Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Welcome to this Plenary session. Before we begin, I want to set out a few points. A Plenary meeting held by video-conference, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Welsh Parliament, constitutes Senedd proceedings for the purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Some of the provisions of Standing Order 34 will apply for today's Plenary meeting, and these are noted on your agenda. I would remind Members that Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings apply to this meeting. 

The first item on our agenda is questions to the First Minister, and the first question today is from David Melding. 

Llywydd, the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 creates new opportunities to encourage and enable wider diversity in decision making. The single most significant moment of citizen participation this year will come in the Senedd elections, when 16 and 17-year-olds will take part for the first time. 

I thank you for that answer, First Minister. You will know the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development now regards innovation and public policy to be really important and necessary to involve citizen participation, and, indeed, it's one of the key factors in its well-being index. And do you agree with me that, further to this legislation, the time now has come for an action plan on citizen participation to be developed by whichever party is in position to form the next Welsh Government?

Well, Llywydd, I certainly agree with David Melding that citizen participation is not something to be thought of as a one-off event at an election, but needs to run through the whole of a term of an administration. This Government has been very pleased to work closely with the OECD on a number of different policy dimensions, most importantly recently alongside the work that our colleague Huw Irranca-Davies has led on regional economic policy for Wales, and citizen participation certainly is, as David Melding says, Llywydd, one of the key components of the future that the OECD set out for us. 

The 2021 Act, Llywydd, does place a requirement on local authorities in Wales to develop a public participation scheme, and, alongside that, the Welsh Government provides support through our digital democracy fund, through our diversity in democracy fund, both of which are designed to promote citizens' participation. I agree with what David Melding has said that an incoming Government, whoever might make up that Government, should have citizen engagement in everything we do as a running theme throughout the whole of the next Senedd term. 

Democracy only works properly if the demos, or the people, participate. Over the past year, because of the pandemic, more and more people are aware of devolution, but that progress is fragile. We need action now, surely, to make sure people aren't just aware of decisions being made here, but that they feel engaged. First Minister, if we look at young people, 16 and 17-year-olds have an exciting opportunity this year to vote for the first time, but political education is still not a required topic in the curriculum. In the coming years, I too would love to see more citizens assemblies for young people to promote engagement, but this year needs action now. Pupils are drilled about Tudor governance, but the system used today to elect the Government isn't always properly explained. So, do you think there's an opportunity within the school day this year to ensure that all first-time voters will be able to learn about this before the election, and, in the longer term, shouldn't political education be required to be taught? 

Llywydd, I definitely agree there's a real opportunity, as we move towards the election, to make sure that opportunities are taken to educate our young people in the democratic process and the very important part that they themselves can play within it. The Welsh Government is playing its part in that, alongside the Senedd Commission, alongside the Electoral Commission. We are engaged together in making sure that resources are available for young people, through Hwb and other means, so that those 16 and 17-year-olds who will join us at the ballot box this year have every opportunity they need to understand the responsibilities and the opportunities that are available to them. 

But it does go wider than that, as I'm sure Delyth Jewell will recognise. I very much enjoyed last week my conversation with students at Ysgol y Castell in Caerphilly. And there, at the age of nine, 10 and 11, you have young citizens who are completely interested in the future of their country, having their voice heard in it. And the system we have of school councils and participation of young people in Welsh education, I think, will stand us in very good stead as a nation, as those young people come to maturity and play their own part in our democracy.

We say we want to promote citizen participation in decision making, but, First Minister, six months ago, four in 10 people polled didn't know health was devolved, or thought it was run by Westminster, which your party exploits at UK elections. Wouldn't it be better if we simplified decision making by abolishing our unnecessary layer of Government?

Llywydd, I don't believe that.

I thank Dr Lloyd for the question. Capacity to provide mental health support services in Wales depends crucially on a multi-agency approach. During the last 12 months, support has been increased within the NHS and also through the third sector and local authorities.

Thank you for that, First Minister. Now, 'unprecedented' is the word in terms of COVID—we've heard it many times. 'Unprecedented' is the word in terms of mental health also—we have unprecedented levels of mental anguish in our people today, with unbelievable strain and long waiting lists, and with mental health staff in emergency deployment elsewhere, and with their own health issues and isolating themselves. We can talk about workforce planning, but the mental health crisis is now. I have previously raised the need to use all hands on deck to tackle this huge challenge, and, in addition to what you've outlined, particularly to utilise independent counsellors and therapists—cognitive behavioural therapy and others—and bring them into the NHS to increase that capacity. We have professionally trained mental health professionals who are not directly employed by the NHS today. And the Minister, Eluned Morgan, has previously stated that she's open to the idea of working with health boards on this agenda. So, unprecedented times, creative solutions for now—do you agree?

I absolutely agree with Dr Lloyd that creative solutions will be necessary to allow us to respond to the unprecedented nature of the crisis that we face. And as he said, Eluned Morgan, as the Minister with responsibility for mental health, has indicated that the Welsh Government is open to drawing on the widest range of skilled, professional and accredited help that is available to people as we try and mobilise different forms of help for them to meet the impact on mental health and well-being of the last 12 months. That is why, in addition to the money that we have directly in this financial year mobilised to strengthen NHS services, we've found nearly £3 million to strengthen the contribution from the third sector, particularly to tier 1 and tier 0 services, to make them as available to people as possible.

And those people who have expertise in CBT have been part of that journey as well, particularly in providing online material, where people can, in their own time and in a way that suits them, take advantage of the sorts of approaches, exercises, and ways of responding to mental health needs that we are now able to take advantage of. So, I entirely agree with what Dr Lloyd said—to meet the unprecedented circumstances we're in, imagination, creativity and a willingness to draw on all the capacity available will be part of the way that we reshape our health services for the future. 

Last week, the Mental Health Foundation called for a new cross-Welsh-Government strategy on preventing mental health problems, including widened access to social prescribing, such as arts projects, peer-to-peer projects and access to nature, and action to address rural mental health. How, therefore, do you respond to several retired constituents who e-mailed me last week stating,

'We're now starting to suffer health issues because of the lockdown. Mentally we can't take much more. The lanes where we live are narrow, but unrestricted, dangerous, and traffic moves very fast. They're definitely not safe to walk on. We did, until now, understand the reasons for not allowing bubbles. At the moment, that frankly feels very desperate. People like us see no-one, talk to no-one and are beginning to have health issues due to this isolation. Please appeal to the Welsh Government, putting forward the concerns of people such as ourselves, since there are a great deal of them in rural Wales. All we ask is for an extended travel rule to different local beaches or open spaces and our bubbles so that we can talk, cry and support'?

Well, Llywydd, I indicated at the end of the last three-week review that I hoped that the current three-week review would be the last one in which we had to ask people to sustain a stay-at-home approach to dealing with the pandemic. Given that numbers are continuing to fall and that vaccination continues to be rolled out successfully in Wales, I remain hopeful that, at the end of this three-week cycle, it will be possible to offer people, in the circumstances that Mark Isherwood has described, greater ability to get the exercise that they are looking for, and potentially to find more opportunities for people to meet safely outdoors. All of this, Llywydd, however, will be done primarily within the lens of the continuing public health challenges that we face from this virus.

The people who have contacted Mr Isherwood—the retired constituents to whom he referred—would not, I'm sure, wish us to do anything that would put at risk the hard-won ground that they and others in Wales have achieved by the efforts that we have made together. Those efforts are bearing fruit and, so long as they continue to do so, I hope to be in a position to respond to the sorts of messages that the Member has relayed to us this afternoon. 

First Minister, two weeks ago we were pleased to host a Facebook live event in the Bridgend and Ogmore area, under the title of 'Mental Health—It's Good to Talk', and it was attended, I'm delighted to say, by the Minister with responsibility for mental health, but also by Megan from the Bridgend Youth Council, Mental Health Matters, local Men's Sheds and many other organisations and individuals with lived experience of mental health challenges as well. Amongst the many issues raised, two themes were prominent. The first was the need for continuing to ramp up overall investment in mental health support and services from the upstream investment, which you've talked about, First Minister, through to therapies and through to the acute services. And the second was the need for investment in perinatal mental health for both parents, something raised not least by Ogmore Vale campaigner Mark Williams. And I thank the Minister, by the way, for inviting Mark along to a subsequent meeting with others, within days, to discuss this. So, First Minister, can I ask you what commitment can you give to continuing to boost the investment in mental health support and services across the piste and to the perinatal mental health of both parents, and also to helping remove the stigma over mental health issues—letting people know it really is good to talk about mental health? 

Well, Llywydd, I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for those further questions. In terms of onward investment into mental health, he will know that the draft budget that was laid before the Senedd some weeks ago, and in the final budget that will be published later today, we will invest a further £42 million in mental health. The single largest sum of money in our health budget is devoted to mental health, and this will be significant further investment in the next financial year in sustaining those services, which, as Dr Lloyd said, will be so necessary in the months ahead. 

As to perinatal services, I'm pleased to be able to confirm to Members that we remain on track to invite the first patients into the new residential perinatal mental health service that is being created at Tonna Hospital, not very far from the Member's own constituency. That was a commitment given by my colleague Vaughan Gething, that we would create a new in-patient facility in perinatal mental health, and that will be achieved before the elections, despite the very considerable challenges that coronavirus has posed to the builders, who are working very hard to make sure that everything can be completed at Tonna Hospital in time for those first patients to be welcomed.

And finally, to congratulate the Member on the event that he organised. Removing stigma in the field of mental health is a constant effort, isn't it? It's not a battle that we are going to win just by a single event or a single campaign. It remains a real challenge for us all, and I know Members across the Chamber have played their part in this to make sure that we go on explaining to people that talking about mental health, being open about experiences, getting the help that can then follow from it, that is the way in which we erode the continuing stigma that, unfortunately, those who suffer from mental ill health continue to report to us.

Questions now from the party leaders. Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Labour is like a gambler that bets everything on winning power in Westminster every five years—the view of Manchester's Labour mayor, Andy Burnham. First Minister, isn't that the story of Welsh politics for the last 100 years? 

Well, Llywydd, clearly, it's not in any way a description of Welsh politics over the last 100 years, otherwise how would we be talking today in the institution that we have here in Wales, a powerful Senedd with independence of action, with primary law-making powers? If the Member's initial proposition were true, then none of that would be true. 

You described independence today in The National, First Minister, as a nineteenth-century response to a twenty-first century problem, going on to propose home rule instead, an idea from the 1880s. The problem is that home rule will never solve the fundamental problem in the Welsh democratic deficit. As the head of Labour for IndyWales, Bob Lloyd, said yesterday in the Daily Express:

'For the last 100 years Wales has voted for a socialist party in domestic elections, yet hasn't got what it's asked for.'

And if you don't agree with Bob Lloyd, will you at least acknowledge that Sam Pritchard, chair of the Wales Co-operative Party, to which many of your Senedd colleagues belong, has some logic to his argument that independence is the best way to achieve a more equal society, because Wales would not be bound by the voting patterns of people in southern England. We've never voted Tory in Wales, yet we've had Tory Governments two thirds of the time. Is there any reason to think that will be different in the future?  

What I would see different in the future, Llywydd, is the entrenchment of the current settlement so that it cannot be rolled back unilaterally by any Government at Westminster. I want a new settlement for the union so that Wales's place in it is fully respected and the decisions that are made on a four-nation basis are made on the basis of equality of participation, where no one player can outvote or can use its authority to impose itself on others. In that way, my view and the view of my party in this Senedd will be that of the great bulk of the Welsh population, because what the bulk of the Welsh population is in favour of is home rule in the sense that decisions that are made in Wales about Wales are made only here in Wales, but that we do not cut ourselves off from everything that we can achieve together by a four-nation voluntary association across the UK. That is what people in Wales favour. That is what my party has always stood for. 

Yesterday, your colleague Chris Bryant MP, dismissed independence supporters as 'childish'. You yourself have suggested supporters of Welsh independence are inward-looking and 'inherently right-wing'. With recent polls showing that more than half of Labour voters are now in favour of independence, and that support is highest among our young people, on the national question, isn't it the independence movement, rather than you, First Minister, that is looking not backward but forward to the future of our country?

Llywydd, I welcome anybody who wants to debate the future of our country, and all views ought to be treated properly and with respect. My view is the one I have just set out for you, and I think it is the view that most progressive people in this country share. They do not want an inward-looking nationalism. They do not want a future for our country in which we are ripped out of the United Kingdom. They want a future for our country in which Wales has a powerful set of capacities to make decisions for ourselves on the things that affect people here in Wales, but they want also to be able to work co-operatively, collaboratively, alongside progressive people in other parts of the United Kingdom, whether that is in the south of England or the north of England or in Scotland or in Northern Ireland, where progressive people can come together to share an agenda on a voluntary basis. We achieve more together than we do apart. That is my view, and it will be the view that the Welsh Labour Party takes into this election. The Member will continue to make his case to take Wales out of the United Kingdom. He's entitled to do that, absolutely, but I think he will find, once again, that that is a minority voice here in Wales, and the bulk of the Welsh population continues to believe that the future for our country lies in powerful institutions here in Wales, in a successful United Kingdom.

Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Good afternoon, First Minister. When campaigning for the Labour leadership, Keir Starmer pledged to reverse the Tory cuts in corporation tax and said there'd be no stepping back from Labour's core principles. This week, Keir Starmer said he opposes a rise in corporation tax. Which position do you support, First Minister?

Llywydd, I'm not responsible for corporation tax, and I don't propose to debate views on matters for which, as First Minister, I have no accountability to the Senedd.

Well, I am amazed by that answer, because you spend week after week debating points that you have no responsibility over. But an area you do have responsibility over is council tax, First Minister, and there's a huge amount of consequential funding that's come to the Welsh Government from the UK Government—£5.8 billion-worth of support. There is a cost-of-living crisis developing now, with this COVID crisis hitting the economy really hard. One measure you could do to help with council tax is freeze it here in Wales to help families the length and breadth of Wales. Will you commit to using the powers that you have to freeze council tax and use the consequentials to fund the funding gap?

Llywydd, what I commit to is waiting until tomorrow's budget is out of the way and we are certain about how much money we have available to us here in Wales to use next year. We will then consider the purposes for which it could be applied. I think last week the Member was urging me to use that money to support businesses here in Wales. Today, he wants me to freeze the council tax. I understand why he wants to do that, because the largest council tax rise in Wales last year, of course, was imposed by Conservative-controlled Conwy council. So, if he's asking me to protect council tax payers in Wales from the Conservative Party, I will think of that very carefully.

Well, we have Captain Hindsight in Westminster and Professor Do-little down here in the bay, who's not prepared to do anything with the powers that he has to help hard-pressed families across the length and breadth of Wales. One action the First Minister is proposing, though, is the imposition of nitrate vulnerable zones. Only last week, your leader in Westminster talked about supporting farmers, at the National Farmers Union annual conference, for the great work that they've done, right the way through the pandemic, feeding the nation. This morning, Members have received a letter from Glanbia, a large milk processor, saying how damaging the regulations could be to future supplies of fresh milk here in Wales, and how they might well have to consider relocating their production facilities or re-aligning their operations here in Wales. Your own Minister has stood on the floor of the Plenary and, time and time again—at least seven times—said that she would not implement these regulations while the pandemic was in full flow. Ultimately, the regulators also cast a view over these regulations by saying they will have perverse outcomes. So, instead of keeping the strapline 'Professor Do-little', will you now intervene and make sure that these regulations aren't put in place that will have such a damaging effect on the supply of good, wholesome Welsh produce, and, ultimately, a devastating impact on the agricultural industry here in Wales?

Llywydd, I look forward to voting in favour of the regulations on the floor of the Senedd tomorrow. They will support those farmers who do not pollute our land. They will support those farmers who understand that their reputation and their future incomes depend on them being able to demonstrate that the standards of agriculture here in Wales are of the highest. They will make their contribution that is absolutely necessary to tackling climate change and the environmental crisis that we face. I'm not the person who wants to do little, or, in his case, do nothing, to turn back the tide of agricultural pollution. His party will vote in favour of continued pollution here in Wales tomorrow. My party is determined that we will take the action necessary, after many years of attempting to put this right by voluntary means. We will support those farmers who do the right thing already by bearing down on those who persistently and deliberately pollute our land, our water and our environment, and the Member should be ashamed of the fact that, week after week, he comes here to make this his top priority in asking questions of me, when he could do his part too, instead of talking the talk, to do something practical to help this nation to support those farmers who do the right thing already and make the contribution that we need to make to securing the future of this beautiful but fragile part of our planet.

I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. The environmental impact of the derailment was amongst the most significant in Wales since the Sea Empress disaster of 25 years ago. Monitoring of the site and surrounding area, which includes four sites of special scientific interest and a special area of conservation, will continue for many years to come.

I'm grateful to the First Minister for his reply, and I know that he will want to join me in congratulating the public services on the way that they've co-operated around the clean-up, which, so far, has been very successful, given the scale of the problem, as the First Minister rightly identifies.

The First Minister will be aware that two groups of businesses were particularly badly affected, albeit not for very long, by the derailment. One of those was the very important cockle-gathering industry, the other, of course, was farmers who graze on those low-lying banks by the river. The First Minister will be aware that there has been a request going into Welsh Government to consider whether some interim financial support might be made available to the cockle gatherers and the grazers while responsibility for the derailment and long-term compensation becomes a possibility. I'm sure that the First Minister will be aware that many of these are very small businesses; they operate on quite low margins and in difficult circumstances. So, I wonder if the First Minister can tell me today whether the Welsh Government is able to look favourably on that request and when a decision might be made, fully accepting that this is a very unusual set of circumstances.

Llywydd, I thank Helen Mary Jones for those further questions. I definitely do join with her in congratulating those public services that did such a remarkable job at the time so that an environmental disaster on an even greater scale was averted. And I was hearing only this week from Lee Waters, the Member for Llanelli, of his visit to the site on Friday of last week, when he was able to see for himself the scale of the remedial work that has been carried out. And through him and through others, of course, I am aware of the impact on cockle gatherers particularly of the fact that they were unable to carry out their normal activities while the level of environmental contaminants in the estuary were being surveyed. It is right, as Helen Mary Jones was implying, that the polluter in the end must pay for the damage that has been done, but the rail accident investigation branch work is not coming rapidly to a conclusion.

In that context, I know that my colleague Lesley Griffiths is expecting to receive advice in the next 10 days or so as to whether or not it is possible to devise a scheme through the Welsh Government in which some interim assistance to those industries could be supplied. Now, I cannot anticipate the nature of the advice that the Minister will get, but I know that she has been very keen to obtain that advice from her officials in case it is possible, before the rail accident investigation is completed, to offer some assistance to those who have been most directly affected.

Llywydd, in the Member's constituency, the restrictions business fund has already paid grants totalling nearly £2 million to hundreds of firms. Over £0.5 million has been provided through the hospitality, leisure and tourism fund. This Government will go on supporting businesses in the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney area as we recover from the pandemic.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. These Welsh Government interventions clearly are critical to the chances of many businesses in my constituency, as is the absolute need for the UK Chancellor to confirm the extension of the furlough scheme as part of the UK budget announcement tomorrow.

I can tell you, First Minister, that Welsh Government investments in business support, in a new bus station, in the metro improvements, in apprenticeships and the success of the Aspire apprenticeships scheme, in signing the contract for the A465 improvements, in redeveloping Prince Charles Hospital and in redeveloping and building new schools are all positive actions that will enable my constituency to move forward. But can I ask you to give consideration to the scope for a further stimulus package to help move us from the pandemic, which will help both to restore trade and to lift our high streets, and to help tourism, hospitality, leisure and outdoor businesses through the next few months? At the same time, can you assure me that the Welsh Government will be taking the responsible decisions that we all need to keep Wales safe, while delivering greater fairness and putting people back to work?

Llywydd, I thank Dawn Bowden for those questions. I'm pleased to be able to tell her that the £30 million, which is the latest investment that we have provided in the hospitality, leisure and tourism sector specific fund, that the eligibility checker for that fund will open on 3 March, tomorrow morning, and that the fund itself will open on 9 March. I know that there will be businesses in the Member's constituency that will be looking to get further help and assistance from that fund, and I'm very glad that we've been able to find that £30 million to extend the help that is available to businesses, not just in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, of course, but across Wales.

The budget that will be laid this afternoon, Llywydd, will show a further major sum of money set aside by the Welsh Government to go on supporting businesses in Wales next year. I agree with what the Member said about the need for the UK Government to go on investing in the help that it provides people to go on being employed as we come, we hope, to the end of the current wave of the crisis. We will go on using the money that we have available as a Welsh Government to provide the most generous package of support to businesses anywhere in the United Kingdom. As the Wales Governance Centre recently confirmed through its own independent analysis, we have already well exceeded by some hundreds of millions of pounds the consequential funding that we've received from the UK Government for business support purposes.

