverty we must break the intergenerational cycle by addressing its root causes. High child poverty rates persist because we haven't tackled these fundamental issues. Successive Governments have focused on larger welfare payments without sufficiently investing in solutions to eliminate poverty's root causes, trapping too many people in a cycle of poverty and dependency.

I was disappointed that the amendments our group proposed were not accepted, as they would have gone some way in trying to address some of these issues. They recognise that poverty trap of worklessness that exists due to the high cost and poor availability of childcare. Many parents who have what we would class as good-paying jobs will still look at the cost of childcare as prohibitive to work, because it is more than they earn, and whilst the Welsh Government have made considered efforts to address this, I think substantially more is needed.

Scotland, as we have heard, has seen a 4 per cent drop in child poverty, but we need to be cautious with this statistic. They have failed to meet their legally binding targets, child poverty still remains high, and relative child poverty, after housing costs, actually rose, and so too did levels of persistent poverty. Many are calling it a failure. Oxfam Scotland have called it a 'national embarrassment'. IPPR Scotland's research also shows that reducing child poverty by just another 4 per cent would require doubling the payment to £52 per child per week, adding £500 million to the budget by 2030. This is unaffordable.

In Wales, with 550,000 children under 15, if the 30 per cent who live in child poverty qualified for the £26.70 weekly payment, it would cost £4.4 million per week or £230 million per year. Plaid Cymru's token payment of £10 a week, as was initially the case in Scotland, is utterly pointless and it can only last for just over a year and a half without more funding.

Llywydd, we need a serious discussion on eliminating child poverty in this Chamber, but this is not it. It is nothing more, in my opinion, than blatant electioneering. Child payments will never address the root causes of poverty. They will never break the generational cycle and they will never deliver long-term prosperity, all of which we must try to do if we are to end child poverty. Thank you.

The net result is that across rural Wales, thousands of children are growing up in households with high expenditure and low incomes, many of them forced to choose between heating and eating, as we've already heard.

We know that child poverty has an impact that can last a lifetime. It has lasting consequences for physical and mental health, confidence and self-esteem and education attainment. It can also impact subsequent career paths as well. So, as Plaid Cymru's education spokesperson, it'll come as no surprise that the impact of poverty on educational attainment is of particular concern to me. In 2021-22, pupils eligible for free school meals were 28 percentage points less likely to get an A* to a C grade at GCSE than pupils not eligible for free school meals. In Programme for International Student Assessment results, pupils from disadvantaged households were ranked amongst the lowest in the UK. And there's been a significant reduction in university applications from students living in deprived communities.

This is the legacy of the Welsh Government's failure to tackle child poverty, condemning a whole generation to chronic underachievement, condemning them also to missed opportunities and diminishing aspiration. In rural Wales, these effects are compounded by a lack of opportunities for young people in terms of access to work, to training and further education, which are reflected in patterns of youth out-migration.

I do thank Plaid Cymru for bringing this forward this evening. And with the greatest of respect to Joel and the Conservative Party, if you would like to bring a debate forward to look at a resolution on child poverty, we'd all like to hear it and we'd all like to partake in it. There's a responsibility on all of us to make sure that we have that debate and that we listen to each other and that we listen to ideas; so please, perhaps after Easter, we'll see the Conservatives outlining a motion that you would like to bring to reduce child poverty.

Poverty is not just about lack of food, not just about lack of heat, not just about lack of clothes; it's about the stress that it brings to you if you can't afford to find the money. As we've heard, the Scottish Government's child payment scheme actually reduces stress, as well as ensures that children have enough food on their plates.

Listen to the experience of one mother in Scotland who was interviewed by Nesta, a charity who conducted research on the Scottish child payment scheme. She said that the payment

'did lessen my worries quite a lot to be honest. Money's the one thing I'm always stressing about, always thinking about, always worrying about. It was a relief to have that extra boost.' 

She was a young care-experienced mother with three children. Another said that the Scottish child payment helps with

'not having to stress out because you know it's coming. When I get stressed, I don't sleep. I don’t deal well with stress. I don't want the kids to see me stressed.'

Again, a single parent who is very young.

Forty-five per cent of children aged seven to 11 and 26 per cent of young people aged 12 to 18 told the children's commissioner here in Wales that they worry about having enough to eat. Thirty-six per cent of parents here in Wales worry about their children having enough food. I have to say, I think most of us in this Siambr have never had to think about that. As a child protection social worker, I met many families who were simply stressed out by lack of money. They then, sadly, took behaviour that they didn't want to take, because that was a way of them dealing with the stress of not knowing where the next meal was coming from. We know that debt results in stress and anxiety.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation cited the child payment in Scotland as contributing, as we've heard, directly to lower levels of child poverty. The success of that payment in Scotland shows that targeted financial support makes a significant difference. So, the evidence is there. We don't need to find the evidence here in Wales—it's already there. We don't need a committee. We don't need a specialist purpose group. We know exactly what's needed to help reduce child poverty here in Wales. It is time for us to adopt a Welsh child payment here in Wales to ensure that no child goes hungry and that every parent can deliver food to their children. So, it's disappointing that here we are, seeing that what Labour does best is a delete-all motion and stifling debate in this Siambr. That's, of course, your prerogative, but the rhetoric is getting so stale, and the people of Wales are getting tired, and what's more important to me, and I think many of us, is that our children continue to go hungry: 31 per cent—31 per cent—of our children. And it's going up; it's not going down. I note in your delete-all that there is a commitment of the Welsh Government’s final budget for 2024-25—that is the year that's just gone, I think—to engage with the Scottish Government to better understand the Scottish child payment and how it operates. Therefore, would you, Cabinet Secretary, please give an update here to the Siambr on what you found in engaging with the Scottish Government on their child payment?

Secondly, as has been said by Sioned, could you tell us once again why we've no targets here in Wales? Why we've no ambition? I know it may seem stale and, again, we keep repeating this, but, without targets, we have no ambition. We have to start now. We have to start now, because, unless we do that, the 31 per cent will be 35 per cent before we know it. Reducing child poverty has to be the most important thing to us all, and I look forward to your response. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The health challenges we face as a nation are multifaceted and complex, but, when we consider the root causes, a common theme emerges time after time—poverty. Because poverty doesn't merely suffocate social mobility, corrode ambition and debilitate the economy—it is also the single biggest driver of ill health in our society, and child poverty in particular is the most potent strain, as it virtually locks in poor health outcomes for life.

We often talk about the first 1,000 days of a child’s life as being instrumental to their life chances, and the influence of poverty during this crucial period has been shown to have profoundly detrimental and often irreversible impacts on their immune system, heart function and brain development. Children in poor households are also over four times as likely to have a severe mental health problem compared to those in the most well-off households. Over three quarters are more likely to suffer from obesity, and face mortality rates that are 70 per cent higher.

We don't pretend that our proposal for a Welsh child payment is an immediate panacea in itself, and we will continue to make the case for devolving relevant welfare powers to enable us to eventually introduce a scheme with the broader scope of the Scottish model. But the international evidence, supported by Public Health Wales’s own research, conclusively underlines the positive health benefits that can be derived from direct cash transfers to low-income families. If we want to seriously confront the toxic relationship between poverty and ill health, this is the place to start. And based on the Bevan Foundation’s damning recent report, which found that the Welsh Government’s actions up to now have made little difference in reducing child poverty, the case for a fresh approach is undeniable, especially as a new wave of poverty-producing measures is about to hit our communities, courtesy of the Government’s partners in power.

It's fair to say that the Labour Party in Wales now stands at a pivotal juncture in its history. For years, they assured us that the election of a Labour Government at Westminster would arrest the alarming rise of poverty that ravaged Wales during a decade and a half of Tory-led austerity. To quote the Cabinet Secretary for finance during the 2023 Labour conference, a Starmer premiership would be

'motivated by duty, by public service, and that burning sense...that this party’s mission is not to tinker at the edges, not to offer some mild amelioration, but to eradicate poverty’.

But these hopes have since been comprehensibly shattered. Not only has Starmer’s Government steadfastly ignored the most glaring fix to alleviate child poverty, by refusing to scrap the two-child cap that for years was rightly decried by Labour Members across this place, it is now actively exacerbating the problem, charting a policy direction that will knowingly push an extra 0.25 million into poverty, including 50,000 children. And, once again, I’m reminded of the words of the Cabinet Secretary for finance, who, in November 2021, denounced Tory cuts to welfare as the actions of

‘a Government that knows what it is doing, knows that there will be thousands more children in poverty in Wales because of their cuts...but simply don’t care.'

Oh for that kind of righteous fury towards Westminster from the Labour frontbenches now.

So, the decision that lies before the Labour Party in Wales is simple: either they can persist with their hitherto supine obsequiousness to their UK headquarters, timidly acquiescing to the devastating blow that the Starmer Government is about to deliver to the fight against poverty, or they finally square up to the reality that the version of the UK Labour Party they thought would take power in July simply doesn’t exist, and urgently utilise the resources at their disposal to proactively mitigate the worst excesses of Starmer’s austerity agenda. Anything less would be a betrayal of that fundamental mission that the Cabinet Secretary spoke so passionately about, and, indeed, a mockery of their claim to be the party of Nye Bevan and the NHS.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. The poverty data published last week is stark, and shows the scale of the challenge that we continue to face. The Welsh Government is fully committed to tackling child poverty as an absolute priority, using all the levers that we have at our disposal, and we are, and will continue to do so. Our child poverty strategy sets out how we’re working across Government, and with partners, to maximise the impact of the levers available to us to tackle child poverty. And to tackle child poverty, we have invested over £7 billion between 2022 and 2026, in this budget year we’re now in, in interventions that reduce costs and maximise incomes for families. Keep money in the pockets of Welsh citizens—that was the key objective of the child poverty strategy.