Llywydd, I'm very pleased to confirm that we will exceed the 20,000 affordable homes target for this Government term. The latest provisional release shows just under 3,000 new affordable homes were built in 2019-20, the highest annual total since records began in 2008.

First Minister, following the last election in 2016, you met with my dad—you as finance Minister and him as housing Minister—to work out how you would meet the ambitious Welsh Labour target of 20,000 affordable homes. Now, together, you put in place a delivery mechanism and the finances to ensure this happened. Your leadership and dad's leadership delivered this programme; he dug the foundations and you laid the tiles to the roofs. We should all be very proud of this achievement.

Across Wales, affordable houses have been built, and residents have been given access to much-needed homes. I was contacted by one of these residents who said that, through my work and my support, she was able to access one of your and dad's affordable homes at a real time of difficulty in her life. First Minister, do you agree with me that this is Welsh Labour delivering for our communities and being there for our residents when they need us most?

Well, Llywydd, can I thank Jack Sargeant for that question? I vividly remember the meeting that he refers to. Early in this Senedd term, Carl Sargeant's office and my office were next door to one another. I had newly been appointed as the finance Minister, he was charged with implementing Labour's manifesto pledge to create 20,000 new affordable homes in a five-year period—the largest number in the whole of devolution. I very vividly remember Carl coming into my office and saying to me, 'I need a very big sum of money, and I need it very quickly.' The argument he was putting to me was that, in order to get to 20,000 affordable homes, he needed the bulk of the investment in the first two years of the Senedd term to get the programme under way, to get the houses being built, and that way we would get to the ambitious target.

It is a tribute. It is a tribute to him, particularly, that I'm able to say today that that target has been met, because if it wasn't for the arguments that he mobilised and the force of the argument that led to the mobilisation of that funding, then that ambitious target would not have been met. That is the hallmark of the Labour Party. We will go into the next election with a series of ambitious programmes here for Wales. But, Llywydd, they will not just be ambitious, they will be credible as well. If we say we will do something, then we will deliver it. We said we would provide 20,000 affordable homes. We will have done that and more. And the sort of person who came to talk to Jack about the house that they now have to live in, there will be people like that in every single constituency here in Wales.

Can I ask you, First Minister, about the work that's been undertaken by the Welsh Government to ensure that our veteran community in Wales have adequate access to housing? I know that you, like me, will recall that this week, of course, marks a special anniversary for those veterans who were involved in the Gulf war, and I know that many veterans who've suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder in particular have really struggled sometimes to adjust to returning to civilian life, and unfortunately some of them do end up on our streets. What specific action is the Welsh Government taking to ensure that homelessness amongst our veteran community is eradicated, please?

Thank you to Darren Millar for that important question. I'm very pleased to be able to report that, as part of the enormous effort that has been made by our local authority colleagues, by housing associations and others in the voluntary sector, as he will know, hundreds and hundreds of people who otherwise would have been street homeless in Wales have been offered accommodation in this extraordinary year, and that has certainly included people who have left the armed forces and for whom life can be a struggle in making an adjustment to a different way of living their lives.

Now, here in Wales, I think we've got a proud record of what we have been able to achieve together, and I completely acknowledge that this is an entirely cross-party agenda that we've pursued here in Wales, whether that is in mental health, whether that is in employment opportunities. And I was very glad to be able to confirm to the Member recently that an idea that he first put to me about guaranteeing interviews for people who'd left the armed forces for jobs in the Welsh Government, that we've been able to take that forward, and in housing as well. The Minister with particular responsibility for veterans' affairs, Hannah Blythyn, of course, is a Deputy Minister in the department that has direct responsibility for housing. And making sure that people who have left the armed forces don't find themselves falling into homelessness, but have other and far better housing opportunities for them, that is certainly part of the agenda, the broader veterans agenda, that we have in Wales.

First Minister, it's good that your Government is surpassing its own target of 20,000 affordable homes during this Senedd term, though recent headlines suggest that private developers see Wales as not being a particularly attractive prospect and cite many reasons, including the planning system and Welsh regulations being the most onerous in the UK. We know that the 20,000 target goes nowhere near meeting the actual demand, so what is your plan to encourage a range of providers to build here in Wales? Thank you.

Well, Llywydd, I am proud of the standards that we have here in Wales. It is absolutely essential that when new houses are built, they are houses that are fit for the future, that they are houses that will make their contribution to the net-zero carbon targets that we have agreed for 2050. And I know that there are some house builders who find it challenging to meet the standards that are required, but they are absolutely necessary. The fact that 8,000 of our 20,000 affordable homes were reached through the Help to Buy scheme demonstrates to me that there are house builders in Wales who are capable of delivering quality housing within the standards that we require here. We will go on having standards for house building in Wales that do not leave us with a huge legacy of retrofitting those houses to make them fit for the sort of carbon-neutral future that we need to have. I'm very pleased that we have standards that will stand up to examination by future generations, as our Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 requires of us.

Llywydd, we're on track to deliver against our next target of mid April for groups 5 to 9, subject of course to supply. On Friday evening, the number of vaccinations administered by our NHS exceeded the 1 million mark. All 21 GP practices in the Caerphilly area have signed up and are delivering the vaccine.

With regard to unpaid carers, I've been approached by some in receipt of carers allowance who are concerned that they don't meet all of the three criteria for eligibility for vaccine in priority 6 that were released by the Welsh Government last Wednesday. Can the First Minister therefore provide an assurance that if you are in receipt of carers allowance, you will be called at priority 6?

I thank Hefin David, Llywydd, for that. We set out the guidance, as the Member said, on 24 February, and, as I explained last week on the floor of the Senedd in relation to people with learning difficulties who are also encompassed within priority group 6, our guidance is designed to take a more progressive view of the number of unpaid carers who can be identified as eligible for vaccination here in Wales. We didn't confine ourselves to carers allowance, because we thought that was too restrictive. I would be very surprised if there are people who are able to claim carers allowance who cannot bring themselves within the system that we have now agreed here in Wales. I'm very grateful to the carers organisations—Carers Wales, for example—who co-operated with us to draw up the online form that we will use so that people who are unpaid carers can demonstrate their eligibility for inclusion within priority group 6. Of course, if there are individual examples where people are not being identified through the route that we have set out, then we would be very keen to hear that so that we can put that right. But our aim is to have, as I say, an inclusive approach to priority group 6, including unpaid carers. We have to have criteria, Llywydd. We can't just have a self-certification system. But the system we have devised has been drawn up in agreement with carers organisations themselves.

I thank the Member for that question. The Welsh Government's priorities include direct investment in high-quality education research, to ensure that policy makers get the best advice, teachers have the best evidence to guide their practice, and pupils and students have the best possible learning experience.

Thank you for that reply. Clearly, the Reid review recommended that, due to Wales's historic underinvestment in research and lack of private research economic base, the Welsh Government should lead on this by increasing funding via a future of Wales fund with some more significant funds—at least about £30 million. But, last year, your Welsh Government only put £7 million into this particular fund. Last year, your Government also cut forecast funding growth to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales for Welsh universities to cover more expensive premium courses, many of which are in the science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine area, and Wales also spends less gross on research and development than other UK countries, sadly. This has to change, in my opinion. Can you outline for us here today what you plan to do to rectify this underinvestment in research, particularly through universities and colleges, to make sure that Wales can be on a level playing field with the rest of the UK and the rest of the world?

I don't think the Member gives a rounded account of the success of the Welsh research sector. The success it has had in drawing down funding from Horizon 2020 is entirely beyond what you would expect of a research community of the size we have here in Wales, and through European funds more generally, we have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in research capacity here in Wales. Part of that in recent years has been improving the capacity of the sector to draw down funding from UK research councils, and we have research examples here in Wales where the draw-down from the research councils on a UK basis has been increasing in Wales. But, as well as drawing down more funding, it is the impact of the research that we can be particularly proud of, because Welsh research is highly impactful. In the research citation indices that universities use, Welsh research has an impact 75 per cent above the global average and 12 per cent above the UK average, and Wales's share of the top 5 per cent of the most highly cited publications is twice the global average. These figures were very persuasively set out by our chief scientific adviser Professor Peter Halligan when he and I were involved in opening a new research institute at Swansea University last Friday—an institute I know the Member will be interested in, the successor to the Morgan Academy. The sense of ambition there at the university to draw further funding to continue to provide impactful research says to me that the sector continues to be in robust health here in Wales.

And lastly, question 8, Caroline Jones.

I thank the Member for that question. Further investment in diagnostic equipment and growth in the diagnostic workforce are amongst the actions being taken to create new capacity in cancer services as we emerge from the pandemic.

Thank you, First Minister. The tragic consequence of the measures to control the spread of COVID-19 has been the dramatic fall in the numbers of people with symptoms of cancer seeking treatment. The study conducted by Cancer Research UK found that almost half of people with potential cancer symptoms did not contact their GP during the first wave of the pandemic. Apart from reinforcing the message that the NHS is open for business, what more can your Government do to ensure that we reduce the backlog in diagnostics and improve the chances of survival for those now seeking treatment? Diolch.

I thank the Member for that very important question. It gives me an opportunity to echo what she just said—that cancer services have been open in Wales from the very start of the pandemic. We really encourage people to come forward if they have signs or symptoms. The system is there, the system is open, the system is ready to offer you the sort of help that is needed. I understand, of course, that during the pandemic, people have been wanting to protect the NHS themselves, anxious about coming forward when they knew that coronavirus was in widespread circulation, but from the very start of the pandemic, in April of last year, instructions were issued to the health service to prioritise cancer care, and those services have worked very hard indeed to make sure that they have continued to be available. We restored cancer screening programmes during the summer of last year, and those screening programmes have remained open throughout this second wave. The clear message—it's the one that Caroline Jones herself just mentioned, and I want to amplify it this afternoon—is if you feel at all that you have signs or symptoms that ought to be attended to, please make an appointment to speak with your GP, because the cancer system in Wales is here and waiting to offer you the help you need.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item is the business statement and announcement. I call on the Trefnydd, Rebecca Evans, to make that statement. Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are no changes to this week's business. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out in the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Laura Jones.

Thank you. Diolch—'Prime Minister' I nearly called you then—Presiding Officer. [Laughter.]

Who knows?

Business Minister, children and young people across England are looking forward to returning to the classroom from Monday. Here in Wales, most secondary school pupils are completely in the dark about when they might return, except that it won't be until the summer term. The Welsh Government hasn't given a commitment that return to school will be full time. Minister, in your own Government's alert system, schools are supposed to remain open to all pupils at alert level 4. Most council areas meet your criteria for levels 2 or 3, with incident rates similar to those in late September. With the rapid progress in vaccination and now lateral flow testing for school staff, many families can't understand why schools remain closed for the majority of pupils. Can you tell us when the education Minister or First Minister will be in a position to make a clear, unambiguous statement about reopening schools to all pupils? Thank you.

I'm grateful for this opportunity to reiterate that the Government's priority is absolutely to ensure that children are able to resume their learning. We do understand what an impact this year has had on children, their learning, but also those wider benefits that children get from being in school, which is why we've invested so much this year and in our budget for next year in terms of helping children catch up and so forth. I do know that Members and families at home will be very keen to understand the next steps, and the Minister will be providing that information to colleagues as soon as possible, but, of course, we have that within the context of the three-weekly review. I'm afraid that's all I can say for today, but just to reiterate, really, that this is a priority area for us, and to highlight the advice that we had, which of course was that, if we did return all children to school at once, it could lead to an increase in the R rate of between 10 and 50 per cent. Clearly, that wasn't something that we were willing to do. So, returning children to the classroom has to be done in a phased way and a safe way. But I know that colleagues will be keen to provide more information as soon as we're able to. 

I heard the First Minister's response earlier to a question about vaccination priority for unpaid carers. I've had a number of people in the Rhondda who have contacted me saying that they are either unpaid carers or that they have underlying health conditions but they haven't been put into the priority categories. We're aware that a form is on its way for unpaid carers to be able to register their details, and hopefully after that has happened they will be offered a vaccine quite soon. But can your Government provide any more details or information to constituents who are concerned that they should be getting a vaccine but they're not? Can you clarify how they'll be identified and prioritised? Will a form be available to everyone who feels that they should be a priority but they haven't been classed as a priority for vaccination purposes?

We do have the statement from the Minister for Health and Social Services as the next item of business this afternoon, and that statement is specifically an update on the vaccination scheme, so I know that this will be something that colleagues will be interested in hearing about and asking about during the questions following the statement. I will say that the Welsh Government has provided guidance, and we've sought to take as broad an approach as possible to this, so not just confining this to people who are in receipt of carer's allowance, but ensuring that all of those people who need to have the vaccine are able to do so, which is why we've taken that wider approach and are developing the form that Leanne Wood referred to. But I think that it would probably be best left to my colleague the health Minister to answer the more detailed questions in the next item of business. 

Minister, we're coming to the end of this Senedd, and I think this is the last three-week period for which we'll have a statement to discuss. I would therefore be very grateful if you could either seek an oral statement or a written statement on the following subjects.

First of all, access to primary care. We know, through the pandemic, that the whole of the national health service, primary and secondary care, have worked well to support the needs of our communities, but there are parts of the country where access to primary care, access to GP services, has been a real issue. There has been great investment in my constituency in Blaenau Gwent, but there are still areas where we've got some fantastic resources, but we can't get access to see GPs and to receive the primary care that we require. I would be grateful if the Government could make a statement on that. 

The second issue is that of long COVID. We know that there are increasing numbers of people now who have come through the trauma of COVID itself but have been left dealing with the consequences of long COVID. I think there are many people who would like to understand what the Government's plans are to ensure that there is support and services and treatment available for people into the future to support them in their recovery. Thank you. 

Thank you to Alun Davies for raising both of those issues. As he was speaking, I was looking ahead to the three weeks we have after this one to see if there will be an opportunity to have an oral statement. I will speak to colleagues following today's business statement about all of the requests that we receive. However, if we're not able to accommodate an oral statement, then I know certainly on the matter of long COVID particularly, the Minister will be keen to provide a statement updating on the written statement he issued a few weeks ago about the support that we're seeking to put in place for people. 

Trefnydd, the First Minister said earlier in First Minister's questions that £42 million—I think that was the figure he gave—has been earmarked in the final budget for tackling mental health issues in Wales. I wonder when we could have a breakdown of that spending, please. I'm particularly interested in the role that sport can play in helping with mental health issues. Also, an issue I've raised in previous Plenaries is that of rural areas and mental health issues, which often go unnoticed. 

Secondly, could we have an update from the health Minister on stroke services, following the report in September about how COVID is affecting stroke survivors in Wales? 

And, finally, if I may, Llywydd, the Public Accounts Committee has been looking at the effectiveness of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. That's going to be a debate that we'll be having over the next few weeks. We talk a lot about green recovery, but I think that when we come out of the pandemic and the lockdown, the temptation to lapse back into some of the old ways of doing things will be pretty strong. So, could we have a statement, and perhaps an embryonic route map, on what building back better will actually look like in practice, so that we really cement this in the public psyche, and we all know where we're going in the future so that we genuinely are building back better and not just talking about it? 

Thank you to Nick Ramsay. It gives me a great opportunity to highlight to colleagues that, at 3 o'clock this afternoon, the final budget will be published, and therein you will find further detail on the allocations that we're making for next year, including spend on mental health.

In terms of stroke services, I'll make your request known to the Minister for Health and Social Services in that regard.FootnoteLink

And on the green recovery and building back better, again I think we'll have an interesting opportunity to explore some of that in the final budget debate next week, where colleagues will be able to ask some further questions about the capital stimulus package that we've announced just this week of £220 million, which includes additional funding for housing, and we're putting a specific focus on green housing, for example. And in the budget you'll also see funding for moving schools to zero carbon and so on. So, lots of exciting things for us to discuss in the final budget next week, which will be very relevant to the green recovery. 

Firstly, I wanted to raise concerns with you with regard to comments that were made by an NHS public servant last week. James Moore, who was seconded at the time to Health Education and Improvement Wales, made awful comments comparing the treatment of English speakers to that of apartheid. So, this was a campaign against a new Welsh school in west Wales. Now, notwithstanding the fact that this is entirely crass, to compare the experiences of apartheid to that of an issue in Wales where Welsh is an equal language to English, it is inappropriate for somebody in this position to make such comments. And, at the time, HEIW tried to wash their hands of this by saying that it was a private matter, and that he'd said it in a private capacity. Now, he's been transferred back to the Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust, and I know that they are taking action. But this goes wider than the ambulance trust, because James Moore is also the NHS lead for compassionate leadership. 

So, I would like to have a statement from Welsh Government to ask you what more you are doing to make sure that you do not tolerate anybody who works for the NHS, or any other public service, making such awful remarks pertaining to the Welsh language, and that you have a zero-tolerance approach to this in the future. 

My second request for a statement is with regard to baby development groups that are taking place during this particular pandemic. We know that in lockdown they haven't been able to meet face to face, and that they've resorted to doing those classes on Zoom. In the last few days alone, a new petition has started, which has garnered 100 signatures already, to try and get those face-to-face classes back up and running. Will the Welsh Government commit to this so that those parents and those babies who want to see development in those early stages can meet and can then practice in those classes? Thank you. 

Thank you for raising these issues. I do echo the sentiments that have already been made by my colleague, the Minister for Mental Health, Well-being and the Welsh Language, who has said that the comments to which you refer were completely unacceptable, because, of course, we are a nation that's really proud of our history and our culture, and our Welsh language is absolutely integral to that. And Welsh belongs to us all regardless of whether we are Welsh speakers or not, and I think the vast majority of Welsh people are absolutely proud and passionate about our language as well. 

I do know that the Minister has spoken with the chair of HEIW, and I know that she impressed upon HEIW how important a part the Welsh language plays in serving the public of Wales as a whole. And, of course, now that would be a matter for HEIW to take forward internally to ensure that that is given the prominence and respect that it requires in future, but Eluned Morgan has taken this matter very seriously.

And on baby development groups, there are a wide range of face-to-face classes that we would love to see opened as soon as the situation is safe to do so. Clearly, there are groups of all kinds that are so important to our mental health and well-being, but particularly I know that baby development groups have a special purpose to serve as well. So, that will definitely be something that we consider as we move through each of the three-weekly review periods.

Can I ask for a statement on the state of the aviation sector in Wales? The Chancellor, in today's budget, has the last opportunity for the UK Government to extend the furlough scheme, to give specific sectoral support for the aviation sector in Wales. The aviation sector in Wales is virtually on the brink of collapse if something doesn't happen—companies like GE Aviation Wales in my constituency, where they're at economic risk of losing hundreds of skilled jobs in Wales, and other parts of the aviation sector. At GE in Nantgarw, a further 180 men have been furloughed until 30 April, leaving at the moment just 350 remaining in employment in Nantgarw, and, as I've said, other plants are at risk. So, we are at risk of losing an entire sector, so this is a crisis situation emerging that will have a massive impact on Wales. So it's vital we look at how the industry can be supported in Wales, and vital that the UK Government actually extends the furlough scheme by at least six months. A couple of months' extension, as has been suggested, is not the specific support that the sector needs to actually survive, compared with the support being given to the aviation sector in other European countries. And I think this matter requires really an urgent statement from Welsh Government.

Thank you for raising this. The Welsh Government has been calling on the UK Government consistently, right throughout the crisis, to introduce some targeted support for the aerospace sector. And I know my colleague, the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales, has consistently raised this sector support, and actually the issue of extending furlough, in his regular meetings with UK Ministers. Despite the kind of lobbying that we've been making, industry-specific support hasn't been forthcoming. But, as Mick Antoniw says, other countries have shown that it is possible to provide that sector-specific support; the Governments of France, Germany and the USA have all managed to find a way to do this. So we'll continue to press the UK Government to take action here. And, as we know, the budget tomorrow will be an ideal opportunity for the UK Government to show that kind of commitment. Ahead of the UK Government's budget tomorrow, I wrote, as I always do, to the Chancellor, ahead of the budget, setting out Wales's priorities. And within that, I included the need for further certainty for business, and a commitment that the UK Government will continue with the furlough scheme for as long as it is necessary. And I think that the case study that Mick Antoniw has just described provides a really strong case for the UK Government to do just that. And we would call on them to make some significant moves in this area tomorrow.

Trefnydd, can I echo Laura Anne Jones's request, and ask the Minister for Education to now make a statement regarding the reopening of schools across Wales? I appreciate that a phased return for children has now begun, but I'm also receiving representations from parents in my constituency who are frustrated that some of their children are unable to return to school, and are understandably worried about the impact that their prolonged absence from the classroom may have on their studies. Parents I speak to now want clarity as to when their children will be able to return to school, because, without further clarity from the Government, there is a possibility that some children will not return to the classroom until after Easter. And given that this is supposedly a priority for the Government, then surely that's not good enough.

Now, as was mentioned earlier, the Welsh Government's own criteria in its alert level system confirms that schools in level 4 can stay open. And with the vaccination programme now making significant progress, it's vital that children and younger learners are able to return to school as soon as possible. And I heard your earlier response to this issue, but I believe it's important now that the Government provides clarity on this matter. And I'd be grateful, therefore, if the Minister for Education could now provide an urgent update to Members on the Welsh Government's specific plans to enable learners to return to school, so that parents can have some clarity and understanding about when their children can return to the classroom.

The Minister for Education will have heard that request for the further detail and the clarity, and I know that, as soon as she is in a position to say more about the next steps, she will obviously be very keen to do so. But, as I say, the Minister will be listening, and I'll make sure that I do have a further conversation following Plenary, this afternoon, to explore what the next steps might be, in terms of updating our colleagues. 

May I ask for a statement from the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales as a matter of urgency following the decision by the Joloda Hydraroll company to move as many as 27 jobs from Gaerwen on Anglesey to Liverpool? This has been a very important employer on the island for many decades, and I'm very concerned about the workforce and their families now, who've been told that they are facing these job losses. Many of them have been in touch with me over the past few days. 

Now, in November, the company received £80,000 from the Welsh Government to invest in the Gaerwen site. That was on top of £26,000 from the economic resilience fund earlier in the year. I've written to the Minister some days ago, and I'm hopeful that he will be as eager as myself to ensure that everything possible is done to try and retain these jobs on Anglesey. 

Thank you for raising this and, clearly, it is very, very concerning indeed. I will ask the Minister for economy and transport to expedite his response to your particular correspondence on this issue, given the importance of this to the local community and the need to respond very quickly. But Welsh Government will always seek to put in place our packages of support for workers when they do find themselves in these difficult situations. But, as I say, I'll make sure that the Minister responds very quickly to your correspondence. 

Darren Millar. I can't hear you, Darren Millar. You look as if—

Is that better?

Yes, it is. Yes. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Trefnydd, can I call for a statement on the reopening of garden centres in Wales? You'll be aware that in both England and Scotland garden centres have been considered to be essential services, because of the impact of gardening on both physical and mental health and well-being. And I think it's a great shame that here in Wales our garden centres are still closed, especially given that many supermarkets and DIY stores are selling many of the products that would be available in our garden centres across the country. Can you tell us what consideration the Welsh Government is giving to this at the moment? I do think it would be prudent now to have a statement on their future, given that so many are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy as well, because of the fact that many of them can have significant staff and other running costs, which have not been completely met by the Government support programmes to date. 

Thank you for raising the specific issue of garden centres. I know my colleague, the Minister for economy and transport has an OAQ session tomorrow, so there might be an opportunity there to raise this. But I know that this, alongside all of the other concerns that have been raised this afternoon about children returning to school, baby classes and so forth, are all things that we consider as we move through our next three-weekly review period. So, as soon as we're able to say anything further on the reopening of garden centres, I know we'd be keen to do so. But, in the meantime, I would encourage you to advise your garden centres in your constituency of the support that's available from the Welsh Government. I appreciate that they would prefer to be opening than being in receipt of support, as is the case for all businesses, but the support should be there to help them for now. But, as I say, all of this is captured within the three-weekly review period. 

I'm sure the whole Senedd will join me in congratulating the Welsh rugby team for their phenomenal victory against England on Saturday, in a scintillating game in Cardiff, and winning the Triple Crown. They, once again, embodied the spirit of the nation in showing character, determination and winning against the odds, and they showed that, when you're disciplined and when you can rely on some of our superstars for moments of inspiration, you can create the conditions for victory against world-class opposition.

Now, Trefnydd, I'm aware that the Welsh Government has offered support and a support package to Welsh rugby, which has obviously been very welcome, but could we, please, have a statement setting out how the Government will ensure that the game, at a grass-roots level, will be put on a sustainable footing in the future? I know many local clubs across Wales could do with assurance in the long term, especially when it comes to ground fees.

And finally, Llywydd, I wonder whether you as well would be inclined to agree that we should have a repeat of the 2019 celebration outside the Senedd after our team had won the Grand Slam—of course, when it's safe—whether or not they go on to repeat that accomplishment, because, surely, winning the Triple Crown under these circumstances is cause for celebration in itself, though of course we all hope they will go on to get the Grand Slam.

Thank you for raising this. It was nice to see lots of smiling faces and clapping colleagues on screen when you were making your contribution there. Of course, it was a very, very different match day for all of us, but I think that the team obviously knew we were all rooting from our sofas, so, excellent result and I absolutely share all of your enthusiasm for that. The Minister with responsibility for grass-roots sport will have been listening very carefully to your concern about the smaller local clubs and the support that we're able to offer the grass-roots game, and I know that, as we move towards the end of term now, we are looking to see what the best way is to provide updates to colleagues but also to use the time that we do have available to us in Plenary, and I do know that this will be something that the Minister will be anxiously considering, how he can best update colleagues.

Yes. Well done, Wales—you've cheered a nation, made us all happy.

Thank you very much. Well done, Wales.

We'll move on to a statement on COVID vaccination from that, and I'll call on the Minister to make the statement—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. Last week was a week of real progress and highlights for our successful vaccination programme here in Wales. Members will be aware from my written statement on Saturday that we have now reached the 1 million total doses delivered mark, and this is an incredible achievement. We've reached this milestone in just 12 weeks. I'm tremendously proud of the team who have delivered this landmark. Data published earlier this afternoon shows that at least 933,485 people have now been recorded as having had their first dose of the vaccine and 111,716 have completed their course by having their second dose. That's a total of 1,045,201 vaccines administered by our fantastic vaccination teams across the country. As you can see, we're closing in on having delivered 1 million first doses of the vaccine to people in Wales.

On Friday, we published an update to our national plan. While less than two months since we published the plan itself, a lot has happened with our programme. I want to reflect on progress and provide more information on our current and future priorities. In the updates, I confirmed that two key target dates have moved forward. The first is the target date for offering the vaccine to all those in the current priority groups—that's groups 5 to 9. I've said that our aim now is to do this by the middle of April. The bringing forward of some of our supply allocation now makes this possible. I've also confirmed that we plan to offer the vaccine to all eligible adults by the end of July instead of our original autumn deadline. As I've said all along, supply is the limiting factor. I have confidence in the pace and capacity of our delivery model and in the fantastic team of people who are doing the work. However, achieving these target dates remains subject to vaccine supply and the timeliness of that supply.

In the update, I've also confirmed our approach for phase 2 of our programme. As with the current phase, it will be on the basis of the advice of the independent, expert Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Our approach in Wales is similar to all other UK countries and has the endorsement of the four chief medical officers from each UK nation. The JCVI has recommended continuing the roll-out on the basis of age. That is because age remains the most significant risk factor and because a model based on age will enable the fastest pace for the remaining vaccinations. In recommending an age-based approach, the JCVI noted the importance of other factors, specifically gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. We will take account of the need for clear, trusted and targeted information on these factors within our communications and deployment arrangements for phase 2.

Members will of course be aware there has been a lot of interest in prioritisation on the basis of occupation. Again, the JCVI did consider this. However, the independent, expert committee did not have sufficient evidence to persuade it to advise the four Governments of the UK to set specific occupations apart from the general population. It also commented on the operational complexity of such an approach, which would inevitably slow the pace of the roll-out.

We know that over half of key workers are aged over 40. Over half of our key workers will therefore either be offered vaccination as part of the current phase of the programme, or will be called for vaccination as part of the first priority group recommended by the JCVI for phase 2—those people aged between 40 and 49. I recognise there'll be some disappointment around this—those working in education, childcare and the police service, and in the transport sector, for example. I've also heard the case made for retail workers and postal workers, all of whom have worked through the height of the pandemic. But, put simply, the JCVI advise us that an age-based approach is the simplest, the quickest to operationalise and deliver, and the fairest approach to the population as a whole.

The update to our strategy also explained some of the emerging evidence on the effectiveness of vaccines. The research is very encouraging and really does give us greater cause for hope and positivity. But there is still a long way to go with our programme yet, with many, many more first and second doses to be delivered. We're very much on the right track, but there is a lot of work left to do. However, I hope that Members from all sides will recognise the fantastic achievement of our vaccination programme here in Wales to date. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

[Inaudible.]

Sorry, I saw you talking, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I didn't hear who you'd called to ask questions first. Unless there are, of course, no questions. 

Sometimes it's difficult for me to unmute myself, even. I think there's a problem with Ann Jones's sound at this point. I haven't left the room, so I'm back chairing. Angela Burns. 

Thank you very much indeed, Llywydd. Thank you, Minister, for your update. It is incredibly cheerful news. I think a million doses is an enormous achievement and I give my heartfelt thanks and an absolute salute to you, to the health boards, to the volunteers, to everybody who's been involved in this programme. I also pay absolute credit to the UK Government for their vaccination procurement strategy. I think it was a master class getting Kate Bingham involved, and I think that we have been fleet of foot across all four nations, and the people of the UK are benefiting from it. I just want to say, absolutely, congratulations.

I agree with you that a successful vaccination strategy must be based on science and on simplicity. I think we have to be very careful about doing anything that will delay the roll-out. To be able to vaccinate every adult in Wales by the end of July would be an enormous achievement, and I would encourage you to hold fast to that ambition.

Having said that, I've got four questions. The positivity rate in Wales is now at 5.9 per cent, which is a key benchmark for level 3 restrictions. Additionally, case numbers per 100,000 sit at the benchmark of level 2 restrictions—excellent news, but do these figures now enable the Welsh Government to start lifting the blanket level 4 restrictions? Now, I'm not advocating you throw the baby out with the bath water and rush ahead gaily, but I do think we can start lifting some of these restrictions to help mitigate the incredible cost to individuals in terms of their mental and physical health, to businesses and to the people who own those businesses and run those businesses, which in Wales are very often smaller companies and private individuals who work incredibly hard to help support our economy. So, I'd be very interested to know if you feel that this success in the vaccine roll-out will enable you to lift these restrictions sooner rather than later to help mitigate these personal and financial costs.

My second question is: as the Welsh Government starts phase 2 of the vaccine programme, you obviously also need to ensure that dose 2 is implemented on time, so can you just update the Senedd, please, on the progress with developing partnerships with organisations such as Community Pharmacy Wales, because we're going to be relying on those organisations to help with this massive programme?

Thirdly, we know that uptake in some cohorts is very low. Can you just give us an update on how progress is coming on, how the communication strategy is developing? Are you getting positive feedback that it is working to persuade those who are reluctant to take the vaccine to do so?

And my fourth question is very, very small, but I have been approached by just a handful of people who are currently residing in Wales, almost all of them because they're either giving private care or they're giving individual but paid-for care to elderly people here and, in one instance, a disabled young person, but they're residents and their own personal GPs are in England. Are they still able to access the vaccine here, because it doesn't seem terribly suitable to send somebody who's looking after a vulnerable person, perhaps on the train, with multiple exposure to potential COVID, to get a vaccine and then come back and maybe bring that back?

So, that was just a bit of housekeeping. But I think it's very good news. Thank you. 

Thank you, and thank you for your words of thanks and appreciation. I know that the team across Wales would appreciate support from all sides of party politics for the work that is being done in every part of Wales. And, actually, across all four countries, the vaccination programmes are moving pretty quickly. Certainly, against other international comparators, we're doing very well in every nation of the UK, and in Wales in particular we are making sure that we're delivering the second doses. You'll recall some stakeholders were concerned that we wouldn't be able to deliver second doses in time. We're managing our stocks, in particular the Pfizer vaccine, to make sure we are delivering second doses. So, that's a key feature in our response. 

And you talked about partnerships with community pharmacy in particular and about the challenge of delivering second doses. Actually, we'll need community pharmacy to come on board not so much to deal with second doses but, actually, because we expect to see more supply come in, and that means that our current model of being general practice-led, together with mass vaccination centres, will need to have pharmacists and other injectors not just attending at mass vaccination centres, but we're likely to need more pharmacy on board. So, every health board over the next month will be bringing more community pharmacies on board to help deliver the programme as the scale expands outwards again to deliver the pace that we all want to see. 

Now, on your question about people living in Wales who aren't ordinarily registered here or aren't registered with a GP, we've been very clear that we'll vaccinate anyone who is in Wales, so students and others can be vaccinated. On your example of people delivering care, I've had this instance brought to me before, and the starting point should be that people should try to get themselves registered as a temporary resident with a local general practitioner, because part of the challenge to the health service is that if we don't know that someone is here, then we can't vaccinate them. Once we do know that they're here, then we'll provide a vaccine. There won't be any attempt to try to screen people out, and I've had the individual example you were giving raised with me. It's a relatively small number of people, but it's important that they're protected, and that would make a difference to the people that they're caring for as well.

In terms of comms for lower uptake groups, we can't really judge the success of that yet. I attended a meeting hosted by the constituency Members for Newport, Jayne Bryant and John Griffiths, with the health board and others last week. That had a good attendance from local faith leaders and members from local communities, and our challenge is that each step outwards that we make gets more people engaged and, actually, the feedback from people delivering the programme is that every time they engage with people who are reluctant, they have a very high success rate of people who are then prepared to take up the vaccine. And I really do think the work that lots of our doctors and other healthcare workers are doing, in going back to the communities that they come from so that there is that trusted professional face, is actually really helping to make a difference—Muslim Doctors Cymru being a very good example. There are others too. And that work is making a difference. It's also important to recognise that the role of faith in some of our communities is stronger than in others. So, having local imams and lots of church pastors, where lots of African and Afro-Caribbean communities attend to, having them being positive and on board makes a real difference in terms of people coming forward, just as, if those figures are expressing hesitancy or concern, it helps to move things in the other direction. So, I don't think just yet we can really judge the success or otherwise, but it is something that I am very keen to keep a watching eye over, because we're largely talking about groups who have a higher rate of mortality and harm from COVID as well.

On your broader questions about, really, the COVID control plan and where we're going to be able to go with our three-week reviews, it's always a balance, and, when we originally set out the COVID control plan, we were dealing with a situation pre the Kent variant. So, we now know that we have a variant that is dominant across Wales that is much more contagious, and that has an impact on the R figure of between 10 per cent and 50 or 60 per cent. So, we have to think of the current levels that we've got and the ability for that to increase further. That's why we've had this scientific evidence and public health advice that we have about schools opening on a phased basis. They continue to be our priority. But we also have some advice that says we have an extra element of headroom available, and we'll need to consider how to use that in a cautious manner to allow other areas of activity, whilst we are committed to phasing the re-opening of face-to-face learning in schools and colleges, but to do so in a way that doesn't compromise our ability for all learners to return to face-to-face school and college immediately after the Easter break, as you've heard the education Minister indicate is her preference, and indeed the preference of the Government. So, we're going to continue to set that information out in a way that makes sense, from myself, the First Minister and other Ministers, and you can expect a proper update at the end of the next three-week review, to give you and the rest of the country more certainty on the next steps out of lockdown.

Thank you. We'll try again now, then. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much and welcome back, Deputy Llywydd. If I may ask for some clarity on two particular areas, the first is vaccination for unpaid carers. We got some clarity from the First Minister a little earlier—I was pleased to hear that—in terms of the process of deciding which carers will qualify for a vaccination in priority group 6. It's clear that those carers will have to make an application themselves through an online form to be considered for that. I note that the onus here is on the carers themselves to make that application, where other priority groups receive the vaccination automatically, and that's unfortunate, I think. I think that international experience suggests that the more people have to opt in then the lower the percentage that actually access the vaccination. So, could we have some more detail as to how that process is to work, and how swiftly do you think you can deal with appeals when people are rejected to be on that priority list?

The second issue—. I've lost this argument, it would appear. My argument is that people in public-facing roles should be prioritised along with others as the vaccination process deals with people on an age-based basis. I know that the older you are, the more likely you are to become very ill, but there is clarification here that the JCVI has considered a number of factors. Age is the most important, according to them. They've looked at gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, according to the statement. But there's another question here: where is the coverage for exposure, the likelihood of one actually catching COVID? I know that most people who are likely to become very ill or worse have already been vaccinated, but are you saying, therefore, that it doesn't matter if young people get COVID? I think it does matter, and that we should try and prevent young people in public-facing roles from catching COVID. Can you explain whether long COVID and the impact of that has been taken into account as part of the equation here? Also, of course, there is very encouraging research that suggests that the vaccination makes it less likely that you pass the virus on to others. Well, if so, then it makes sense, once again, for those people who are in public-facing roles to have received the vaccination earlier, even if they are a little younger. Thank you.

Yes, thank you for those questions. I'll deal with unpaid carers first. We published guidance last week on unpaid carers and I think that's brought a large amount of clarity, and the online form, which we have worked with national carers groups to agree, that should provide a more generous understanding of who an unpaid carer is than some of the initial guidance from the JCVI, which has subsequently been clarified, of course. We're not just dealing with people who have carer-related benefits, because, of course, unpaid carers aren't necessarily going to be in receipt of those benefits. We know that lots of unpaid carers don't want to make themselves known, despite the fact that, in the legislation we've passed, we've had a specific recommendation on carers' rights and their own right to an assessment. So, the information that local government will hold on who they've undertaken those carer assessments of gives us a good starting point, but, actually, in itself, wouldn't have been complete. We could have faced ourselves with the situation of having people already on a list and then excluding everyone else, and we know that that would have provided a significant injustice to a wide range of people. So, we've developed a process where people can go through that to then be placed on the list. Once they complete the online form, which will be available across Wales by Monday at the latest, that will then mean that their names will then go forward into the Welsh immunisation system and that will then generate appointments for them.

We have this challenge—. I understand the suggested point that asking people to opt in isn't the same as taking information from a list. Well, actually, part of our challenge is that the NHS doesn't know who every unpaid carer is. The NHS knows how old you are, but it tends not to know exactly what you do, whether for your paid employment or, indeed, for an unpaid caring activity. That's why we do need an opt-in process. And we are, of course, relying on people treating the process as they should do, with integrity. The form asks you to go through a series of questions about your caring role and responsibilities. It's possible that some people could try to navigate their way through that to push into priority. It would mean that they would have to be persistently dishonest in doing so. I think that the reality that some people may choose to do that should not mean that we take a more exclusionary approach that would otherwise exclude lots of unpaid carers from going into priority 6 to get their vaccines, and, as I say, we've worked through this with carers organisations.

On your point about the JCVI and the advice, we're doing what I think the public expects us to do, broadly, which is to follow the science and the evidence. And we've had this independent expert advice; we've followed it previously on all of our other immunisation and vaccination programmes, and it would be an odd thing to say that we've heard the science and the evidence, we've had the clear public health advice, but we decided not to follow it. Because the reality is that if we choose to prioritise different groups of workers, we have to deprioritise other people. So, it doesn't matter which group of workers you put to the top of the list for the next phase, you have to say to other people, 'Your turn is going to come later.' And the advice we have is very clearly based on how do we have the maximum impact on preventing significant ill health and potential mortality from COVID.

This isn't about saying that young people don't count, but it is about recognising the scale of the risk factors, which are set out very clearly in the scientific evidence and advice that we've had from the JCVI. And I guess it depends on whether you want to follow that evidence and advice or if you want to take an alternative approach. I'm very much committed to following the evidence and advice, and it is the case, as I said in my statement, that the JCVI did consider occupational exposure. That was considered and they still came out with what I think is very clear advice that we should take an age-based approach to roll-out, with the quickest way to protect people to complete the adult population programme. The danger, I think, is that if we chose, despite that advice, individual groups, it wouldn't just be throwing the science aside, we'd be making value judgments on which groups of essential workers are more important than others. Should we say that postal officers, postal workers, are not as important, or that retail workers aren't as important, when, actually, there isn't the evidence to say that those people shouldn't be prioritised? Should we take other key workers in but not take public-facing transport workers, who've had high levels of mortality from COVID? So, it's not as simple an issue as some of the campaigning suggests.

I understand why people campaign for people like them to have priority in the vaccination programme, but think of it this way: if you're a teacher and you're 25, and you're not in one of the groups with an underlying health condition that would put you into groups 4 or 6, then your risks are significantly less than a teacher who is 45 or a teacher who is 55. A 55-year-old teacher, and there are many of them, is already covered in groups 5 to 9. A 45-year-old teacher will come first in the next cohort, once we've completed groups 5 to 9. That doesn't mean that a 25-year-old doesn't matter, but it does mean their risks are less, and that's the point. On a population programme like this, we need to act on a basis that accounts for those risks across the population to reduce the amount of harm, to maximise the positive impact the vaccines will provide. That's what JCVI advice gives us the evidence for and that's the decision that I've made to help keep Wales safe.

I think people across Blaenau Gwent and elsewhere join you in thanking the national health service and the work of Welsh Government in ensuring that the vaccine programme is progressing so quickly, so efficiently and so effectively, both in terms of first doses and second doses; that's certainly our experience here in Blaenau Gwent.