And I want to just refer to some of those interventions: our childcare offer, providing up to 30 hours of Welsh Government-funded nursery education and childcare for 48 weeks a year for eligible families; £50 million for childcare is available in this financial year, on top of our £100 million annual investment, and, of course, that includes £25 million for that increase in the hourly rate to £6.40 for the childcare offer, and a similar level of support for the childcare element of the Flying Start programme. And, of course, our budget for this year—again, an additional £25 million to continue expanding our Flying Start childcare for two-year-olds in Wales, bringing Wales closer to that step we want to take for universal provision for childcare for all two-year-olds.

I’m really pleased that the Minister for Children and Social Care announced on Tuesday that we’ve made £2.5 million available for baby bundles, the programme that is now funded for this financial year, providing a baby bundle to every expectant family living within a core Flying Start area, with some discretionary provisions for health practitioners outside these areas.

Just on the baby bundles, of course, that was a programme for government commitment to roll that out universally. I wonder, if you'd had targets, whether you would have made a different decision.

There's £2.5 million available in this budget—a budget that you didn't support, I have to say. There's £2.5 million for the baby bundles programme for this year. It is important that there is going to be that discretionary provision. I can go on to say that this would be, for example—and I'm sure you will welcome this—for migrant mothers and other harder to reach groups.

But the Welsh Government is committed to ensuring that no child goes hungry, and as a result of our co-operation agreement, part of the co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru, we did become the first UK nation to offer free school meals to all primary learners, and that means 174,500 primary school children becoming eligible for a free school meal—30 million additional meals. I know that that is widely welcomed across this Chamber, but also by all those children and families who are benefiting from that universal offer, alongside our school milk scheme and the commitment to maintaining free breakfasts in primary schools. That does mean Wales has the most generous food on offer in the UK.

But also, our school essentials grant enables children from low-income families to attend school and take part in activities at the same level as their peers, and our Welsh benefits charter, working with local government, simplifying access to free school meals, the school essentials grants, as well as our £290 million council tax reduction scheme. And, Llywydd, we know, and as I said this afternoon and yesterday, there are up to £2 billion of benefit entitlements unclaimed in Wales. We have an absolute duty, in partnership with the UK Government and local government, to improve the uptake of these benefits, and we're stepping up efforts to do so, with a 10 per cent increase in our single advice fund as part of the spring statement announced last week. And our £550,000 pilot, enabling local authorities with the Policy in Practice LIFT tool to identify entitlement to a range of means-tested support for people who are missing out, including missing out on Healthy Start vouchers, which are crucial for maximising incomes in low-income families. So, we continue to invest in our 'Claim what's yours' and single advice fund services, and of course that has been increased by this 10 per cent uplift this year. And can I just say, Llywydd, I could go on with many other—

Would you take an intervention, a brief intervention?

Jane.

Thank you so much. In my contribution, I specifically asked what conversations you had had with the Scottish Government about their child payment. I wonder if you could just outline where that's up to. You may be coming on to that, but we'd be really interested to hear what specifically you've heard from Scotland. Diolch.

Thank you very much, Jane Dodds. I am coming straight onto that. As Members are aware, we simply do not have the devolved powers to legislate for a scheme along the lines of the Scottish child payment. But I can confirm, and indeed Lesley Griffiths raised this point as well, that we are engaging with the Scottish Government, to better understand the fiscal, legislative and other resources that would be required to make a child payment of this type. We are engaged with them. I hope you will welcome this. But also, we have an opportunity now with our four nations child poverty taskforce, and that includes the Government Cabinet Secretary from the Scottish Government, myself and Northern Ireland, as well as the UK Government Ministers, and at those meetings we share ways in which we're seeking to tackle child poverty.

And I also just want to respond to points made. We're also undertaking a research project to explore the infrastructure required to devolve the administration of welfare and identify the elements of the reserved social security system that the Welsh Government could administer. And John Griffiths, it goes back to your time when you chaired that committee and we looked at that. So, yes, we are looking at the Scottish Government's recent report on the impacts, not just of the child payment, I have to say—they also include a whole range of other policy areas that very much accord with ours as well.

So, can I just finally thank Lesley Griffiths for asking about my representations to the UK Government about the need to address the adverse impact of the two-child benefit limit? Let's go back to the End Child Poverty coalition, who actually reported that the two-child limit affects families entitled to benefits who have had a third or subsequent child after 6 April 2017, and stated that these parents are denied £3,235 per year, per child, and recognise and also identify what this means to children and families in Wales—recognising that, for example, Cardiff is the local authority where the highest number of children are affected by the two-child limit. And of course we know that social security policies impact on child poverty, and it is important to examine the impact of social security policy as a whole, not just a piecemeal approach looking at individual policies, to ensure that people and families can meet essential costs.