There were two questions I had for you, Minister, first of all on unpaid carers and, secondly, in terms of those people who are housebound. In many ways, you've already answered the first question, so let me address the issue of patients who are housebound. The impact of the vaccination programme is being felt in all of our communities, and I'm seeing and talking to people here in Blaenau Gwent who have had their first dose, who are waiting and will receive their second dose, and that's having a real impact. But there is a group of people who are housebound, who are unable to reach either the GP's surgery or the mass vaccination centres. I'm hearing increasing concerns from families, mainly, of people who are waiting, who are in some cases quite elderly and quite frail, who have not received opportunities to have a dose yet because they're unable to reach either a surgery or a vaccination centre. Can you ensure, Minister, in your discussions with leaders of the vaccination programme, that we're able to reach everybody equally, so that people who are housebound and by their very nature are some of the frailest people in our communities are not inadvertently left behind?

Yes, I'm happy to address the Member's question, not just today, but I'll also undertake that I'll specifically cover it in next week's vaccination update statement. Because, for example, I took my mother to have her vaccine on the weekend. She would not have got to the vaccination centre without me is the reality of it, so I was happy to do it; I'm her son and I think that's part of what many sons and daughters across the country are doing. As we were leaving the vaccination centre, I saw someone who I assume was a daughter of someone who was then walking in with a very impressive animal-print walking stick going in to have her vaccine as well. So, it's not unusual, and that's an entirely reasonable reason for people to travel and to be with people they otherwise wouldn't be.

I do, though, recognise that, in rearranging my mother's appointment, there was a time to get through and to rearrange, but anyone who is offered an appointment at their GP surgery, or in an alternative local or mass vaccination centre and who can't get there, there is the opportunity to rearrange, and I want to reinforce that. If people can't get there, they shouldn't worry or not attend and think their opportunity has passed them by. We're definitely taking a leave no-one behind approach. So, if that appointment has passed and people do want to call to rearrange—them or a family member—they can do that and we will arrange a different opportunity.

We have teams of people undertaking vaccinations for housebound people. Next week, I'll make sure that I do give an update on the progress of those teams doing so, but also to reiterate how people can go about doing that if they are concerned. I think it's a fair point, and I want to reassure people who find themselves in the position that the Member for Blaenau Gwent has highlighted.

Minister, one of the other big impacts of the vaccination programme, which has been so successful here in Wales and across the UK, has been the falling number of people with COVID in our hospitals. I've noticed, though, that, on the latest sets of data that are available, it would seem that the proportion of hospital beds that are taken up by COVID-positive patients in Wales is still much more significant than they are in other parts of the NHS in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This would imply, potentially, a number of things. It could be that we just have people staying in hospital longer because they are older and frailer, or could have some more complex needs than the patients elsewhere in the UK. It could mean, of course, also that we have a problem with hospital-acquired infections. I don't know. I just wonder whether this is something that the Welsh Government has considered, and if you don't know the answer, whether that's something that you could provide some information to Members on in the future, given the fact that it doesn't look as though the number of patients in our hospitals with COVID is coming down at quite the same rate as other parts of the United Kingdom.

It's hard to give a definitive response to the Member's question because I haven't reviewed the data for other parts of the UK. And indeed, you'll see variation, in particular in England, because England is a big country, and we know there's significant variation within English regions. The south-west of England has still had the lowest impact of COVID throughout the pandemic; other regions of England have been hit much harder as well. So, I think we need to look at not just national data, but, for England in particular, the regions of England to understand what a comparison would look like. It's probably best to do that by asking our Government statisticians in knowledge and analytical services to look at something, and I'm sure that in a future publication they can publish something that does compare the picture.

In Wales, it's broadly good news that we see a reduction in hospital admissions. The significant number are people who are recovering from COVID, but still need acute care, and we still see 110 per cent of our critical care capacity being used. The percentage of those who are being treated for COVID has been reducing, which is very good news, but it does still show that our NHS is under significant pressure. So, we're not at the point where we can open up a pathway for renormalising lots of treatment, because we don't have the capacity to care for all those people. It is a broadly improving picture, but still, nevertheless, being just below 1,500 people in our hospitals being treated for COVID does show something of the significance of the impact and the scale of the capacity that is still taken away from the way that our NHS would normally function, even if we then had to go on to consider the additional infection prevention and control methods. But I'll take on board the point the Member makes seriously, and I'll see how we can provide a properly comparative view on this.

And finally, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch. With several constituents in places like Llangollen asking me, 'If the fall in vaccine supply the Minister referred to last week has been felt by all health boards, why is it that England and south Wales are seeing consistent and indeed increasing vaccination numbers as ours locally fall?', how do you respond to the constituent who stated, 'My wife falls within target group 6 and I fall within target group 7 for vaccination against COVID. Would you please ask the Welsh Government why, to date, 49,994 people within group 8 and 43,648 within group 9 have been vaccinated ahead of us?'

And now that unpaid carers who are eligible for a carers allowance, or those who are the sole or primary carer of an elderly or disabled person who is at an increased risk of COVID-19 mortality, and therefore clinically vulnerable, have been added to vaccination priority group 6, how do you respond to the constituent who asks, 'Can you get a register discussed from a medical perspective for the unpaid carers added to group 6, because given not all carers claim the allowance, either due to working, studying or they're unaware, there are a lot of people who will fall through the cracks?'

Okay. So, I just want to be absolutely clear that the fall in supply that we've transparently highlighted, that we're expecting to see resolved from the middle of this week onwards with increased supplies, has meant that we have allocated the vaccine supply available to us on a properly proportionate basis to every part of Wales. It is absolutely not the case that any one region of Wales has been preferred over another, it's absolutely not the case that any one region of Wales has somehow been treated less favourably. I do find it rather depressing that even at this stage in the pandemic there's still an appeal to a special treatment being provided to other areas of the country. It just simply isn't how we've approached all of the really difficult choices and challenges we've had through the pandemic. And I think that appeal to blaming bad people in different parts of the country and preferring their own as opposed to taking a national approach doesn't help any of us.

On the challenge of carers allowance and unpaid carers, I think I've dealt with how we're dealing with unpaid carers at some length today, with the guidance we've issued last week, with the online form that will be available across the country by Monday at the latest, and the fact that that is a generous approach, to understand who unpaid carers are. And once they're entered into the Welsh immunisation system, they will then have an appointment generated for them, including their second appointment.

We are in a different position on carers allowance recipients in this regard, and that is that, if you receive carers allowance, then that entitles you to receive the vaccine. The challenge we have, though—and this is a point of some irritation and frustration to me; I don't think it's an acceptable position—the challenge we have is that the Department for Work and Pensions are delivering, to colleagues in NHS England, their list of recipients of carers allowance first before providing the same information for Wales. I've made it clear that I don't think that's acceptable. The Department for Work and Pensions, in this instance, are not an English Government department; they're a UK Government department with similar responsibilities for every part of the union they administer for, and I don't think it's acceptable that people in Wales who receive carers allowance won't have their appointments generated because the Department for Work and Pensions have chosen not to deliver that information to Wales on the same timescale as England. The positive, though, is that I do think that, as soon as that information is available to us, we'll be able to generate those appointments very quickly. I understand that people who are in receipt of carers allowance may be frustrated at even a marginal delay of another few days more, but once that information is available from the Department for Work and Pensions, we will then generate those appointments for those people to make sure people get their vaccines swiftly and on time. And I think we're in good shape to complete priority groups 1 to 9, including all of the carers we've discussed today, by the middle of April. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Minister for Health and Social Services.

We now move on to a statement by the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs on the fuel poverty plan, and I call on the Minister, Lesley Griffiths, to move the statement.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Our plan to tackle fuel poverty, published today, reaffirms our commitment to deliver social justice in the transition to a net-zero economy in Wales.

Our commitment to tackling fuel poverty has been consistent over the long term, with our Warm Homes programme investing more than £350 million over 10 years, benefiting more than 60,000 households. This long-term commitment has been vital during the longest period of austerity in our history, imposed by the decisions of the UK Government.

During this Senedd term, we have continued to raise housing standards. Through the innovative housing programme, we have invested more than £145 million to shape the market by creating exemplary new housing developments, liveable, low carbon and supporting local supply chains. In contrast to typical energy costs of £1,300 a year, the annual energy bills of these homes have been reduced to as low as £200. The learning from this scheme, alongside our optimised retrofit programme, is being integrated into our core housing programmes to ensure that this becomes the way all homes are built and retrofit in the future.

Our Welsh Government energy service, created in 2018, has supported the expansion of community energy projects that can give citizens a stake in their own energy supply, as well as delivering affordable, low-carbon electricity and heat. Next year, we will update the Welsh housing quality standard to require energy performance in social homes to achieve the highest A rating, working with businesses, the education sector and trade unions to establish centres of excellence for housing retrofit, to support the necessary creation of a highly skilled workforce to install properly accredited, whole-house energy systems.

Last October, I announced our domestic energy advice and support pilot, which is now well under way. This builds upon our experience of delivering energy efficiency improvements to enhance the support we can offer, ensuring people gain the maximum possible benefit by addressing barriers beyond the thermal performance of their home itself. These pilots are trialling approaches to support vulnerable households to get the best energy deals available, helping people to move off pre-payment meters and onto smart meters, and to secure all entitlements available to them from UK Government and energy companies, in addition to the support from Welsh Government. All of these measures are upholding social justice in the transition to net zero. They are directly benefiting those households in the greatest need, and delivering practical measures on behalf of everyone in Wales, which otherwise would have to be paid for from the household budgets of those who can least afford it.

The experience we have drawn from the actions we have taken over the long term, and the innovative approaches we've developed in recent years, have all informed the new plan we have now published to continue to reduce levels of fuel poverty over the next 15 years. The plan continues to target the support we make available for home energy efficiency for the benefit of lower income households who are living in, or are at risk of, fuel poverty. Within this, a particular focus is given to the most thermally inefficient homes, and consistent with our commitment to clean air and climate justice, working towards ending our reliance on the burning of coal and heating oil in a way that provides a fair transition for those who currently have little or no other choice.

The plan has benefited from extensive public consultation, as well as engagement with Welsh third sector organisations who share our deep commitment to this issue. The plan has been informed by the landscape report into fuel poverty in Wales, published by Audit Wales, and by the work undertaken by the Senedd's Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee inquiry into fuel poverty. The engagement that has guided the development of this plan will continue as we develop a new advisory panel, and interim targets that will strengthen and focus our efforts to deliver the obligations enshrined in law in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. Further formal consultation is scheduled for summer this year to inform the creation of the next iteration of the Warm Homes programme by a new Government in the next Senedd.

Energy costs have impacted households even more heavily in recent months, as a result of the coldest winter season for 10 years, combined with the need to stay at home to keep Wales safe from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, I was deeply disappointed to learn the energy regulator has announced an increase of 9 per cent in the domestic tariff cap from April. Whilst some of the increase is attributed to increased wholesale energy prices, a significant proportion is to alleviate the bad debt provision energy suppliers are having to make to support vulnerable bill payers through the pandemic.

The increase in energy arrears is surely a signal of the pressure households in Wales and other parts of the UK are under. Adding further costs onto lower income bill payers will simply add to the suffering of thousands of families, who cannot change suppliers to get a better deal whilst they remain in debt. I have called on the regulator and the UK Government to act to reverse this decision, so as not to undermine our society's recovery from the impact of the pandemic. The cost of delivering an energy system fit for the twenty-first century should not be disproportionately shouldered by those hard-pressed families who are least able to pay.

This issue serves to illustrate that the climate emergency is a matter of social justice. The advice we received last December from our independent statutory advisers, the Climate Change Committee, highlights the scale of investment required to deliver zero-carbon buildings whilst meeting our obligations to tackle fuel poverty. Their advice also recognises that effective emissions reduction in Wales requires the UK Government to play its part where they hold the levers and the ability to make investment at such scale.

The plan of action I am publishing today sets out the way in which the Welsh Government will use all levers available to us, pushing the limits of our devolved powers to take a proactive role in securing social justice in the transition to net zero through our action to tackle fuel poverty in Wales. Thank you.

Well, following publication of your fuel poverty plan today, 'Tacking fuel poverty 2021-2035', it seems the plan is largely the same as the draft proposals, and while we certainly welcome the short-term actions, we're very disappointed in particular that there are still no interim milestones between now and 2035. How do you respond to the subsequent statement by National Energy Action, NEA Cymru, that the Welsh Government has fallen short of its statutory duties, and that unless urgently addressed, thousands of people living in the coldest and most expensive to heat homes may not be helped for years to come? As they say, several years after the previous targets to eradicate the scourge of cold homes in Wales were missed, fuel poverty continues to be a devastating problem. Over 150,000 households can't afford to heat and power their homes and COVID-19 has made this challenge starker, with many people at home using more energy, owing more and earning less.

As well as setting a final target for action to end fuel poverty in Wales, the Welsh Government has a legal duty to introduce supporting milestones to set a path to the final target. How do you therefore respond to their statement that although the Welsh Government says that it will consider these interim targets in 2023, today's plan does not include this legal requirement, and that there needs to be a clear commitment to eliminating the most severe fuel poverty by the end of this decade at the very latest, with this milestone and the final target put on a statutory basis to ensure they have legal standing and cannot be dismissed by future administrations? 

Are you aware that there was also near universal support during the consultation for the Welsh Government to meet its legal duty to specify interim targets, and that both the Fuel Poverty Coalition Cymru and the cross-party group on fuel poverty and energy efficiency also wrote to you on this issue, stressing the importance of this being addressed in the final plan? Do you understand that failure to introduce any interim targets would result in there being no effective way of ensuring the worst affected households, those in most severe fuel poverty, are assisted as a priority before the final target date, and will you therefore address this key omission in the plan as soon as possible?

Although the plan makes two brief references to health in the context of winter resilience and consulting on eligibility for support beyond March 2023, a further two years down the road, why has the Welsh Government not committed within the plan to longer term measures to joined-up action on fuel poverty within the health sector, alongside the commitment to reach net zero? Although your plan states that it will ensure that people in most need receive the most appropriate package of support, so that they can always continue to heat their homes, how does it address Fuel Poverty Coalition Cymru's call, in its submission to you, for the worst first to be prioritised, accelerating action for those most in need in accordance with the clear principle embedded in the 2010 strategy? Where is the detail? Where are the actions?

How do you respond to the reality that although fixing Wales's cold, leaky housing, and reducing needless energy costs, is fundamental, the Welsh Government has also missed the opportunity to introduce fuel poverty targets related to upgrading the energy efficiency of homes, where helping improve homes, especially for those living on the lowest incomes, is directly in the control of the Welsh Government, and should have been a clear priority? Your plan states that the standard assessment procedure methodology under which homes are given an energy performance certificate, or EPC, will continue to provide the basis of the Welsh housing conditions survey and the setting of domestic energy efficiency targets. However, how do you respond to the statement by the Fuel Poverty Coalition Cymru to you that at least one additional EPC target should be included, at minimum, to match the statutory target in England for all fuel-poor households to reach EPC band C by 2030?

Finally, how do you respond to calls by the National Residential Landlords Association for the Welsh Government to ring-fence grant funding to tackle fuel poverty in the private rented sector because that is at the heart of the problem due to the age of the stock; to support local authorities by funding personnel to conduct monitoring and administration of ECO, or energy company obligation funding, to end the postcode lottery in Wales where some councils don't have the resources; and, finally, to replicate the UK Government's green homes grant to upgrade homes including the private rented sector in England—the homes not reached by the Welsh Government's current Warm Homes scheme? Diolch. 

Thank you, Mark Isherwood, for that list of questions. In relation to the interim targets, I am of course aware of the call for interim targets, but I have to say, most proposals within today's plan were welcomed by our stakeholders. I think to set interim targets now, over a shorter time frame, would prove to be a really futile exercise, until we can better understand the impact of the pandemic. You referred to the impact that the pandemic has had on people living in fuel poverty; it has obviously increased, unfortunately, the number of people living in fuel poverty. I absolutely recognise that a number of stakeholders have said that the plan should include those interim targets in order to meet our statutory obligation.

A number of suggested interim targets were put forward during the consultation, such as eradicating severe fuel poverty by 2028, for instance. There was another one that suggested by 2030. We've considered all of these interim targets. Without revised fuel poverty estimates and updated projections to determine what can be achieved by 2035, interim targets set in the current climate that we are in, I think, would be speculative and potentially unrealistic, whereas the targets that we have set, I think, are absolutely realistic. So, what I've asked my officials to do is to work with the stakeholders—you'll be aware of our new fuel poverty advisory group—to develop those interim targets. They can then be considered in the light of the new fuel poverty estimates that we're preparing. The interim targets when they are developed will then be added to the plan.

You referred to health issues, and obviously we've had our health conditions pilot, which you'll be aware of, and that was expanded in July 2019. We've had over 8,600 referrals received by Nest, and more than 1,000 homes have benefited from the scheme. As part of the extended pilot, the eligibility criteria for support was also expanded to include people living on a lower income not in receipt of a means-tested benefit, at risk of avoidable ill health caused or exacerbated by living in a cold home, or living in a home with an EPC rating of D or worse.

You referred to the UK Government's green homes voucher scheme, and we absolutely agree that investment in home energy efficiency is important—the key to support the economic recovery as we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, along with all the other reasons for it. What we don't agree with the UK Government on is that the best way to do it is by way of a voucher scheme similar to the one that they've brought forward. There are issues regarding the quality of workmanship that can be attained within a very tight delivery timescale. That could potentially store up trouble for householders in the future. You'll be aware that the green homes voucher scheme was launched last summer, by the Chancellor, as part of measures he introduced. But because of delays in processing applications and the capacity of the supply chain to deliver, the scheme has now been extended to March 2022.

If you look at it very carefully, the scheme is not as generous as first reported. Householders, unless they're on means-tested benefits, are required to pay a third of the cost of any home energy efficiency measure installed under the scheme. Windows and doors, which have attracted so much media attention, are secondary measures only, and the value of the contribution is limited to the value invested in primary measures such as insulation, for instance, or low-carbon heating systems. So, again, a householder receiving a £1,000 two-thirds contribution towards an air source heat pump, for instance, would receive a maximum of £1,000 towards new windows. So, it is a scheme that applies to England only, but I would urge you to look closer at it, because, as I say, it's not as generous as it was first reported.

In relation to the private rented sector, I heard your and others' calls for ring fencing of funding. You are quite right when you say that a lot—I think it's about 40 per cent—of private rented stock in Wales is over 100 years old. So, we know that households in the private rented sector are more likely to be fuel poor. Obviously, tenants are eligible to apply for energy efficiency advice through the Nest scheme, and approximately a quarter of the households currently are benefiting from the Nest scheme.

I'd like to thank the Minister for her statement and for the plan that was shared with us earlier today. I would like to begin with where I do agree with the Minister. She is absolutely right to make that commitment to deliver social justice, as we transition to a net-zero economy in Wales. She has my full support on that. And I would want to associate myself with her comments in her statement about the energy regulator's 9 per cent domestic tariff cap. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that families in poor communities like Llanelli, where people are just about struggling to make their bills, should be penalised with that kind of possible raise, and I'm very glad to hear that the Minister is continuing to make representations to attempt to get this punitive potential decision reversed. 

What I would say, though, is that we're disappointed in the plan. It's not as ambitious as we would have liked it to be, and clearly the next Welsh Government will have to do better and go further. One of the things that we would want to consider is the possibility of developing a national energy company, similar to Dŵr Cymru, our national water company, to provide people purchasing energy in Wales with an option where we would have indirect control over the kinds of tariffs that were being charged. I wonder if that's something that, if the Minister is part of the next Government, she would consider.

In response to Mark Isherwood, the Minister didn't quite set out for me, or perhaps I missed it, where the differences are in the final plan from the original draft. The Minister has referred to the considerable efforts that were made, for example, by third sector organisations, by partners, to make representations, and yet—I must admit that this is our first reading, Deputy Presiding Officer—it doesn't seem to have had, the consultation, a very big impact on what the Minister has finally decided. So, I wonder if the Minister can tell us today, and perhaps give us one or two examples, where she has taken on board those ideas from the consultation. 

The Minister, of course, will be aware of the Welsh Government's target for 30 per cent of people to continue working from or close to home. Those who are working from home may see an increase, of course, in their fuel bills, and I have a concern that that may tip some families on just above poverty wages into fuel poverty. I wonder if the Minister has given that any consideration as she develops her plan.

I wonder if the Minister can explain to us why she's decided to set less ambitious targets than the 2018 plan. There may be good reasons for that, but I think it would be helpful for us to understand it. And can she tell us how she will ensure that this plan doesn't operate in a silo and that it does speak effectively to other Welsh Government departments—to the department for the economy, skills, where we will need to be upskilling people to do this work on homes, and, of course, the housing department, which is actually essential? 

The Minister says she doesn't think it would have been feasible or appropriate to set those staging post interim targets, but I'm sure she will acknowledge that that is a statutory obligation. This is not something that's just been expressed as an opinion by people in the third sector, that that ought to be done. I do understand the point that she makes that it's difficult to set those interim targets while we don't know the full impact of the pandemic, but can she say a bit more about what the process will be for ensuring that those targets are set, and when she expects to be able to set them? There may be some difficulties there, I appreciate, because we don't yet know where we're going with the pandemic, but I think it would be helpful for people to understand that. 

Two more points very briefly, if I may. Can she set out how the well-being goals in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 were used to generate this plan, and how they've informed the Government's work in this very important area? And finally, on the three long-term objectives, there should be no households estimated to be living in severe or persistent fuel poverty by 2035 'as far as reasonably practicable'. Now, I believe, and the Minister will correct me if I'm wrong, that that's a term that has a legal meaning. But it has been received by some in the sector as a qualifying target and saying 'Well, we'll decide whether we can do this or not'. Now, I don't think that is the Minister's intention, but I wonder if she can explain to us why she has decided to use that phrase 'as far as reasonably practicable' in two of the three long-term objectives. I'm sure that there is a good reason for that. I'm sure it is not her intention to water down the commitment, but I hope that she can give—not me, because that doesn't matter—those interested in the sector some clarity in this regard.   

Thank you, Helen Mary Jones, for those comments and questions. I think you make a really important point around skills, and certainly, as we come out of the pandemic and we have that green recovery and that reconstruction, it's really important that in our efforts to tackle fuel poverty, which have been hampered over the past year particularly, we ensure that skills and jobs are an important part of that recovery. If you look at the number of jobs that Nest and Arbed, our Warm Homes programme, have brought forward, you'll see that's clearly an area where we have, I think, brought added value on top of our Warm Homes programme.

You are right about people working from home, and it's clearly depressed household incomes further, and clearly we know it is reasonable to conclude that the increased cost of domestic energy, reduced household incomes, people working from home, et cetera, will have pushed many households into fuel poverty. That was one of the reasons, as I stressed to Mark Isherwood, around the interim targets, but once they are developed—and I mentioned that we will continue to work with stakeholders and with the new fuel poverty advisory group—those interim targets will be used as part of the plan.

You asked about cross-Government, and I think probably this is absolutely cross-Government, it sits in so many portfolios, alongside my own. I've just referred to skills, but I suppose housing is where we've had the biggest impact, and we know in relation to decarbonisation, for instance, it's going to be critical to meeting the net-zero target by 2050 that we've just—. I've received and accepted the advice from the UK CCC, so the committee gave us advice on boilers, for instance, about the lifetime of 15 years and advised a phase-out for the installation of fossil fuel boilers in advance of 2035. So, I'm working very closely with my colleague Julie James around that. She and I have also accepted the decarbonisation of houses report that Chris Joffe did for the Welsh Government, so that will also have an impact too.

You asked me about—I've made notes—the targets, and I think we've been ambitious, but you've got to be realistic and pragmatic as well, and I think the ambitions in the fuel poverty action plan that we have set out are realistic, and for me, that's important going forward and a part of the—. You asked me about what had changed, and there are several things that stakeholders and the members of the group brought forward. So, I'm trying to think of some examples to give you, but certainly one of the things that they think we should really have a focus on is smart meters, for instance. Now, I think, unfortunately, the UK Government don't keep the number of houses in Wales that have smart meters. I can't tell you what the specific number is, but, certainly, looking at the percentage across the UK, we do think we are on a par with other countries in Great Britain. But I think it is something that we could make people more aware of. I don't think people are aware of smart meters in the way that they could be, so that was one area that we certainly looked at, and obviously, the thermal efficiency of Welsh homes and maintaining that fabric first approach was something that came over very strongly in the consultation and the discussions.

We are looking at the estimates of fuel poverty, so I've asked for those to be revised, because I think that is really important, taking this forward, and that will be reported in the summer to the new Government, and, again, we will work with stakeholders to make recommendations that then can be adopted in the next 12 months. So, this isn't the end of this, this is the beginning, there's still further work to do in relation to it. 

I very much welcome the statement by the Minister, but fuel poverty can't be dealt with in isolation to poverty, it's part of poverty, and food poverty and fuel poverty are just different sides of the same coin. The definition of spending 10 per cent of your available income on fuel means that those who control their fuel costs cannot be caught in fuel poverty by definition, but are incredibly fuel poor. I know people who go to bed at 6.30 or 7 at night in order to cut their fuel costs. They are fuel poor. Also, improved fuel efficiency may not decrease how much you spend, but people will be warmer, less ill, and I would argue that would be a success.

I welcome the Welsh Government's commitment to tackling fuel poverty with the Warm Homes programme, investing more than £350 million over 10 years, benefiting more than 60,000 households. But I, like the Minister, was deeply disappointed to learn the energy regulator has announced an increase of 9 per cent in domestic tariff caps from April. I understand some of the increase is attributed to increased wholesale prices, but a significant proportion is to alleviate the bad debt provision energy suppliers are having to make to support vulnerable bill payers through the pandemic, and this is only likely to get worse after the pandemic. Is there anything that we as Members can do to highlight the increase and pressurise the Tory Westminster Government to reverse this decision? Because we talk about being in fuel poverty, and the more you have to pay for your fuel, the more likely you are to be in fuel poverty.

I don't disagree with Mike Hedges at all. Of course, if you are living in fuel poverty, you will probably be in food poverty and other types of poverty. And, having been the Minister for tackling poverty a few years ago, again, it needs that cross-Government approach that Helen Mary Jones referred to to ensure that all Ministers are looking at their own policies and protocols and portfolios to ensure we are doing absolutely everything we can. But, as I said, we're on the back of a decade of austerity and, unfortunately, too many people are still living in fuel poverty and other forms of poverty here in Wales. 

I was incredibly disappointed to see that 9 per cent tariff cap announced by Ofgem, and the First Minister and I met with Ofgem last week, where we raised our concerns face to face, and I've also written to Ofgem and to the UK Government asking them to reconsider that decision. But, you asked what Members can do, well you, too, can certainly ensure that the UK Government are in no doubt about our concern. We will continue to do all we can. As you said, the Warm Homes programme has been very successful since we launched it back in 2011. We've put in significant investment, probably around £366 million, which has delivered improved energy and thermal efficiency of more than 61,400 homes, and more than 144,000 people have received home energy efficiency advice through the Nest helpline. That's something I've been really keen to ensure, that people are aware of the Nest helpline. And, again, perhaps Members, within their own constituencies and regions, could promote that helpline. 

Thank you, Minister, for your statement giving us this update this afternoon. Now, you'll be aware of the fuel poverty report published by the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee in April last year, and one of the recommendations of that report is that the new fuel poverty strategy should include provisions aimed at addressing the distinct challenges faced in rural areas. And it goes on to say that this should include a bespoke programme with appropriate levels of funding that take account of the more complex and costly measures required to address rural fuel poverty. You did, of course, accept that recommendation and went on to say that energy inefficient homes are disproportionately found in rural areas and so people living in these areas have an increased likelihood of living in a cold home. Therefore, given your recognition of the issue in rural areas, in response to that specific recommendation, can you tell us what action the Welsh Government has been taking to address the issue of fuel poverty in rural areas like the ones that I represent? And can you also tell us what targeted support is being provided or will now be provided to address this challenge, and what bespoke programme are you now developing as a Government, as recommended by the committee? 

Thank you, Paul. I certainly welcomed the report that was published by the committee in April, and I've accepted all 21 of their recommendations. And I think the evidence that the committee took really chimed with the evidence that was taken as we developed the draft plan. And I think the plan that I published today illustrates where we've amended our actions so that we can take into account the recommendations from the committee. 

You're quite right about rural areas. Obviously, many homes are off the grid, and they obviously rely on different forms of heating. So, the provision to provide additional financial support for households who are off grid and in rural areas is made within the existing Warm Homes programme. Households with a lower EPC rating who are situated in off-grid areas can be granted funding of up to £12,000 to help improve their home energy efficiency, and we know that communities who live in rural areas experience different challenges to those who live in more urbanised areas in Wales, so on that basis, the rationale for the different approach for rural areas will be set out in the consultation that I referred to, which is planned on the next iteration for the Warm Homes programme. We've also got emergency payments, I should stress, also, through our discretionary assistance fund and they've been made available for people to people to buy liquid gas and oil during this winter, and this pilot's supported more than 43 households who've received payments for more than £6,400 this winter.

And finally, Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you very much indeed for announcing that the WHQS is going to be raised to the highest A rating standard, which I know will be really, really good news to the tenant I was speaking to last week who lives in a no-fines home—you'll recall that this is one without a cavity—and in addition, he lives on the end of a terrace, so the heating simply doesn't cope with warming the home. They are permanently living in a cold home, so I hope that this is going to be just the first of many initiatives to build back fairer and also drive down our carbon emissions.

Specifically, in the climate change report that you referred to, I noticed that there were only 8,000 air- and ground-source heat pumps being used in Wales, which seems incredibly low for all those who are not able to access gas, and obviously, as a result, are having much more expensive heating than they need to, and because they're in rural areas mainly, why are we not using more of that technology, which after the insulation produces much cheaper electricity?

My other question is around what we're going to do about the appalling heating arrangements in many, many of our private rented homes, and the National Residential Landlords Association wants somebody else to do something about this, when I feel that there is a duty on private landlords to ensure that their homes are fit for renting. So, whilst we're raising the A rating to social housing, what proposals do you have to raise the minimum standards of fuel efficiency for private rented homes as well, as part of their licensing arrangements and also to increase the reach of Arbed, not just to the lowest super-output areas that have very, very poor ratings at the moment, but to all homes that have very, very poor ratings, because people are suffering wherever they're living?

Thank you. In relation to heat pumps, one of the issues we have had—and as you say, why we're not using that technology more—is around supply, and I think as we see more supply come to the fore, we will be able to do that, and certainly I mentioned in an earlier answer around different boilers being phased out, that is something that we will have to seek to improve on.

In relation to the private rented sector, again—and I referred to this in an earlier answer—more than 40 per cent of our private rented sector housing in Wales is over 100 years old and that obviously shows that about 20 per cent of those households are living in fuel poverty, so clearly we need to look at that very carefully. We do have regulations; we have the minimum energy efficiency standards; they were imposed on the private rented sector; the regulations are obviously enforced by local authorities; they've got powers from Rent Smart Wales that carry that out. And it does mean that since 2018, so three years ago, private landlords may not let domestic properties on new tenancies to new or existing tenants if the EPC rating is F or G, unless an exemption applies. And then from last year, from I think it was April last year, the prohibition of letting EPC F and G properties will extend to all relevant properties, even when there's been no change in tenancy. This is something—. I referred in an earlier answer to the exemplar houses that Julie James has brought forward, our innovative housing programme. We need to ensure that nobody's left behind, that all parts of the housing sector are included in more improved energy efficiency.

Thank you very much, Minister.

The next item on our agenda is the Plant Health (Amendment) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations, and I call on the Minister for the Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to move that motion. Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion. The regulations amend the Official Controls (Plant Health and Genetically Modified Organisms) (Wales) Regulations 2020, which gave effect to Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council on protective measures against pests of plants and Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure matters including the application of rules regarding plant health.

The purpose of these regulations is to protect biosecurity and support trade by ensuring the continued functioning of plant health controls within Great Britain, and between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It supplements the policy on unfettered market access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods, assists in clarifying how this access operates for qualifying plants and plant products, and allows enforcement action to be taken in Great Britain where appropriate. The UK Government are making amendments that are connected to these regulations and that include equivalent amendments to equivalent secondary legislation that applies to England in the Plant Health (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.

Thank you. I have no Members who wish to speak, and no Members have indicated an intervention. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? I don't see an objection, and therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, the motion is agreed.

Item 6 on our agenda this afternoon is the Family Absence for Members of Local Authorities (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations of 2021, and I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to move that motion. Julie James.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to bring forward these amending regulations today. The Family Absence for Members of Local Authorities (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 will increase the time allowed for adopter's absence for members of county and county borough councils in Wales. The increase from two to 26 weeks will align with the arrangements already in place for maternity absence, resulting in the same period of absence available to both biological and non-biological parents.

Wales was the first country within the UK to introduce family absence arrangements for councillors. Part 2 of the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011 introduced an entitlement to periods of family absence for members of county and county borough councils, during which a member is entitled to be absent from meetings. That legislation created maximum periods or caps on the period of absence that could be taken for different types of family absence. Enabling councillors to take time off in a range of circumstances is an important part of the approach taken in Wales. Councillors benefit from taking time off to support their families, and Wales benefits from having a more diverse set of elected representatives. Family absence is a fundamental lever in increasing the diversity of those participating in local democracy by enabling individuals to balance the requirements of the important role they play in society with the demands and responsibilities that come with bonding, nurturing and developing relationships with their children. The Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 removes the maximum periods of absence from the 2011 Measure and enables them to be prescribed wholly within regulations. This change made it possible to bring forward these amending regulations.

In addition to the increase in the period of absence available to adopters, associated changes to the regulations will prescribe conditions a member must satisfy in order to be eligible for adopter's absence, create procedures for allowing a member of a local authority to vary the start date and duration of a period of adopter's absence, and provide that a period of adopter's absence may start on the day the child is placed with the member of a local authority for adoption, or up to 14 days beforehand. A member of a local authority may choose on which of these days their adopter's absence will start, create a procedure for a member of a local authority to bring their adopter's absence to an end, make provisions about the period of absence in situations where more than one child is adopted as part of the same arrangement, and allow individuals taking adopter's leave to continue some duties with the consent of the chair or presiding member of the local authority. I ask Members to approve these regulations today. Diolch. 

Thank you. I have no speakers and nobody's indicated an intervention. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? And I don't see any objections, therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, the motion is agreed. 

Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021. And I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motion. Vaughan Gething. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion before us. The No. 5 regulations, as Members will be aware, were reviewed on 18 February and concluded that the whole of Wales should remain at alert level 4. This means everyone must continue to stay at home. All non-essential retail, hospitality venues, licensed premises and leisure facilities must remain closed. We have, however, amended the restriction regulations to allow a maximum of four people from two different households to exercise together. Those exercising together from different households should make every effort to maintain social distancing. People must continue to start and finish exercise from their home by foot or cycle, unless a person has additional needs, because of a disability or for other health reasons. In addition, the elite sport designation in the regulations was amended to recognise people who make a living from sport and designations made by sporting bodies in other parts of the UK.

We've clearly set out that our Government's first priority is to get as many children and students back to face-to-face learning as soon as possible. I'm sure we were all pleased to see foundation phase children and those sitting priority vocational qualifications return on 22 February. The Minister for Education has set out the ambition of the Government for all remaining primary school children and those scheduled to take exams this year to return to face-to-face learning on 15 March. 

Despite huge progress in rolling out vaccines and the improving public health situation, we have all seen how quickly the situation can deteriorate. Faced with new variants of coronavirus, we cannot provide as much certainty and predictability as we would like. Our approach will be to ease restrictions in gradual steps, listening to the medical and scientific advice, and assessing the impact of the changes we make as we go along. We do not want to raise people's hopes and expectations too early and then to have to disappoint them. We will give as much notice to people and businesses as we can. When we believe it is safe and proportionate to ease restrictions, then we will do so.

I ask Members to support these regulations, which continue to play an important part in adapting the coronavirus rules here in Wales to ensure they remain effective and proportionate, and are still a key part of how we can all help to keep Wales safe. Thank you.  

Thank you. Can I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mick Antoniw? 

As the Minister said, these regulations amend the No. 5 coronavirus restrictions regulations, which are the principal regulations on COVID, and they came into force on 20 February. Our report identified four merits points. The first identified an incorrect reference in the explanatory note to the regulations; in its response, the Welsh Government has noted the error. Our final three merits points are familiar ones to all Senedd Members. They note the Welsh Government’s justification for any potential interference with human rights, that there has been no formal consultation on the regulations, and that a regulatory impact assessment has not been carried out. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

We will vote in favour of these regulations today. I do look forward, however, to seeing us being able to move further in terms of pupils returning to education, whilst also making the point that the vaccination of staff could play a major role in building confidence in the ability to allow that to happen safely. 

And in terms of allowing four people from two different households to exercise together, again, I welcome that. We are moving on a step-by-step basis. The Minister will know full well that I've encouraged the Government consistently to push the boundaries of what can be allowed safely in order to help with people's well-being. Hopefully, that will mean that we could look at allowing local travel for exercise in the open air, rather than having to start and finish from home, as soon as possible. That, I think, could make a great difference for many people in all parts of Wales, particularly, as I say, when we're talking about allowing open-air activity, where the risks are far lower.

We also intend to support these regulations that move in a liberalising direction. We would like more consistency across the United Kingdom on one of them, but the regulations on sportspeople strike us as eminently sensible, and relying on regulations made elsewhere and accepting them in Wales rather than insisting on doing things slightly differently is a move in the right direction, we believe. Allowing two households, up to four, to meet outside—I think the trajectory is right, there, even if the detail is a little different.

The area I'd really like to focus on, though, is what's happening with schools. Can the Minister clarify when further detail will be issued so people can prepare more widely for that return to school? He mentioned a March date just now. Can he confirm exactly what is happening there and when we'll know more about what will be happening for others? We have just a few year groups at the foundation stage back in Wales, yet in England on Monday all children are going back to school. Now, the Trefnydd said earlier that the return of kids to school has to be done in a phased way. Well, it doesn't have to be done in a phased way, does it? It's not being done elsewhere. Why, if the United Kingdom Government can get everyone back to school in England on Monday, are we still seeing the vast majority of kids in Wales not in school, with home learning, disrupting their parents' schedules, disrupting their own learning, and a great impact on the mental health and outlook and future of so many people. We've seen plummeting rates of infections, of deaths, of hospitalisations, we've seen extraordinary success for vaccination across the United Kingdom, yet we're still stuck with this three-week, rather leisurely, review. Shouldn't we actually be accelerating a return to school? Even Nicola Sturgeon said today it might be possible to accelerate the exit from lockdown. Isn't it also time in Wales we got all children back to school, rather than lagging behind?

Thank you. I now call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to thank both speakers for indicating their support for the regulations and acknowledge the questions within them. As Rhun ap Iorwerth knows, we are moving on a step-by-step basis, in line with the scientific evidence and public health advice. I'll come to that again when dealing with one of Mark Isherwood's questions—sorry, Mark Reckless's questions; I do recognise that the two Marks are slightly different, albeit Mr Reckless is often more consistently supportive of the UK Government's approach on easements.

On your questions around vaccination, Rhun, as you know we've discussed this many times in both the informal briefings and in committee and indeed in the statement. I recognise you take a different view to the approach of the Government in following the JCVI advice, as you are perfectly entitled to do. 

On your question about improving people's well-being with further easements, that is very much in the mind of the Government, about how with further easements we can take account of improving people's mental health and well-being and have physical exercise, access to the outdoors, as the weather is generally improving—although I do touch wood when I say that; I remember not so long ago having snow in April. But we are thinking about what that might mean, and we're contemplating whether the next phase may include a period of 'stay local'—you'll recall that England has already indicated that it's likely to enter a period of staying local as well—and whether it may be possible to have further easements that would allow people to travel for outdoor activity in particular. That is very much one of the things we are considering, although choices haven't definitively been made, because we want to understand what the data tells us at the end of this current three-week review before we make the choices about the future.

On Mark Reckless's comments about supporting the regulations as they provide some greater elements of liberalisation, compared to where we were previously, that's to be welcomed. On your point about UK-wide consistency, it may be possible for us to do more, but that would require us to have conversations at an earlier point in time. There is a greater level of UK-wide conversation than there was in the middle of the summer—that is true and that's to be welcomed actually. Even though we don't always agree with other parts of the United Kingdom, we have never gone about—despite his charge—just being different for the sake of it; we've done things we think are right, and other people are, of course, entitled to disagree with the choices that we've made. But for there to be an even greater prospect of there being common UK-wide choices, that would require a more open conversation and one that would need to involve the Prime Minister. The challenge of the meetings chaired by Michael Gove for the UK Government is that he still needs to return to the Prime Minister, and there are times when there can be a difference in nuance and direction, and that's important. I would welcome very much a much more regular engagement between the Prime Minister and the First Ministers of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but sadly, that has not been the case over a number of months.

On your point about schools, you're right that we could make a policy choice to open all schools on 8 March or 15 March—that is open to Ministers to do so. The point that we have made consistently is that that isn't supported by the scientific evidence and the public health advice. We've published this advice, it's made it very clear that there should be a phased return because of the impact that schools opening can have on the R figure. And we're feeling our way through this on a step-by-step basis, as Rhun ap Iorwerth indicated, because we now have the Kent variant as a dominant variant. It's much more contagious than the previous versions of coronavirus. And actually, this isn't about being different from England for the sake of it, England has made a policy choice that makes it an outlier compared to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We are following the public health and scientific evidence and advice; England has made a different policy choice, as they're entitled to do. We all will look on with interest at what will happen from 8 March and we will continue to interrogate the data in making future choices. All primary schools can expect to return to face-to-face learning from 15 March and all exam years can then expect to return, and there are further discussions about if there are other things that may be possible, but the Government will confirm that once the education Minister has concluded those matters. It will either be the education Minister or the First Minister who announces that position to give clarity to learners, to parents, to carers and, of course, our staff. But I do look forward, over the coming weeks, to seeing more and more of our children and young people returning to face-to-face learning.