So, I can assure you in my concluding comments that I've raised the issue at every single child poverty four nations taskforce. I've raised it with the Government Ministers—UK Government—and shared it, of course, with colleagues from across the UK. I've raised the issue of the two-child limit, I've raised the issue of the benefits cap with the UK Government, and also called for this to be addressed as part of the UK Government child poverty strategy. That would be the most important lever in terms of tackling child poverty, if that two-child limit was addressed. And that message comes strongly from me and, I know, the Welsh Government. 

So, as we conclude, we're focusing our budget, our resources, our efforts, our powers on making a difference today to the children and families that need it most, and we will continue to do what we can do, using our powers and raising our voices. Diolch yn fawr.

'Children will often hoard food when it's available in case they don't have any when they get home. I see children begging other students for food. Some children are sleeping on the floor in the dining room and sharing beds in shifts.' That's testimony not from a Charles Dickens novel, but from teachers working in Welsh schools today and who witness the scale of child poverty day in, day out.

And here in Wales today, in the twenty-first century, in an average class of 30 children, nine of them will be living in poverty—nine going without the basics, nine children going without an equal chance to achieve their potential, nine children who seek enough to get by, not huge wealth. Llywydd, there is no brighter tomorrow if today we fail those on whose future we depend. 

So, I can stand here, rightly, and condemn the injustice of austerity, the lack of meaningful child poverty targets, even, the impending welfare cuts and the proponents of a so-called smarter state who, in reality, believe in a smaller state, which narrows the window of opportunity to help create equality and further diminishes the sense of dignity. The case can be well made that decisions by Governments at both ends of the M4—and, yes, that means now both Conservative and Labour—have entrenched child poverty. But whilst all of that is true and it's important to reflect on that and remind ourselves of that, at the same time, we have to offer solutions too. I've listened very carefully to the contributions from all sides. But I would in particular encourage Members of the Labour and Conservative benches, who have, of course, recognised the scale of child poverty, to reflect on whether their contributions meet the scale of the challenge.

Lesley Griffiths is absolutely right: Government has to use all the levers at its disposal to deal with child poverty, and I agree that Labour must lift the two-child benefit cap—something echoed by the Cabinet Secretary. But where’s the indignation within the ranks of elected Members—elected Labour Members both here and at Westminster—and the realisation that these are injustices that they are allowing to prevail?

Joel James, the criticism of Plaid Cymru’s proposal around a direct child payment appears to be centred around it not being enough—I agree, but it’s a start. It’s pointless, he says, as this money will be quickly absorbed. Yes, because it’s so needed. And, yes, of course, we have to break cycles, but dealing with child poverty today is about breaking the cycles for children, thousands and thousands of them, living in poverty.

And the Cabinet Secretary reminded us that the latest data on child poverty is indeed stark. She reminded us of money invested, but the lack of targets, as we've mentioned, and the lack of positive results above all else, not just in statistical terms, but in terms of the children still living in poverty who shouldn’t be—and on the contrary, of course, child poverty is getting worse as I speak—proves that this is a Labour Government that’s not got a grip on this most serious of issues. Now is not the time to say what we can’t do, but to say what we can to redress the balance between the haves and the have nots, to start implementing here what has been proven to work elsewhere.

Scottish policies are working to start shifting the dial on child poverty. That’s the conclusion of the Child Poverty Action Group only last week. Lisa is an individual who took part in the Changing Realities project, documenting life on a low income in Scotland. She described the Scottish child payment as a game changer, which has given her and her son more breathing space to enjoy life. Is there more to do in Scotland? Of course there is. The Scottish Government has fallen short of meeting its child poverty target, but as the Child Poverty Action Group said, these latest statistics show that Holyrood policies, especially the Scottish child payment, are working to shift the dial for children in Scotland in the face of poverty rising to record highs across the rest of the UK.

So, my challenge to every Member here is this: if not the child payment, then what? This is what Plaid Cymru is proposing, putting forward as part of our suite of anti-poverty policies for Government in a year’s time. Experts in the field of child poverty have called on the current Labour Welsh Government to implement child poverty targets and it’s refused to do so. The Government says that it supports a range of actions to address child poverty, and yet it’s been unable to move the dial.

Managing child poverty and managing it badly is not the answer. All the available evidence supports the introduction of a child payment. A Welsh response demands it and families living in poverty deserve it. This in front of us today is another Labour ‘delete all’ motion on child poverty. The Government benches have lately been keen on framing debates as days of reckoning. Today, I humbly suggest, is another one of theirs.

And before we move to the vote, just to inform Members that our next meeting will be in the Tŷ Hywel Chamber, and it'll be very different. There are only six Members sitting here today who sat in that original Chamber. That's a pub quiz question for you: who are those six? I know that those six will be the ones who will be keen to avoid the seats behind the pillars. And we have staff also who worked in that original Chamber, and one of them is sitting next to me here. Sian Wilkins is retiring tomorrow after 25 years working for this Senedd. [Applause.] She'll be very embarrassed by that round of applause.