With that, I'd like to thank Members for their contributions and I hope that we'll receive the support of the Senedd today for these regulations.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? I don't see any objection, therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, the motion is agreed.

Item 8 on the agenda this afternoon is the legislative consent motion on the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, and I call on the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd to move the motion. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. I welcome this opportunity to explain the background to this legislative consent motion. I am grateful to both the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee for considering and reporting on the memorandum. Both committees consider that there is no impediment to the Senedd agreeing to the legislative consent motion. I note the helpful points raised by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and confirm that I have come to the same decision about the next revaluation date as the UK Government.

However, I would like to highlight the detailed programme of work that we have in train to consider the longer term reforms for non-domestic rates in Wales. The UK Government introduced the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill on 8 September to provide for technical changes to the non-domestic rates system in England and Wales. Provisions in the Bill applying to Wales will move the next revaluation date from 1 April 2022 to 1 April 2023. The Bill also adjusts the deadline for the submission of proposed lists from 30 September in the preceding valuation year to 31 December. The primary reason for the change of date is to take into account the impact of the pandemic on the valuation process and property markets. The Bill also ensures that there is consistency in the valuation approach adopted across Wales and England during these uncertain times.

I believe these provisions fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, however, I am content that these provisions should be made in a UK Bill. There is no other suitable primary legislation that would enable us to effect the necessary changes within the timescales needed to allow the revaluation to proceed. This is a short, technical Bill to effect a change that has the widespread support of businesses and other ratepayers across Wales. Therefore, I move the motion and ask the Senedd to approve this legislative consent motion.

Thank you. I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. We considered the legislative consent memorandum on the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No.2) Bill in October last year, and our report was laid back in early November. Our report sets out some of the background to the Bill and highlights the previous Bills that did not progress in the UK Parliament for various reasons.

In our report, we've noted the Welsh Government’s assessment as to which clauses of the Bill require the Senedd’s consent and also noted the UK Government’s view that clause 1(1) and clause 2 also require consent, although we recognise that these provisions are ancillary in nature.

We also noted the Welsh Government’s reasons as to why, in its view, making provision for Wales in the Bill is appropriate. In doing so, we've acknowledged that modifying the functions of valuation officers of the Valuation Office Agency through an Act of the Senedd would require the consent of the Secretary of State. However, we are concerned that the Welsh Government has cited as part of its justification for consenting to the UK Bill reasons of 'coherence' and

'The interconnected nature of the Welsh and English systems for administering revaluations for rating purposes'.

I have listened carefully to the explanation and the reasons given by the Minister today. The committee did differ from that approach, because we do not consider that such justification would be appropriate.

As we have indicated previously during our consideration of statutory instrument consent memoranda and Standing Order 30C written statements, such justification, in our view, lacks credibility in the context of devolution. We, therefore, said that we would welcome clarification from the Welsh Government as to whether similar changes in the future would be made through a Welsh Bill, and we've had the Minister's comments today. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Thank you. I have no other speakers. I don't know whether the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd wants to reply to the debate. Rebecca Evans.

I will do, briefly; thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I just welcome the opportunity to hear from the Chair of the committee. The non-domestic rates system provides really vital revenue for funding local government services here in Wales. Revaluations do play an important role in ensuring that bills accurately reflect the market conditions and that non-domestic ratepayers contribute their fair share towards the costs of local government services. Of course, revaluation isn't a revenue-raising measure; it just maintains the fairness of the system by redistributing the liability for NDR to reflect the changes in the property market and business sectors.

In terms of the question as to why the UK Bill, including Welsh provisions in the UK Bill is necessary on this occasion to ensure that the VOA receives a timely statutory instruction to undertake its valuation work. There was no other suitable legislative vehicle in the current Senedd programme that could have given effect to the change of date of the revaluation in the very tight timescales that are required. But this action doesn't undermine devolution, and I do want to reiterate that I did make a decision about the next revalution date very carefully, considering all of the options. My decision then was that this Bill was the most effective way in which to implement our Welsh policy changes.

Thank you very much for the contributions from the committees to the scrutiny of this.   

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections; therefore, again, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36 the motion is agreed. 

In accordance with Standing Order 12.18, I will now suspend the meeting before proceeding to Stage 3 of the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill. So, the meeting will stand suspended.

Welcome back. That brings us to the Stage 3 debate on the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill.

We begin with group 1. These amendments relate to climate crisis and ecological emergency. Amendment 51 is the lead amendment in the group, and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move the amendment and to speak to the other amendments in the group. 

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to these amendments in the first group.

Two years ago, of course, when this Senedd supported the motion to declare a climate emergency, we became the first Parliament in the world to do so. And doing so was a clear statement that not only is there an emergency, but, of course, there's a need for us to respond to that emergency in a way that reflects the seriousness of the crisis that we face. Now, these actions are not only for us as politicians to take, but, of course, there's a role for all of society to respond to that. But it is incumbent on us as politicians to create much of the legislative framework that facilitates the action that's required. This Bill, and the amendments before you today in this group, from myself, numbered from 51 through to 58, offer us an opportunity to make sure that our education system in Wales plays its part in that respect.

The intention, therefore, of my amendments is to add 'climate crisis and ecological emergency' to the list of mandatory elements within the areas of learning and experience, alongside relationships and sexuality education, religion, values and ethics, and, of course, English and Welsh. They also require Ministers to issue a code setting out the themes and matters to be encompassed by the mandatory element of climate crisis and ecological emergency, and I also outline the procedure for issuing or revising the code.

Another area my amendments touch upon is the section in the Bill on mental health. There's the duty to have regard to mental health and emotional well-being, and I ask Members to support my amendment 57, which explicitly refers to the need to consider climate anxiety as part of that. Doing so will provide support to children and young people who request it, and ensure, of course, as well, that teacher education is provided to equip teachers with the skills and knowledge necessary to carry out their obligations under this section. Climate anxiety, as I'm sure Members will appreciate, is recognised as an increasingly prominent issue, and this is an opportunity for us to reflect that in this legislation.

I've been working on these amendments with a group called Teach the Future. Some of you, I'm sure, will have met with their representatives in recent weeks and months. They're campaigning to ensure that students in Wales are taught about the climate emergency and ecological crisis—how they're caused, what we can do to mitigate them and what our future lives and jobs are going to look like because of them. They want to see sustainability and these crises become key content in all subject areas. They want to see educators trained in how to teach about these difficult topics in a way, of course, that empowers students, and they're campaigning for the necessary funding and resources to do this.

Whilst people are aware, maybe, that there is a climate crisis, they might not necessarily be aware of what that really means to them and their lives. Educating students, arming them with that understanding, will increase public awareness and lead to that wider behavioural change that we need to see if we are to tackle this emergency successfully. Polling has shown that many people don't appreciate how serious or immediate the threat is, and with climate-related disasters increasing each year—and heaven knows, we've seen major flooding incidents in Wales of late, haven't we—it's never been more important to properly educate young people about the world that we and they are, and will be, living in.

It isn't just Teach the Future, of course, that have called for education on the biodiversity crisis and tackling climate change to become mandatory. A whole host of environmental organisations, most recently as part of the Wales Environment Link, have also been campaigning for this. Wales Environment Link reminds us that, in order to build a future generation equipped to deal with the challenges in the coming decades, we need to ensure that ecoliteracy is embedded into the new Welsh curriculum and the areas of learning. We have an opportunity to achieve this today, and I would urge Members to support my amendments. Diolch.

I will be supporting the amendments in this group. The climate crisis and ecological emergency may be the biggest challenge facing us, but it is younger and future generations who will have to deal with the impact and the costs of our inaction to date. For future generations, the impact we have had on our climate and upon our ecosystems is not just an environmental issue. They will have to be equipped to deal with the economic, cultural and political fallout, and that is why I support the majority of the amendments in group 1. The fact that young people themselves have helped draft these amendments should help sway those who are undecided about supporting them. My only concern is around amendment 57. Whilst I support the sentiment behind this amendment, I believe that section 62 already covers the intent without the need to refer to climate anxiety, which could be used to limit the scope of support. Eco-anxiety, which would encompass climate anxiety, is already recognised as impacting mental health and well-being. I will therefore be abstaining on this amendment, but will support all the other amendments in this group. Diolch yn fawr.

Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you very much. Apologies, Llywydd, for not having my headset on.

That's better.

I also met some representatives of Teach the Future, and like most young people, they are extremely concerned, as they should be, about the environment. But I think that Llyr's amendment is misguided, because I think he misunderstands what the curriculum Bill is actually doing, which is to provide a framework for what teachers need to teach, rather than telling them exactly what they've got to teach. So, I was encouraging those young people to talk to the consortia, who advise teachers on how they're going to fulfil the obligations to create the enterprising, creative contributors of the future, to ensure that they are ambitious learners with an ethical, informed understanding of our place in world. I really think that the amendment is just watering down that ambitious framework that we have created with this Bill, ensuring that teachers are able to use their pedagogy to ensure that the way they're going to teach fits the needs of their individuals pupils. I absolutely share the enthusiasm of the young people and their commitment to ensuring that we are not contributing to the problems that we now face, and that we're tackling them effectively, but I think that these problems need to be debated by school governors to ensure that all our pupils are realising just how serious the climate emergency is.

I'm deeply shocked by these amendments. The enthusiasm with which Llyr Gruffydd advocated them reminds us of the ministries of propaganda and public enlightenment in former eras. Education should be about teaching children to question, think and use their judgment, and yet what we're invited to do here is to impose some kind of received truth upon children, whereas there is in fact hotly disputed debate going on amongst academics and others who are well versed in the theory of climate change. It's rather surprising to find a representative of Plaid Cymru speaking in this way today because the birth of modern-day political separatism, I think, is to be found in the great debates in the nineteenth century about the imposition of the theological dogmas of the established church upon the children of largely non-conformist families. What we're being invited to do today is exactly what he would have opposed in another context 150 years ago.

I am a sceptic about the theories that Llyr wishes to impose upon the children of today, and I think that what we should teach is both sides of this argument. That's what true education should be about. We're not dealing with something here that is dogmatic truth; we're dealing with a subject in which there is very, very considerable uncertainty and theorising. Most of the theories are based, of course, upon computer models, and computer models work on the principle of garbage in and garbage out. What we should be seeking is to put forward not just the theories of one side of this argument, but, in fact, the theories of both sides, and then inviting those who are in the classroom to think about what the issues involved are.

Yes, no doubt, there is amongst a very tiny minority of people climate anxiety, but then there are anxieties about all sorts of things. A thousand-odd years ago, people were worried about the end of the world coming in the year 1000. Apocalyptic millenarianism has been with us for as long as human beings have been on the planet. Most recently, of course, the millennium bug was another feature of this, an apocalyptic event that never happened. I think this is a very dangerous way of trying to use a Government Bill to impose a particular political view upon the minds of suggestible children. I think it's the very opposite of education, actually. That's something that we certainly should not support in this debate today.

Climate change is not like the laws of physics. There is too little data, for one thing, upon which to be certain over a long enough period, there are too many variables, too many uncertainties, and we have a complete disconnect between the results of computer models and what we know from the world of observation. We've only had satellite data for the best part of about 25 years that are capable of giving us reliable data, and that's nowhere near long enough to draw the kind of conclusions that Llyr seems to think are established fact. What we do know about climate change is that change has always been with us. Two thousand years ago, in Roman times, so far as we can tell, the climate in Europe, at any rate, was warmer than today. Then, we went through a cold period in the dark ages. In the medieval warm period, again, we went back to Roman times, and then in the seventeenth century, as well recorded through the diaries of Samuel Pepys, we went into a little ice age from which we have been emerging slowly ever since.

So, nobody denies, actually, that there is global warming going on, but what's the cause of it is something that is hotly disputed, and it's that debate, I think, that we should be teaching in our schools today, not teaching people what is purely propaganda in my opinion and representing that as indisputable fact. Because you've only got to look at the literature, you've only got to look at the lustrous names that are associated with the political views that I'm putting forward today, to see that there's a serious debate there, and that's what true education is about. So, I think this is an anti-education set of amendments that should be thrown out today. I agree entirely with what Jenny Rathbone has just said, although our views on this subject are diametrically opposed. We very frequently agree upon the fundamentals of what we should be doing in education. I invite the Senedd today to follow me for a change and vote these amendments down.

The Minister, Kirsty Williams. 

Oh boy, Presiding Officer. I am sorely tempted to riff on the concept of false equivalence and to debate Mr Hamilton on his interjection this afternoon. What I am able to assure Senedd Members is that concepts such as false equivalence, fake news and propaganda will indeed form part of the new Curriculum for Wales, and we will indeed be equipping our children and our young people to debate some of the, if you don't mind me saying, nonsense we've just heard from Mr Hamilton.

Can I very much welcome Llyr Gruffydd back to debating education issues with me? It's very welcome indeed. I know that Llyr understands well the rationale and the concepts and the thinking, the pedagogical thinking, that lies behind our approach to curriculum reform here in Wales, and I was very grateful for his support, when he was the education spokesperson for Plaid Cymru, for the direction of travel in which we were taking curriculum reform. He understands well that one of the four purposes of our new curriculum is to ensure that we have ethical, informed citizens of Wales and the world as a result of children's time in the education system in Wales. And I know that he supports that. And whilst I am very pleased that he has raised the climate crisis and the ecological emergency as an area for inclusion in the new curriculum framework, I do not believe that the amendments that he has put forward to include that on the face of the Bill are necessary.

To be absolutely clear, and for the avoidance of doubt, I recognise the importance of educating our children and young people about climate change, its causes, its impact, both here at home as well as globally, and the action that is needed to safeguard all of our futures. And of course, in Wales, we have a strong basis on which to build. We have been supporting two key climate and environmental education programmes for schools across our nation for several years now, and Members will be very familiar with the Eco Schools programme and the Size of Wales initiative. And we are already in discussion with those who deliver those programmes to ensure that they can continue to support us on our curriculum reform journey and ensure the very important point that Llyr raised, that we can equip our teachers with the knowledge and the confidence that they need to ensure that these lessons are delivered really well. These educational programmes are well-established, and all of our schools are able to engage with them at no cost, and through those programmes every year we're able to go further than the classroom and actively engage children and young people with policy development, the concept of taking action, as well as the opportunity to listen to their views and creating opportunities for those views to reach key decision makers. 

With regard to amendments 51 and 54 to 56, as Llyr well knows, the Bill restricts the number of mandatory elements listed on the face of the Bill, and there is a rationale for that. And whilst I recognise the importance of the issue, I do not accept that these should sit alongside the four mandatory elements listed. Learning on climate and environmental challenges is already mandatory in our new curriculum through the statements of 'what matters'. These statements confirm the range of issues that schools must include within their curriculum, but also provide flexibility and connections across the curriculum to build understanding of these key concepts. This approach encourages integrated approaches across the curriculum and allows for issues like climate change to be covered in different subjects.

And that's already happening in our schools, in our pioneer schools, which are our early-adopters and engagers with the curriculum. I have seen for myself the outstanding level of work that is going on. I would draw the attention of Members to St Nicholas Church in Wales Primary School in the Vale of Glamorgan, who used the concept of palm oil and the destruction of natural habitats to grow palm, and the impact on the orangutan, and the school used that topic not only to explore issues around the direct effect on orangutans, but were using it to develop their creative writing, were using it to develop their children's speaking and debating skills, were using it as a concept for art projects as well as music projects. So, they had used the concept of that topic, which was deeply, deeply, deeply concerning to the children, to actually develop skills right the way across the curriculum. And that is absolutely the embodiment, at St Nicholas, of our approach to the curriculum.

Members will have heard me speak often of Crickhowell High School in my own constituency, where year 7 were given a choice of which topic to explore. They chose plastic pollution, and every single lesson, right the way across the curriculum, was viewed through the prism of that subject. That included English, Welsh, where they were able to work with our local plastic-free shop to make that shop some bilingual signage and some bilingual advertising, because the shop didn't have that before. So, they were developing their Welsh language skills, all through the prism of the concept of plastic pollution and climate change and environmental action. So, our schools are grasping the opportunity to respond in that way.

So, similarly to amendment 52, the key concepts that form the statements of 'what matters' have been developed in a process of co-construction with our practitioners against a clear set of criteria, and Welsh Ministers have worked with them to prescribe what is included in those 'what matters' codes. So, for the avoidance of doubt, if Members are not familiar with the 'what matters' statements, we have four specific references in the 'what matters' statements that are linked to the environment and raising awareness across our humanities and science and technology areas of learning and experience. And they include the statement:

'Our natural world is diverse and dynamic, influenced by processes and human actions',

that,

'Informed, self-aware citizens engage with the challenges and opportunities that face humanity and are able to take considered and ethical action',

and that,

'Being curious and searching for answers is essential to understanding and predicting phenomena',

and finally,

'The world around us is full of living things which depend on each other for survival.'

And as I said, these 'what matters' statements are already a mandatory part of the curriculum and I believe should provide the reassurance to Llyr that his aspiration that he has spoken about this afternoon is already catered for and is secured in our 'what matters' statements.

So, moving on to amendments 53 and 58, as I said, I do not believe it's necessary for the inclusion of an additional code, because through our 'what matters' statements, we are already taking action in this regard.

Can I turn to the issue of amendment 57? Again, I recognise the seriousness of the crisis that faces our climate, and one that I'm sure is at the forefront of many of our young people's minds; it can indeed lead to anxiety for some learners. Following consultation with the sector, I will take steps to ensure that we strengthen the 'what matters' statements to make sure that there is no ambiguity at all of the necessity to teach these subjects. But with regard to the issue of mental health and emotional well-being, there are a huge array of matters that impact on the mental and emotional health of our children and young people. And rather than taking a specific challenge that our young people face, we have worked really, really hard following the report of the committee and the advice of the children and young people's committee in the delivery of this Bill to ensure that mental health and well-being is at the forefront of what we're doing, and we have worked with that committee to bring forward amendments at Stage 2 to ensure that when designing the curriculum, headteachers and governing bodies should have regard for the total of children's health and well-being when designing that curriculum. So, again, I hope that gives some reassurance to Llyr that when designing a curriculum, children's health and mental health and well-being is an important guiding principle as well as content within the curriculum itself to support health and well-being. Therefore, I would urge Members to reject the amendments in this group. Thank you.

Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and may I thank everyone who's contributed? The fact that young people have been a part of this process of working on amendments and scrutinising the Bill has been an important part of this process in terms of empowering young people and arming them with a new set of skills that will allow them to do that effectively in the future too, so it's positive that Caroline Jones recognised that.

I'm disappointed that Jenny Rathbone feels that the amendments are misguided. Yes, I understand—. The Minister referred to my early involvement, maybe, as a former member of the Children, Young People and Education Committee. I understand fully that it is a framework piece of legislation, but of course, Jenny was telling us, 'We don't need to tell them about this, because it's there'. Well, the Government has decided, actually, that we need to tell people about relationship education and sexuality education and religion and values and ethics. All I'm saying is, 'Well, given the centrality of the climate emergency and ecological crisis that we're facing in our lives, then we should be adding that as well.' 

As for Neil Hamilton's comments, he said he was deeply shocked, and I would be deeply shocked if he wasn't deeply shocked at some of the things that I say, because quite clearly we diametrically disagree on this. For him to suggest that these amendments are of a former era, well, maybe some would suggest that he would probably know. So, I'm disappointed, really, but not surprised at his contribution. 'Millennium bug'—for heaven's sake.

Anyway, okay—just responding to the Minister, then, I do understand the assertion that much of what I want to achieve is covered in the Bill. The difference is, of course, that my amendments make it explicit and ensure that the climate crisis and ecological emergency aren't lost amongst other things. It gives, in my view, this area the absolute precision focus within the curriculum that it deserves. And of course, there's nothing in my amendments that would stop any of what the Minister has said from being achieved, so there's no reason to oppose the amendments, in my view. In fact, I see them as actually strengthening what we all want to see. 

Now, the First Minister of course made some big pronouncements about the climate emergency in his conference speech last weekend. Well, you know, this is the first test, isn't it, so don't fall at the first hurdle by voting against these amendments. I appeal to Members. 

The youngest children that are currently in our education system are three years old, and most of these students won't probably leave full-time education until maybe around 2035. By 2035, we may well have already passed the 1.5 degrees target in relation to global warming, so we need to rapidly change our way of living. We all know that interests are fostered from a very young age, and early years at school are fundamental for developing a child's character, and by implementing climate education now, in this curriculum, we can make sure that children going into the world of work after 2030 are prepared for a very different world, but a world, of course, where, thanks to the education system in Wales, they are climate-aware, and they're climate-conscious citizens. So, I would urge Members to please support my amendments and, in doing so, reflect the true importance and weight that we put on this particular area. Diolch.

The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection, and therefore we will move to a vote on amendment 51. Before doing so, we will need to suspend the meeting briefly to prepare for the vote. So, we'll take a brief break. 

Okay, that brings us to our first vote this afternoon, and that vote will be on amendment 51 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, three abstentions, 31 against, therefore amendment 51 is not agreed. 

We move now to our second group of amendments, which relate to life-saving skills and first aid. The lead amendment is amendment 1, and I call on Suzy Davies to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Suzy Davies. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and I move amendment 1. Members, I'm bringing these amendments back as this is the last chance that I, or, indeed, the Minister, will be able to ensure that pupils in Wales acquire that most valuable of skills, which is knowing how to save the life of another human being. Some young people, of course, have been lucky and learnt some of these skills in school already, or as members of St John's Cymru or the Red Cross or the Brownies or the Cubs or the Urdd or our cadets' groups even, just like Aneurin Metcalfe did. Just 22 years old, last week he saved the life of Bobby Gamlin after stepping in and administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation, which he'd learnt with Torfaen sea cadets. And every one of us will be grateful to Calon Cymru for tracking him down, this modest young man, to thank him, but, of course, no-one will be more grateful than Mr Gamlin and his family. 

Aneurin stepped in without having to think about it, and it's that instinct to step in that's behind these amendments. Some schools already offer a lesson in CPR especially, maybe once or twice in a pupil's school life, and the skill couldn't be easier to learn, as indeed would be the case with other basic life-saving and first aid skills, but the optional intermittent lessons don't grow that instinct, and there are too many sad stories of adults who know how to do CPR but don't step in because they are too shocked, too scared or forget in the moment what to do, whereas years of mandatory practice means that stepping in is as instinctive as reciting your 10 times table without thinking about it.

So, yes, Welsh Government has its out-of-hospital cardiac plan, and I thank the paramedics and the charities who have helped to design that, but your chances of surviving cardiac arrest outside of a hospital setting remain stubbornly high at around just one in 10, and those same paramedics and those same charities still support mandatory teaching of these skills in schools, as do members of our own Youth Parliament, families, pupils and teachers across Wales, who have seen their peers in Scotland and England persuaded by the evidence from other countries, where this population-level CPR training means that there are fewer deaths from cardiac arrest. So, there are no party political ideologies here, just a desire for a way forward to prevent unnecessary deaths.  

So, there are two amendments here, Minister, for you to consider, but there are many ways to skin a cat. And I know that you want to keep this Bill clean of additional obligations about curriculum content, but I also remember you supporting the policy objective in the past. Scotland and England have come to the same result by different routes and, for me, it's the end that matters, rather than the means. Now, we've discussed how this might be achieved, and I would be really grateful if you would share with Members how you think we might have cracked this in a different way to see what kind of response we get. Diolch. 

Many Members will appreciate that I've found the consideration of these amendments exceptionally difficult. I was lucky enough to learn many of these skills as a teenager in St John's Ambulance in Tredegar, and, of course, it was these skills that saved my life less than a year ago. I'm absolutely clear in my mind that the national health service, for all the different things it can do, it cannot and will not and never will be able to save a life in the way that we saw last week in the centre of Cardiff. My own cardiologist and other, I think, specialists in the field are absolutely clear that it is the passer-by who sees somebody having a cardiac arrest that will save that person's life and enable, then, the paramedics and the whole range of services from the national health service to step in to ensure the recovery and the treatment that person will need to live again.

But it is the passer-by that is critical. It is the person in the house, in the street, in the Parliament, who will save that life when a cardiac arrest takes place, and I too, like Suzy, saw the interviews yesterday and saw the reports of a real life-saving incident taking place in the centre of Cardiff. But, you know, I'm also reminded of Justin Edinburgh, who was the former manager of Newport County Association Football Club. He had a cardiac arrest in the gym, and there was nobody there who was able to save his life. I'm also reminded of Noel Acreman, who was only 25 when he had a cardiac arrest in Bute Park, again in the centre of Cardiff. There was nobody there able to save his life. By the time the paramedics arrived, it was already too late. And we owe it to them. We owe it to those people, not only the life savers, but the people who lost their lives, to take action in ensuring that these life-saving skills are available throughout our community and throughout our society. But we also need to ensure that there are defibrillators available to people, so that they exist in our communities across the whole of our country. So, there is a need for a strategy to ensure that out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is treated, and there is a need, I believe, for that strategy to be on a statutory basis. It was a defibrillator that restarted my heart—a defibrillator that was based in the college—and I was lucky enough there was somebody able to cycle to that college and to get it back whilst the people performing CPR on me were able to keep me alive for that to happen. That doesn't happen and couldn't happen and wouldn't happen in too many parts of Wales. 

Members are aware that I've already put forward my own legislation on these matters, and in doing so I quite deliberately did not seek to place these matters on the curriculum. My preferred route is to place a duty on Welsh Ministers to ensure that these skills are available throughout our society. That will include schools, but I do not believe it should be limited to schools. I know from my discussions with the Minister that she sympathises greatly with the arguments that are being put and I recognise the force of the argument that she made in the previous debate on these matters, and I also recognise her position that not everything that is important can be written onto the face of the Bill. I recognise that.

I hope that the Minister will respond positively to this debate, and in doing so I want to place on record my own personal thanks to Suzy Davies and her tenacious campaigning on this matter. All of us who have had a cardiac arrest appreciate, Suzy, the work that you've done on this and the way that you have ensured that this matter has been debated not once or twice but consistently in this Parliament. I hope that the Government, both the Government today and the Government that will be elected in May, will ensure that legislation is put on the statute book: comprehensive legislation that enables not only the learning of these skills through society and throughout our communities, but also ensures that defibrillators are on hand when these things happen, so that there will be many more lives saved in the future. We also hope that there will be many more reports of young people, as we saw yesterday, who are lifesavers and not simply standing by whilst life drains away. So, I hope that we will, in voting this afternoon, not simply take one step, but recognise what the Minister is seeking to do in reforming the curriculum and put forward a more fundamental reform of dealing with and treating out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for everybody in the future. Thank you.

Can I now call the Minister, Kirsty Williams?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I make it absolutely clear to all Members that life-saving skills are an aspect of learning that forms part of our new health and well-being AoLE? The statutory guidance as drafted emphasises the importance of learners developing the ability to respond to a range of conditions and situations that affect their physical health, and, indeed, the physical health of others, for instance, the ability to respond in an emergency, by knowing how to get help for a 999 emergency. So, there are lots and lots of situations where we need children to be adequately prepared to be able to take the action that they need to, as I said, protect themselves and others. 

However, I recognise the points that both Alun Davies and Suzy have made this afternoon. And I don't know about skinning cats, Suzy, but I do agree with you that what's important in the end is ensuring that we get the outcome that we all want to achieve. And therefore, in recognition of your highly persuasive, and, as Alun Davies described, tenacious campaigning on this issue, I have agreed to update the wording of the statutory curriculum for Wales guidance so that, in the future, it will read, and I quote:

'Schools should also consider what strategies their learners will need to be able to safely intervene to support others who may be at risk. This should include lifesaving skills and first aid.'

I hope that this strengthened wording and this approach, which will, I hope, put it beyond doubt that this is a statutory element of the curriculum that must be provided to children and young people, will achieve what you have long campaigned for, Suzy, that children leaving our schools will have had the opportunity to acquire these skills. And in the spirit of, hopefully, the co-operation that I have tried to engender throughout this curriculum Bill process, I hope that Members will resist the amendment on the promise, as I said, of revised guidance to reflect the strength of opinion that Suzy, Alun and others, I know, in this Chamber share. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I call on Suzy Davies to reply to the debate? Suzy.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, what we've heard from you, Minister, is your agreement to use statutory guidance—and that's statutory guidance—to oblige schools to teach life-saving skills unless they've got a good reason not to. They should teach them. And I'm so grateful for this, I have to say. This means that schools can't just use excuses like shortage of funds or lack of skills in the school workforce; they just won't wash. There are many organisations that will come into schools and train teachers as well as pupils, and that can provide equipment, either at no cost or at very, very low cost. Of course, while there will always be individual children for whom training would not be appropriate, I challenge any school now to come up with a credible reason why they should not teach our children to save lives.

Minister, I was watching the faces of some of the Members that I can see on the screen, and I think I spotted relief on quite a few of them; there are very many Members in this Senedd who support what I've been trying to achieve with the campaign I've been fighting for the last 10 years; they showed that through support for my legislative proposals some time, some years, ago, but they've also shown their commitment to greater public empowerment in this field by supporting Alun Davies's more recent proposals. Whatever we do today, I hope that Members in the sixth Senedd don't forget what he's done here as well and what he is asking for.

So, on the basis of what you've promised today, Minister, I am not going to put any Members in the difficult position where they have to vote against doing something that they've supported, and that's giving our children these skills. You promised a statutory presumption in favour of life-saving skills, a presumption that it will take some seriously imaginative wriggling to overcome. So, Minister, I think you've done it; schools can't ignore this, so a huge 'thank you' from me. After 10 years of this, this is the best leaving present I could have wished for, I think. Alun, if you are back in May, I hope that you carry the torch on for that other legislation that you rightly ask for. Diolch.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] You object; okay, so we'll go to a vote. No—. Sorry, Suzy.

Dirprwy Lywydd, sorry about this, but may I ask if the Senedd would be prepared not to vote on this particular—?

Do you want to withdraw?

Yes, please. I know I've moved it, but I'd like to withdraw it. Thank you.

Okay. So, there we are. Does anybody object to the withdrawal of amendment 1? No, therefore, amendment 1 has been withdrawn.

We'll move on to group 3, which is relationships and sexuality education. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 2, and I call on Suzy Davies to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group. Suzy.

Okay, diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm just recovering myself a little bit here.

Yes, I move amendment 2, which is the lead amendment in this group. Now, our group has always offered a free vote on matters of conscience and I'll be exercising mine on the basis of conscience too. Mine is governed by the principle that we all have a responsibility to keep our children and young people safe, and I'll be doing it on the basis of evidence, not just in the committee and the many meetings with interested parties, but on the basis of upsetting safeguarding situations that I think many of us will have encountered in our casework. I also do it on the basis of my previous work as a lawyer, where I had some really difficult cases to deal with. There is no getting away from the fact that so much abuse happens within families. Now, absolutely, this is a minority; I'm not suggesting otherwise. But, how can it be wise to refuse anything that can help a child to learn about protecting themselves or others? I think that in this internet age it has never been more of a challenge.

Part of keeping our children safe is to help them and their peers to grow up less comfortable judging others for being different, whatever that difference looks like; to get them to think increasingly about difficult questions—increasingly difficult questions—about why they develop prejudices, why some people exercise power over others through emotional as well as physical bullying and what a healthy relationship looks like, because this part of the curriculum is not just about sex education.

There is nothing stopping parents educating and influencing their children at home alongside school, of course, and we should also expect a child's cultural and religious background to be considered as part of deciding what is developmentally appropriate—a requirement of teaching RSE in school; amendment 42 just makes that explicit. But we can't get away from the fact that this Bill does remove a parental right, and any legislature should carefully examine any attempt by the Executive to remove anyone's right. That's why I've tabled amendments 6, 8, 9 and 10. These provide for parents of pupils in nurseries and schools to be informed of how RSE will be taught and when any changes are introduced.

These are watered-down versions of Stage 2 amendments that were not accepted. They are still, however, a signal to parents who've lost this right that they still have continuing status here, even if they have very little agency, as the RSE code will be very prescriptive, on this controversial area of the curriculum. If parents feel more informed and more inside the tent, we would all hope that it becomes a less controversial element of the curriculum after all, with more chance of learning being reinforced at home.

So, the argument against these amendments is that their existence will create a sense of difference between this and other parts of the curriculum, and that there's already local consultation built into the curriculum development. But these amendments are about updating parents, not consulting them. Maybe this will slow down the normalisation of the subject, but I'd say that that difference is baked in by this Bill, which singles out RSE for special status as a mandatory subject with a detailed code to which schools must stick.

Can I thank the Minister for her help with amendment 40? I think I'll be thanking her a lot during this debate. The Children, Young People and Education Committee had observed that young people in years 12 and 13, after compulsory education has ceased, are able to rely on this Bill to request the continuation of religion, values and ethics education provision, and it wasn't really easy to see why those same young people couldn't ask for a continuation of RSE at a time when they would really benefit from it. Minister, you accepted this argument, and I'm grateful for your willingness to agree to this.

Finally, of course, amendments 2 and 4. Members will be aware of the long-standing campaign by Fair Treatment for the Women of Wales for better education about menstrual well-being, supported by organisations like Endometriosis UK and several others. And you may ask, when there are so many other aspects of health, why we are using this Bill to highlight this particular one aspect. And the answer is, simply, because it's been taboo for so long. Half the population having periods for at least half their lives, and the other half being members of the same family, and so affected by their mother, their wife, their sister, their daughter's experience, and no-one seems to know what's normal and what's not. Women putting up with all kinds of period-related conditions because they know no different, seeking help in extremis, and finding too many medical practitioners ignorant of possible diagnoses, and sometimes dismissive with it.  This curriculum gives all our children the chance to grow up being grown up about being a grown up, and these amendments are about stopping schools wriggling out of teaching it. Hopefully, it will also prompt greater demand for more research into therapies or even cures.

Perhaps the more obvious place to try and embed this would be in the health and well-being area of learning and experience, but I've taken my cue from the Minister herself at Stage 2, when she explained that she too was interested in finding a way to offer stronger reassurance on this. I know that everyone interested in this area was really grateful to hear that. And, Minister, it was you who suggested that the RSE code might be a way of doing this. So, reading between the lines, because the code will be mandatory, including menstrual well-being there rather than in AoLE guidance is perhaps a way of offering that assurance without the need for these amendments, or even in the 'what matters' statements. I suppose one difference there is that the RSE code is going to come before this Senedd for approval, which I applaud. I'm just checking—am I on the right track about why you mentioned the RSE code at Stage 2? Diolch.

I'm proud to speak in a debate today in support of Welsh Government's plans for high-quality, developmentally appropriate, inclusive, equality-based RSE for all children in Wales. Those Members who have read our Stage 1 committee report will know that the Children, Young People and Education Committee gave our unanimous support to the plans, having listened carefully to the evidence we heard. The fact that a cross-party committee of Members of the Senedd came to such a clear and unequivocal view on this is a testament to the power of the evidence we took. Those of you present for the Stage 1 debate will, I'm sure, remember Laura Jones's powerful contribution, describing how, as a parent, she had been worried about the plans for RSE, but having listened to the evidence, she now recognised the benefits that high-quality RSE will bring to children and young people, and I'm really grateful for the constructive engagement of the whole committee on this.

I'd like to recognise all those organisations and individuals who made such a strong case for RSE to the committee: NSPCC Cymru Wales, Welsh Women's Aid, Stonewall Cymru, Brook Cymru, Professor E.J. Renold, and the Children's Commissioner for Wales. Many of these organisations have written individually to MSs in recent days, making a case for high-quality RSE from a position of far more expertise than I could ever claim to have.

I also want to thank Kirsty Williams for her commitment to doing what's right for children and young people on this. This is not an easy issue, and it would have been all too easy for her to put this in the 'too difficult' tray. But that is not the Kirsty Williams I know, and I want to commend her for her courage and steadfastness on this. It will make a huge difference to children and young people.

Now, there has been a lot of what could be described as, at best, misinformation circulating about these plans. I hope that Members are reassured by the checks and balances that are in place, not least the statutory RSE code, which will have to be approved by this Senedd. I hope too that Members are willing to trust our teachers, the professionals who we'll be asking to deliver RSE. So, I don't want to focus today on the misinformation or what RSE is not; I want to focus on the positives, what high-quality RSE is.

RSE is a child's right. We rightly pride ourselves in this Senedd on our commitment to children's rights. Sometimes, we, myself included, take the opportunity to say in the Senedd that we'd like the Welsh Government to go further. Well, the commitment to RSE in this Bill is children's rights in action. RSE is about keeping our children safe. As NSPCC Cymru told our committee:

'We know that high-quality RSE is associated with a range of positive outcomes for children, but as its most basic function, it helps to keep children safe from harm. And the new compulsory RSE curriculum in Wales really brings an exciting potential to ensure that all children are equipped with the information and the language they need to understand that they have a right to safety, to recognise all forms of abusive or controlling behaviour and to empower them to speak out and get support at the earliest opportunity.'

But this is of course more than about children; it's also about building the foundations for those children and young people to grow up to thrive in safe, respectful relationships.

Finally, mandatory RSE is about protecting our children's mental health. Strong, positive relationships are the essential foundation for good mental health, and I particularly welcome the commitment that RSE should be LGBT-inclusive and equality based. There is nothing more important to me than protecting the mental health of our children and young people, and in particular, preventing young suicide. And there are, tragically, young people who have died by suicide because of homophobic bullying or because their sexuality was not accepted. When the RSE plans were first published, a constituent contacted me to say how much he welcomed the plans. He told me how he had barely survived growing up as a gay teenager in a family where his sexuality was not accepted, and he told me what a difference having access to inclusive RSE would've made to him. So, I say to Members today that it is the children and young people who are not getting messages of support and inclusivity at home who need mandatory RSE more than anyone else. Make no mistake about it, for some children and young people, this is a matter of life and death.

I welcome amendment 40 in the name of Suzy Davies, and I thank her for tabling it. As she said, it implements a recommendation in our Stage 1 report and ensures that the benefits I've described are also available to our post-16 learners. But I ask Members to reject Darren Millar's amendments in this group and to support Welsh Government's plans for RSE, which will be life-changing for so many young people, and even life-saving for some. Diolch yn fawr.

Plaid Cymru is also fully supportive of making relationships and sexuality education statutory. We support the Government fully on this issue, and I too would wish to praise the Minister for her commitment to this area. And here we are today, seeing the Welsh Parliament at its best, being progressive, working together, being robust on a crucially important issue. We also support adding menstrual well-being education and see the sense of providing updates to parents, and that post-16 pupils should also be able to access relationships and sexuality education, and I thank Suzy for bringing those amendments forward.

Elected Members within our party have argued consistently over many years that education is the key to change in this area, and it's good to see this becoming a reality at last. Relationships and sexuality education, which will be statutory and mandatory, will enable schools to empower every learner to develop their information, skills and values, and to do so in a gradual way, so that they can enjoy their rights in having safe and healthy relationships throughout their lives. By being pertinent, sensitive and appropriate to the abilities and needs of the children themselves, schools will now be able to develop high-quality content, deliver a whole host of positive outcomes as a result of this, and we can also safeguard our children, our young people and our communities.

I agree with everything that Lynne has said, and I'd like to commend the fantastic work done by the children and young people committee to really get that consensus around such an important subject. I absolutely agree with her that this is all about children's rights, and particularly the rights to understand how their own bodies work, as well as their rights to ensure that they are only involving anybody in their lives if they want them to, and this is what's going to protect them. I agree with her also that a lot of nonsense has been said about this. We've been accused of taking over the role of parents, when, in fact, it's absolutely right that we ensure that children have the right to know how their bodies work. Nowhere is this more clear cut than in menstrual education. It really is a scandal that at least 30 per cent of all girls do not know what is happening to them when they start their period. That is just such a clear-cut sign that parents find it embarrassing and difficult and avoid talking about such a basic subject to the girls in their family that we have to ensure that all girls know about this in order to avoid the trauma of bleeding between their legs without realising what it is.

I'd like to commend the work of Suzy Davies in having the courage and the tenacity to keep going on the importance of menstrual well-being—not just what a period is, but menstrual well-being—so that we all understand what a normal period is, and we can seek help when that is not what is occurring. March is endometriosis March. This is something that unfortunately affects a very large number of girls and women, and the earlier we detect it, the more likely we can avoid it becoming a really horrendous disease that affects people throughout their life. So, I'm very pleased that, as a result of the work of Suzy Davies, we now have that mandatory aspect of the relationship and sexuality code including menstrual well-being. It seems to me that this is also a real milestone, given the prejudice against women and girls across the world simply because we have periods. Thank you, Suzy Davies, for all your hard work. It's great to see the response from the Minister that we now have menstrual well-being in the RSE code. 

My apologies that Darren Millar has not been called as a mover of an amendment in this group. I will now call him. Darren.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move amendments 41 and 42 and amendments 20, 21 and 22, all of which are tabled in my name. Can I make it clear at the outset of my contribution to this debate that I fully support the principle that children should be receiving teaching on sex and relationships that keeps them safe from harm and enables them to make informed choices? I also agree that there ought to be education that is appropriate for them in terms of menstrual education et cetera. But I fear that the Bill, as it currently stands, may be less able to deliver on these objective than it might be.