I guess it's hasta la vista to this Chamber. We'll see you next year.

Lesley Griffiths can start her short debate if Members have left the Chamber quietly, please. If Members can leave the Chamber if they are not staying for the short debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm grateful to Hannah Blythyn, Mick Antoniw, Jane Dodds and Sam Rowlands for contributing to my short debate.

A little over 90 years ago, Wrexham experienced its darkest day. On Saturday 22 September 1934, one of the worst mining disasters in British history and the worst in north Wales occurred at Gresford colliery. Two hundred and sixty-six men and boys lost their lives, and its impact on the community was seismic. I've chosen this short debate today to continue to raise awareness of the tragedy.

Gresford colliery was one of the largest in the region. It was a major employer, with over 2,200 employees, with 1,850 working underground. There were two main districts to the colliery, the Dennis shaft and the Martin shaft, and both went down some 680m. On that Saturday, at around 02:00, halfway through the night shift, a devastating explosion ripped through the Dennis section of the mine. Ferocious fires spread rapidly through the dust-laden air. The men in the Martin shaft knew nothing about the explosion until word came for them to get out. Rescue parties equipped with fire extinguishers and oxygen masks endured the heat, but it is said it scorched the clothes on their backs and burned the soles from their  boots.

Wooden pit props burst into flames, causing the fires to spread, and further explosions occurred, which led to more rock fall, and many of the miners who'd got out of the Martin section worked to extinguish the fires. After 40 hours, all rescue parties were called up and the mineshaft was sealed. The only way to extinguish the fires would be to starve them of oxygen.

Two hundred and sixty-one men and boys were killed in the explosion underground and the fires that raged as a result. The youngest was just 16 years of age, Ernest Edwards, and the oldest was 69 years old, Edward Wynn. There were just six survivors from the disaster area: Cyril Challoner, Teddy Andrews, brothers John and Bert Samuel, Dai Jones and Tom Fisher. John, who led the five others out of the mine, received the Edward medal for private bravery, the highest accolade for miners and civilians at the time.

The ferocity of the explosion and subsequent fires resulted in only 11 bodies being recovered. There was unspeakable grief for the relatives whose loved ones remained underground and they could not lay their husband, father, son or brother to rest. Two hundred and fifty-three bodies remain entombed.

In addition to the 261 miners who died in the explosion, three rescuers lost their lives. One miner died the following Tuesday from a secondary explosion on the surface, and the two hundred and sixty-sixth man, Frederick Strange, died in October, collapsing at a memorial service.

The management were under pressure to increase productivity, so they allowed illegal double shifts, and, tragically, the colliery was busier than usual on that night shift, as many men were working double shifts to free themselves up for a very big weekend, where Wrexham AFC were playing Tranmere Rovers on the Saturday, a fair was in town, and Blackpool illuminations, a huge tourist attraction at the time, were taking place over the weekend.

The inquiry that took place following the disaster was a sham. The pressure for more coal outweighed the safety regulations, and there was a catalogue of failings and mismanagement. Conditions were beyond awful, and very few men were members of a union, if one was available, as they could not afford the extra cost. Record-keeping was never a strong point at Gresford, with many reports not kept correctly, and important paperwork destroyed. There are strong allegations that certain documents were fabricated and falsified in order to protect the owners.

At the court of inquiry convened after the disaster, attention was drawn to innumerable breaches of the law and of regulations laid down for the protection of those who worked in the mine, also the fact that the behaviour of the inspectorate had been deplorable. However, after concluding a spark from a telephone caused the explosion, the managers and deputies were fined a paltry sum, amounting to less than 25p per man. No-one was ever held accountable, with the fine of around £150 relating to bookkeeping errors, rather than circumstances surrounding the explosion.

News of the disaster spread around the UK and the world, and over 10,000 letters of sympathy were received. A disaster relief fund was set up by the mayor of Wrexham, which raised over £0.5 million. Every deserving case was said to be carefully investigated by the committee, and grants and weekly allowances were paid so that distress could be alleviated at once.

The impact of this disaster on the community is unfathomable, with every village in and around Wrexham affected. While those in authority were devoid of compassion, countless gifts and donations of clothing and food were sent to Wrexham by members of the public. Salted fish was sent from Grimsby, and Aberdeen fish merchants sent 200 boxes of kippered herrings, and lamb was received from New Zealand. A fruit grower in Kent sent 3 tonnes of apples, and residents of Deal, also in Kent, raised money for the widows and children to invite them for a holiday. Approximately three bus loads of people travelled down to Kent on an all-expenses-paid trip, and there are many accounts of those who went in disbelief as to how far Deal is away from Wrexham. [Laughter.]

Friday at the colliery was payday, so many of the miners had their pay packet on their person. Local shopkeepers gave credit to victims' families, as they knew the wages had been buried with the miners. Shockingly, men who worked that fateful night were docked four hours' pay, or half their wages, for not completing their shift.

We are fortunate to have the Wrexham miners project, led by George Powell, who, in restoring the Wrexham mines rescue station, is saving our mining history. At the rescue station, there is a wall bearing the names of the 266 men and boys, and it was here I delved into the history of the disaster in preparation for this debate. Alan Jones, who I spoke to when researching this speech, was a ventilation officer at Gresford colliery. His grandad swapped shifts with his cousin that night, and although he then avoided the tragedy, he was so consumed with guilt that he never worked again. There was the Nicholls family, four brothers, John, William, Harry and an unnamed gentleman, who was a widower with four little girls. So, he asked his brother Harry to change shifts with him, so he could take his children to the fair.

Trevor Lloyd Jones was aged 10 when news came through that his father David was caught up in the disaster. He was told under no circumstances to go to the scene, but he went anyway, and he went into a cycle shed, and the only bicycle in there was his father's. Trevor told this story at the eighty-fifth anniversary commemorations of the disaster, when he was 95 years old. It was the first time his family had ever heard the story, and Trevor broke down in tears whilst recalling the memory, which he'd kept to himself for decades.

Local reporter and photographer Geoff Charles was the first member of the press on site, and upon arriving at the scene, he had the idea to inspect the lanterns, realising that if they counted how many lanterns were not in storage, they'd be able to gain a good idea about how many lanterns, and therefore people, were down the mine. Initial estimates had reported that around 100 miners were underground, but Geoff was the first person to realise that over 200 were missing.

There are many individuals whose tireless work and campaigning has ensured that the Gresford disaster has not been forgotten. Emily Capper, who wrote to everyone in authority begging them to bring the bodies out, started petitions, visiting the pit every Friday once it reopened to gather signatures, and those records still exist at the national archives. Thousands of people signed their names on whatever they had available—envelopes, leaflets and pieces of scrap paper. Emily also campaigned for a memorial, as so many families did not have a body to bury or a grave to mourn. After Emily died, here daughter, Margaret, dedicated her life to securing the memorial.

Another key individual was Ted McKay, a miners' agent for north Wales and a prolific letter writer. Margaret spotted his letters in the local paper and she and Ted arranged a meeting inviting the deceased miners' relatives and friends. This meeting became the catalyst to the creation of a memorial, with the memorial finally being unveiled in November 1982 by the then Prince of Wales. The memorial features an original wheel from the winding gear and it remains the key focal point for the disaster, with over 200 people attending last September's service.

The mine was re-entered in 1935, and coal production was gradually resumed from January 1936 until the pit closed in 1974. Many people in Wrexham continue to feel that the disaster was overlooked, with the politics of the day enabling those in authority to not be held accountable. Surviving relatives I met with wish to see a further inquiry. I wrote to the UK Government Secretary of State for Wales, Jo Stevens MP, last autumn requesting this. Regretfully, the response was rejected, as, according to her, further investigation would not be able to uncover the answers that the community desires.

Despite the disaster happening 90 years ago, gratitude must go to the many people who continue to ensure that memories are kept alive. Others, including Ruby McBurney, daughter of William Crump, who was killed in the disaster, together with her sister, Evelyn, and her friend Margery Morrison, were instrumental in raising funds to pay for a plaque at the memorial containing the names of the 266 men and boys who lost their lives, and also the past and present friends of the Gresford colliery disaster memorial, who still continue to meet regularly. I also wish to pay tribute to the Reverend Canon David Griffiths, who conducted the memorial services for 33 years. A big thank you to George Powell and to Alan and Margaret Jones, who, 90 years later, are still uncovering more information about the disaster and the impact on the community. The book The Gresford Letters: Aftermath of a Disaster by Beverley Tinson is also a fascinating read.

Looking back at our history allows us to learn vital lessons that can inform present-day actions and decisions. One way in which we can honour those who died in Gresford is to maintain legislation for robust workers' rights. We've grown accustomed to the modern working practices of today, but we must never forget the desperate and dangerous conditions that the miners of Gresford faced day after day. Having strong representative bodies provides workers with a collective voice to challenge grievances, negotiate better wages and secure improved conditions and fairer treatment. I believe that maintaining these is an appropriate way to honour and remember those who lost their lives in the Gresford colliery disaster. Diolch.

I remind the four remaining speakers that you have one minute each. 

Diolch. I'd like to start by thanking my colleague and friend Lesley Griffiths for bringing this moving and memorable short debate today. It's right that we remember in this way and at this time, and in north-east Wales, we have a proud industrial past and very much recognise the lives it touched and the legacy it left behind.

Like many, I come from a family rooted in this industrial heritage; my taid, uncle and many more members of my family worked at the Point of Ayr colliery in my constituency. The colliery was the last deep pit in north Wales, closing in 1996. In recent years, a group of retired miners have sought to bring the history of the site back to life. Ffynnongroyw, the village where most of the men once worked down the pit is now home to the Point of Ayr memorial made from the No. 2 shaft from the colliery. On the coast path nearby, there is a circular trail with interpretation panels, as well as one of the restored winding wheels. Memorabilia, sometimes alongside friendly former miners, can be found at the Holywell Area Community Museum.

Together, we will continue to recognise the contribution made to our communities and country, and to remember those whose lives were changed forever.

We owe a debt of honour to those who worked in the mining industry and to the mining industry over so many decades. The legacy to our politics, to our culture and to our economy is there, and only a couple of weeks ago, I and Mark Drakeford were commemorating the end of the, 40 years ago, year-long miners' strike, and remembering that legacy of those people and what they were fighting for. The best I can do is, actually, just to remember some of the impact of the mining industry on our communities: Senghenydd lost 439, Gresford 266, Ocean lost 190, Tynewydd lost 144, Abercarn 268, Llay 51, Mardy colliery 77, Albion 26, Hafod 96, Ynyshir 38, Risca 146, Risca 120, Abersychan 176, and the list goes on to just about every community in Wales. The full list is well over 6,000, and on top of that are the tens of thousands who gave their lives through occupational illness, and the tens of thousands who suffered severe injuries in the mining industry over those years. We remember that legacy. We remember those who fought for their industry and for their communities during that miners' strike 40 years ago, and the reasons, the politics and the commitment they gave to fighting for their communities. It's embedded in our history and it's important that the next generations in our education system actually know that history as well.

Thank you so much to Lesley Griffiths for bringing this up this evening. If you've been born and brought up in Wrexham, it's really clear that the Gresford colliery mining disaster defined the community. I was born and raised five minutes away from Gresford colliery and, all of my life at school, there was talk and discussion in our household and in my school around the importance of remembering the Gresford colliery mining disaster. My nain used to talk about hearing the sirens going off when the explosion happened and hearing people rush there. She wasn't able to go and nor was her family, but she talked about the effect it had had on her.

My final point is this: we must never, ever forget the debt of gratitude we owe to those people who gave their lives, because they improved the conditions—working conditions—and began to form the unions that represent people, and, hopefully, ensure that things like this never, ever happen again. We must never, ever erode the rights that were hard fought for, and we must never, ever erode our unions into the future either. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'm grateful for a moment to speak this evening. As has already been outlined, the Gresford mining disaster was one of the most tragic and worst mining disasters that we've seen, with 266 men losing their lives. The Member for Wrexham, Lesley Griffiths, has rightly paid credit to those people who've kept the memory of those men alive over the decades. But, also, I'd like to pay credit to the Member herself for doing her part in keeping the memory of those who died on that tragic day alive, and for, again, raising this here in the Chamber this evening, because it wasn't just a tragedy that took the lives of the men on that day and in the time afterwards, but it affected families in Wrexham and beyond for many years to come. As has just been outlined by Jane there, it continues to affect people even to this day, and it's right that we, even 90 years on, or 90 plus years now, still commemorate these events. I'd like to also just support Mick Antoniw in his comments on, actually, the importance of younger generations and generations to come understanding and learning from events like this, and I think there's a part for us all to play to remind younger generations and generations to come of these tragedies so that we do not experience such things again in the future. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thanks to Lesley for such a moving account of those devastating events in Gresford 90 years ago. Dirprwy Lywydd, it seems very fitting to me that the last thing we will talk about in this Chamber before it is remodelled is something that has such resonance into the history of Wales, such connections with so many other communities, as Mick Antoniw has said, because what happened at Gresford continues to resonate, as we’ve heard, through the generations.

Now, early in the 1920s, recruitment to the North Wales Miners' Federation rose for the first time to over 16,000 people, but the decade that followed was hard in the mining communities of north-east Wales, as in any other coalfield. The general strike of 1926 around Wrexham saw demonstrations, arrests and a distress committee set up to help people who were being starved back into work, but the determination and the courage that was so displayed by people dissolved into the bitterness of a forced return. And by the time, only a few short years later, of the overwhelming tragedy at the Gresford colliery, as you’ve heard from Lesley, the ability of workers at the colliery to organise and to make sure that their interests were defended had been eroded over those 15 years.

You’ve heard already how, in the early hours of that Saturday morning, a huge explosion took place, and that extra poignancy to the tragedy that there were many men at work that morning who wouldn’t otherwise have been at work had they not made special arrangements to be there because of the other events that they wanted to attend, and for 266 of them, as we know, that would never happen. The scale of the tragedy is difficult to comprehend—those hundreds of husbands, fathers, sons and brothers lost in that single and catastrophic event, a disaster that devastated and marked an entire community in that single instance.

Locally, the subsequent inquiry opened on 25 October. It was held in Church House in Wrexham. It was led by Sir Henry Walker, the chief inspector of mines. The inquiry found, as you’ve heard, serious safety failings, inadequate ventilation, poor gas monitoring, but, as was so often the case in Welsh mining disasters, no owner was ever found accountable and no prosecutions ever took place. The National Archives in Kew, as Lesley said, contains a harrowing collection of letters from women affected by the explosion, still waiting years later for the return of any sign of the remains of their loved ones.

The aftermath, Dirprwy Lywydd, was both immediate and long lasting. Just further down the north Wales coast that day, in Llandudno, one of the greatest artists of the twentieth century, Paul Robeson, was performing in a concert. He’d been in Caernarfon the day before and he was in Wrexham on 22 September. He immediately donated the whole proceeds of his concerts to the disaster appeal. He was soon to embark upon the making of that remarkable film, The Proud Valley, which culminates, of course, in an underground explosion. The impact of Gresford was felt far beyond Wrexham itself, even as Paul Robeson returned to the town again during the 1930s for further fundraising concerts for that appeal.

Now, the North Wales Miners’ Association was represented at the inquiry. It was represented by Sir Stafford Cripps. He used the evidence presented at the inquiry to bolster the case for nationalisation of the mines, and, of course, in 1947, when that nationalisation took place, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in that great 1945 Labour Government. While, of course, both the findings of the inquiry and not simply the nationalisation but the safety measures that went alongside with it came too late for the men who were killed at Gresford, the important reforms that the inquiry indirectly gave rise to quite certainly led to safety regulations that would protect future generations of miners. And, as others have said, our modern commitment to workers' rights and to community resilience can be traced directly back to those events and the other events that Mick Antoniw spoke of. The story of Gresford speaks to enduring questions of social justice, about workplace safety, corporate accountability and support for communities facing devastating loss.

Now, every year at the miners memorial at Gresford, the haunting miners hymn is played every year at the memorial service, and this year, one of my sons was in the brass band that took part in that ninetieth anniversary commemoration. He phoned me that evening to tell me that he’d seen Lesley Griffiths at three separate events—morning, afternoon and evening—as they’d moved about on that very important memorial day. And it’s very striking, isn’t it, as Jane Dodds said, how, even 90 years later, there is a sense of community solidarity that comes from having been connected to one of those profoundly significant events.

We have here in Wales so many tragedies to remember, and I was honoured, last year, to play a small part in the formal recognition of the memorial garden in Senghenydd, as the national mining disaster memorial garden of Wales. It’s a remarkable place. You feel very directly connected to the disaster that happened there in 1913—connected both by the physical proximity to where the disaster happened, but also by the fact that, every single day, volunteers from that community come to the garden to make sure that it is kept in good order. Every mining disaster that Mick Antoniw mentioned is commemorated there. Every paving stone you walk on has another disaster beneath your feet, and there is something very moving about those names. Lesley, I thought it was very moving to hear the names that you read out of the individuals who were there on that day, their families and what happened to them. We do some honour to them simply by mentioning them on the floor of the national Senedd here in Wales.

And today, in contemporary Wales, the legacy of our industrial past continues to shape our communities. The landslide in Tylorstown in 2020 brought the issue of disused tip safety into sharp focus, and the slip in Cwmtillery just last year again reminded us of what it means in Wales to be faced with that new threat of climate change and extreme weather events when it coincides with that very visible history of our communities. In response, we are taking through the Senedd the law, the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Bill, which will ensure long-term effective management of disused tips and reduce the threat to public safety.

Just last month, I was lucky enough to visit the Duffryn Rhondda site in Neath Port Talbot, alongside the Deputy First Minister, where we saw in front of us some of that coal tip safety work actually taking place, and immediately after that visit, Huw left south Wales to go to Wrexham to attend an event there too, reminding us—because we do sometimes forget—that the coal industry in north-east Wales was just as significant to its local population as the coal industry in south Wales has been to ours. The Bill in front of the Senedd will ensure that our coalfield communities today can co-exist peacefully with the remains of our industrial past, and it's entirely fitting that the start of that journey was made by the Senedd Member for Wrexham, because it was Lesley who sponsored that first report of the Law Commission that analysed the current state of the statute book and created the foundations for the reforms that we are now taking forward.

In remembering the events of Gresford 90 years ago, we remind ourselves of those principles of social justice, of community solidarity, of collective action in the workplace, and that sense of community resilience that we're so fortunate still to have present here in Wales today. As I said, to have a chance to do that for the last time in this Chamber before we see it transformed into its new future, I hope that does something to recognise the strength of feeling and the memories that still exist in that community. Diolch yn fawr.

To remind everyone, next time we sit we will meet in Siambr Tŷ Hywel. That said, I hope you all have a good recess, have a rest, and come back refreshed for our new Chamber.