My amendments 41 and 42 seek to place requirements on the face of the Bill in relation to the content of the Welsh Government's proposed relationships and sexuality education code—the RSE code, as the Bill describes it. At present, there's nothing on the face of the Bill to stipulate the contents of the code. The current legislative framework around the teaching of this sensitive subject of RSE, the Education Act 1996, contains some basic safeguards for the teaching of sex education. They were introduced by a Labour UK Government back in 2001, and those safeguards responded to a real need at the time to provide a more positive direction for the subject. But the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill seeks to disapply these safeguards here in Wales without putting anything similar in their place to ensure that the purposes of the mandatory element of RSE are appropriately met.

At present, the Bill simply requires that the mandatory element of relationships and sexuality education is, and I quote, 'developmentally appropriate'. But, of course, this doesn't go far enough. Should it become law, the legislation would require Welsh Ministers to publish an RSE code setting out themes and matters to be encompassed by the mandatory element of RSE education in Wales. But my amendment 41 places requirements on the face of the Bill regarding the contents of that code to ensure that children and pupils must learn about the following things: firstly, the nature of long-term relationships, including marriage, and their importance for family life and the bringing up of children—and, of course, this is something that replicates exactly what is already in the Education Act 1996—and then, in addition to that, the importance of safety in forming and maintaining relationships, the characteristics of healthy relationships, how relationships may affect physical and mental health and well-being, how values influence people's approach to sex and relationships and the importance of respecting the values of others with regard to sex and relationships.

These are all things that have been touched on by other speakers in this debate, so there's no disagreement between us. I want to ensure that people have healthy relationships with one another, and that's why I think it's important that these things are on the face of the Bill. I know that the Minister has referred to these things as well in the Senedd Chamber, and, indeed, in the committee when asked about them. All of these are non-contentious, and the Minister herself has suggested that an effective RSE code should contain references to all of them. But, of course, at the end of this Senedd term, she may not be around to be the Minister, and that means that somebody else will inherit the ministerial office and the responsibility to develop the RSE code, and they may have different attitudes than those of us who are elected in this Senedd now. That's why I think it's prudent of all of us to put these things onto the face of the Bill in respect of the code.

My amendment 42 seeks to require that relationships and sexuality education in Wales should have regard to pupils' religious and cultural backgrounds. This is currently the case in Wales and in England due to the Education Act 1996, but the Welsh Government is seeking to disapply this requirement in Wales with this new Bill. I think that that's a backward step. It's a backward step in a society like modern-day Wales, a nation that aspires to be tolerant and respectful of people of all faiths and cultures. I believe that introducing these protections will serve to strengthen the Bill and strengthen our commitment here in Wales to equip children with information about relationships that is respectful of their upbringing, respectful of their culture and their faith.

The Minister says that the RSE code, which no-one, of course, has seen yet, is going to provide some clarity and confidence for parents about what will and won't be taught, but because we haven't seen it, we're not able to have that confidence, and because parents haven't seen it, they haven't had that confidence. That's what has led, I think, to some of the misinformation that both Lynne Neagle and Jenny Rathbone have referred to. I think that if we are able to put some more information on the face of the Bill regarding the content of the code, it will give that confidence that parents need to see.

Moving on briefly to my amendments 20, 21 and 22, these amendments insert new sections into the Bill to give parents the right to withdraw their children from relationships and sexuality education lessons where they believe that they're inappropriate for them. These parental rights, of course, currently exist here in Wales, but the Bill will remove them and undermine the important principle that parents, not the state, are the primary educators of their children. The failure to include a right for parents to withdraw children from RSE lessons also seems to fly in the face of section 9 of the Education Act 1996, which says, and I quote, that children

'are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents'.

That particular provision in the Education Act 1996 will still be law in Wales even if the Bill before us today becomes an Act. The Bill also will do nothing to remove article 2 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which, of course, has been enshrined in UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. That protocol says that the state must respect parents' rights to have their children educated in conformity with their religious and philosophical convictions. My amendments, if agreed, will simply seek to ensure that this Bill is compatible with the provisions of the Education Act 1996 and the Human Rights Act, which are already on the statute book.

Parents have long enjoyed the right to be able to withdraw their children from the two subjects that engage questions of families' world views, and they are of course sex education and religious education. The benefit of the potential use of this right to withdraw is that it provides an incentive for schools to engage proactively with parents regarding their children's education by requiring school leaders to sit and listen to parental concerns in order to minimise those withdrawals. And, of course, they've been exercised very, very rarely across Wales over the many years that they've been in place, because of the great engagement that they have resulted in. So, Dirprwy Lywydd, I urge Members to support my amendments in this group. 

It has been this part of the Bill that has given me the greatest concern. If the Bill had not removed the rights of parents to be able to remove their children from relationships and sexuality education lessons, I feel it would have had less opposition. I thought long and hard about tabling amendments to enable parents to remove their children from RSE lessons, but I was informed that such an exemption would be unworkable. So, I opted instead to vote against the Bill in its entirety. I'm told that the way RSE and, indeed, RVE will be taught will not be in separate lessons but across the entire curriculum. What this means in practice is that it would be difficult to exempt children from RVE lessons as it could result in children missing out on entire days of lessons.

I was also advised that proposing such an opt-out could be open to legal challenge under human rights legislation, as it infringed the rights of children and young people who have the capacity to decide for themselves. I passionately believe that relationships and sexuality lessons, particularly for the youngest children, should be a matter for parents and not for the state to decide. We have seen parents soundly reject the removal of parental opt-outs, not just once but twice. So, you have to wonder whether the fact that it is now nigh on impossible to remove children from relationships and sexuality lessons is by design. I don't see any choice but to reject the Bill in its entirety. However, I want to support some of the amendments in this group. 

I support the addition of menstrual well-being to the curriculum. Some children suffer with potentially debilitating symptoms of endometriosis for the majority of their school life, and learning about menstrual well-being in school will mean that young children will not have to suffer in silence. I will support Darren Millar's amendment seeking to restore some form of parental opt-out and his attempt to ensure that the RSE code looks at the nature of long-term relationships, including marriage, and their importance for family life and the bringing up of their children. So, whilst I accept that my rejection of the Government's decisions on RSE will carry little weight, I hope that others who share my concerns will also support amendments 20 to 22, 40 and 41. At least with these amendments, we can limit the impact. Diolch yn fawr. 

I call the Minister, Kirsty Williams. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is a large group of amendments with quite a variety of potential impacts on the legislation, so I'm going to try to go through them not necessarily in order, but in groups, if that's okay, starting with the easiest first. That is amendment number 40 in the name of Suzy Davies, which enables learners in years 12 and 13 in schools to request RSE, and where it is requested, the headteacher of such a school is required to provide it. This broadly matches, as Suzy said, the system that is in place for RVE for learners in school sixth forms, and whilst our view has always been that the Curriculum for Wales is a broad and balanced curriculum for the age groups 3 to 16, the points that Suzy and the committee have made with regard to older children I think are persuasive ones. Therefore, I would urge Members to support amendment number 40 that is tabled today. I think it's right to say that there are certain aspects of relationships and sexuality education that may be closer to the lived experience of the learner during this particular part of their growing up years, and therefore, having the opportunity to have a safe and constructive place to talk about issues that they may be going through at that particular time is relevant, so I do hope Members will support amendment 40.

Then, turning to amendments 2 and 4, which are related to the issue of menstrual health. Can I thank Suzy Davies and Jenny Rathbone for their comments in the debate today about the importance of ensuring that all of our children, both boys and girls, are well educated and have the information that they need to understand this perfectly natural process? For too many years and for too many children, that has not been the case, and the consequences of that are significant. But Suzy and Jenny talked about the difficulties sometimes in identifying what a normal period should be, and unless we discuss these issues, how is a woman able to make a judgement about the state of her own health and take the necessary steps to seek help for a condition? And we know for many, many, many, many women and girls, they can suffer in silence for years rather than actively seek treatment that can alleviate their symptoms and negate the impact that certain conditions such as endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome or simply very, very heavy periods can have on their physical health, their mental well-being, and their ability to do what they want to do with their lives.

Now again, in the spirit of trying to stick to the principles of how the Bill is created, but also wanting to ensure that there is certainty around this issue, then I absolutely do commit and have received reassurances that menstrual well-being and health will be part of our statutory RSE code, and as Suzy alluded to in her debate, that code will be subject—thanks to amendments that I brought forward in Stage 2—to a vote here in the Senedd. So, it is the Senedd Members themselves that will be able to actually vote on that code. So, I hope, Suzy, that provides the assurance that you need that these subjects will be there, will be required to be taught, and that issues around sexual health and well-being, our bodies and body image, will be a really, really important part of that code going forward.

If I can therefore then turn to the other amendments in the group, can I ask the Senedd to resist amendment 41? There is a strong focus on developing healthy relationships in the new curriculum, and becoming healthy, confident individuals is of course one of the four purposes of our new curriculum, to enable learners to develop those healthy relationships that are so fundamental to all of us. In the new curriculum, the health and well-being AoLE is about developing the capacity of learners to navigate life's opportunities and its challenges, and the fundamental components of this area are physical health and development, mental health and emotional social well-being and understanding healthy relationships is clearly core to this.

High quality RSE has a vital role to play in supporting learners in recognising healthy, safe relationships and understanding, and developing respect for, differences between people, and the diversity of relationships that we see reflected around us in a modern Wales. Now, RSE will gradually enable our children and young people to develop an understanding of the importance of those relationships throughout life, beginning, of course, with our youngest children, with their friends and their families, and including what makes a happy and healthy committed relationship when they are older. 

Additionally, what's really important to recognise is that the draft guidance published as part of the Curriculum for Wales is very clear that the curriculum should be designed to meet the needs of a school's individual learner. As a part of this, there should be an ongoing conversation with the whole school and beyond, engaging with both parents and carers and the wider community, and it should be informed by the school’s values and ethos, as well as by its location and surroundings. So, Suzy and Darren, far from wanting to curtail debate and discussion with parents, our expectation is that that will happen. This is the whole ethos of the new curriculum: to engage on the development of it with parents, carers and the wider community. That applies to all areas, not just RSE. Suzy, you will know that I do not want to single out RSE for this specific legislative treatment, as I think that will contribute to the damaging narrative that some people are determined to pursue out there that RSE is somewhat different and dangerous. It's not. It is absolutely supportive of our learners’ mental health, their well-being, and, as Lynne Neagle pointed out, ultimately their safety. That's why I hope people will resist those amendments.

I also would ask Members to resist amendments 8 and 10. As I have outlined previously, the curriculum guidance is very clear that a curriculum should be designed to meet the needs of schools' individual learners, and as part of this, there should be those ongoing conversations. That does include RSE.  

I resist amendment 42. Now, I understand and I recognise that RSE raises complex issues that permeate throughout our lives. The Bill includes provisions to ensure RSE is provided pluralistically. The change of the name, for instance, with the focus away from the sex bit of it and the focus very much on the relationship, tells you all you need to know about this Government's approach. There is a reason behind that. It indicates the breadth of the subject and concepts that should be included. How many times, when we talked in a previous Parliament about domestic violence, did we talk about the need to educate children—again, both boys and girls—about what a healthy relationship looks like, and what our own personal responsibilities are within a relationship to treat other individuals with respect?

As Darren says, it does provide for a code, and I take your point, Darren. I haven't made it easier for myself. If the code was here, perhaps some of these things could have been avoided, and I take that. There's no getting away from it. I haven't made it easier for myself. But I hope that by bringing forward the amendments at Stage 2, which give Senedd Members—whether in this Senedd, but probably, likely, the new one—the opportunity to vote on the code, it should give reassurance that we're not trying to sneak anything through here, or be divisive, or not be fully transparent—. There will be an opportunity for Members to vote, to scrutinise that code, and to vote on it, and if they don't approve of what's in that code, then those Members will be able to vote it down. So, the ultimate power is not here in the hands of me, as the current Minister, or indeed a future Minister. The power will be with Members of the Senedd.

Of course, the code will also be required to be developmentally appropriate for the age of the pupils. I know that sometimes people say, 'Well, how can that possibly happen, because in the classroom, you're going to have children at different stages of their development?' Our teachers are well skilled in differentiation. They do this every single day of their working lives. We need to support them to do that within RSE, and that's what the code will be there, and the statutory guidance will be there, to do.

With regard to amendments 20, 21 and 22, which would allow learners to be excluded from receiving relationship and sexuality education by their parents, parents of course absolutely have a central role to play as educators of their children, and there is nothing in this legislation that prevents them from continuing to do that, and to be able to have those conversations with their own children. But we've also just said that schools also have a role, and I think that role is now more important than ever. Schools have the potential to create a safe and empowering environment to build upon learners' formal and informal learning and experiences. And as Lynne Neagle said, sometimes the children that need this support the most are those children, for whatever reason, that aren't able to get that support at home, and school becomes even more crucial in creating that safe space for them. 

We've all said this afternoon that it's really important that children get to learn about these subjects, but then some of us have said, 'Unless the parents decide it's not.' As we consider the impact of COVID-19, I recently became aware of a teacher who, while conducting well-being check-ins, became aware of a group of young men who during the summer holidays had had the courage and had been brave enough to admit to that teacher that they had developed a pornography habit. And they had reached out to that teacher to be able to express their worries and their concerns about that, and that teacher was reaching out, looking for support to be able to help those young men in those circumstances. If they have the courage to come forward and talk about those issues, I believe we absolutely have to have the courage to respond to that positively, and to ensure that all of our children have the right to be able to be in that safe space in their schools to receive the support that we're talking about today.

Darren, you talk about rights, and so did Lynne Neagle. This is absolutely a children's rights-in-action approach. Now, the right to express a preference to how your children should be educated is not an absolute right, and the Bill is entirely compatible with the European convention on human rights, including article 2 and article 9. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, I think I've covered the amendments that have been laid. As I said, I hope Members will support amendment 40. I hope that Suzy Davies will take my assurances with regards to the inclusion of menstrual health and withdraw amendments 2 and 4, and I urge Members to resist the others in the group. Diolch yn fawr. 

Suzy Davies to reply to the debate. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and thank you to everyone who's taken part in this debate. I hope Members won't mind if I just take this chance to give a really big shout out to the Children, Young People and Education Committee at this time—to Lynne and to the witnesses who came before us with evidence from all different points of view and, of course, to the committee staff, because I cannot overstate the commitment of everybody on that committee to being thoroughly scrupulous and always sensitive in interrogating the evidence that we heard in our consideration of this. And we came, of course, to an unanimous conclusion after serious scrutiny, and always with the paramountcy of children's welfare at the forefront of our minds. Can I just point out again how willing the Minister was to agree to the point on post-16 RSE, and I'm grateful to her for her help with that?

Just briefly, Caroline Jones and Darren Millar both talked about human rights in the round. We spent a lot of time considering human rights on this committee, the place of protocol 1, article 2 that Darren referred to, how that is read alongside other children's rights and, of course, being advised that we're talking all the time about qualified rather than absolute rights. And I could see that Caroline Jones had very similar advice to the advice that we heard from our lawyers.

There'll be people watching this who are going to be disappointed if the amendments on menstrual well-being don't pass. As the Minister said, it's so important for boys as well as girls to know about this. And I think it's the first time, at least that I can remember, that women's health, apart from cancer, has seen this level of public attention. There's a real will now in society to make better progress on this. This impetus reinforces how taking notice of this, as we are doing now, impacts on so many other policy areas—just things like the provision of public toilets, the design of buildings, guidance to employers, budgeting. So, it's not just menstruating women who are going to benefit from this better understanding of this natural life experience. But it won't have escaped Members' notice, and I am going to say this, Llywydd, as I can, that it's taken women MSs to bring this to the point of legislation, and it's not just me, Llywydd. We've heard from Jenny, but there are other female Members in this Chamber today who really pushed on this agenda, and the benefits of this education to men would never have seen the light of day if this Senedd didn't have women prepared to drag this into the light and make it a priority, and show that what may look like a women's subject at first instance is in fact a society subject.

I'm very pleased to hear what the Minister has had to say. Unlike the position with life skills, though, we don't know, as of today, precisely what the RSE code will say about menstrual health. That missing step was relied on by Darren Millar to support some of his amendments too. So, slightly counterintuitively, I'm going to push these amendments to a vote today not because the Minister has not offered assurance, for which we are hopefully all grateful here today, but to remind the Members that when they get to vote on the code in the next Senedd, they need to scrutinise it closely enough to ensure that it is strong enough, well informed by the campaigners, and it does what it needs to in order for it to be effectively taught in schools. But that's the only reason I'm going to put them to the vote, Llywydd. Diolch.

The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. There is objection, and therefore we will move to a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions and 28 against. And therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

Before we move on to group 4, I'll just say that I am aware that one Member, Neil McEvoy, did try to object to the proposal to withdraw amendment 1, so that's a matter of record. Neil McEvoy wasn't seen by the Deputy Presiding Officer at that point. If I could remind you all to keep your cameras on as much as possible. Certainly, if you are participating either in the debate or wish to participate in voting time, then please do keep your camera on and don't leave it too late before expressing your view and turning your camera on.

So, I will now move to group 4, and the fourth group of amendments relates to the history and diversity of Wales. Amendment 43 is the lead amendment, and I call on Siân Gwenllian to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you for the opportunity to open the debate on group 4. Supporting amendment 43 would add the sentence

'The History of Wales in all of its diversity, including Black and People of Colour History'

to the list of mandatory elements within the areas of learning and experience. It would be in addition to what we've just been discussing, namely relationship and sexuality education, and be in addition to RVE also as mandatory elements on the face of the Bill.

Supporting amendment 44 would make it a requirement for the 'what matters' code to note how an understanding of key historical events of Wales and the world would be provided across AoLEs. During our Stage 2 debate, the Minister quite fairly highlighted the fact that the history of Wales is not a matter for humanities alone, and amendment 44 recognises that point, making an understanding of the key historical events, in all their diversity, a cross-curricular issue.

Amendments 46, 47 and 48 would make it a requirement for every curriculum in every school to be planned in order to allow pupils to develop a common understanding of the diverse history, cultural heritage, ethnic diversity, identities, experiences and perspectives of Wales. So, following on from the Stage 2 amendments, we've listened to the advice of the education Minister and have changed our approach in seeking to deliver our objectives. In rejecting these amendments, it will not be possible to provide consistency and assurance that every pupil in Wales will have the experience of learning about the rich and diverse history of our nation.

The Children and Young People Committee, in its report on the Bill, has noted that the Government needs to strike the right balance between local flexibility and consistency at a national level. Ensuring that every pupil in Wales learnt about key historical events of national significance would help them to become informed citizens with cultural and political information, which would be crucial, and I believe that including this on the face of the Bill would strike that right balance between the need for consistency at the national level and flexibility at the local level.

The amendments would also secure equal access to education in history, which is crucial to ensure equality in education across Wales. In order to help tackle structural injustice and racism and to promote racial and cultural diversity, we must secure education for all pupils on the history of black people and people of colour. And by ensuring that Welsh history has a statutory basis in the Bill, we can ensure that teachers are able access the necessary information about Welsh history, providing the necessary guidance in order to support teachers and to develop their confidence in teaching a subject that can be complex, but one that is crucial, just as we've discussed in relation to RSE. We need major structural change to tackle racism, and we need to promote identities and diversity within Wales to be a cross-curricular theme that deserves the same status and consistency of approach as other areas.

The Minister's argument is likely to be that the Bill provides a framework without much detail, but she does argue that certain issues need clarity and specific focus, and that's her argument for including RSE on the face of the Bill. My argument is that that is also entirely appropriate in terms of the addition of the history of Wales in all of its diversity. And the fact that RSE and RVE are included on the face of the Bill does open the door to the addition of other issues of national importance too—issues that can be transformational in their nature, and for the very same reasons as we have discussed in relation to RSE. I would therefore assert that there is a lack of rationality in terms of rejecting this as a mandatory element and, therefore, that the Bill is deficient because it is not consistent in that regard. Thank you, Llywydd. I look forward to hearing the debate and the response.

The Minister is next—Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for that. And can I thank Siân Gwenllian for opening this group of amendments' debate, and also for Siân's support in the previous group, which has been steadfast throughout this entire process? So, I'm grateful to Siân and Plaid Cymru for their commitment in that regard.

Can I start with amendment 43? I urge Members to resist this amendment. As I have explained previously in this debate, references in the 'what matters' statement are already mandatory within the Curriculum for Wales. So, I want to make it absolutely clear that these issues cannot be dodged by any school. I have listened to the Member's views in the Stage 2 debate, and I am committed to expanding the wording within the 'what matters' statement, which will become the 'what matters' code, to make this even clearer. I have discussed this with Professor Charlotte Williams, who is content that we should put these matters beyond any doubt by an explicit and clear reference to black, Asian and minority ethnic stories in the 'what matters' code. Professor Williams has been very clear in her support for the Bill and this approach to black, Asian and minority ethnic stories, and I'm also aware of the wider support for Professor Williams's work with us across the communities and peoples of Wales. I'm delighted that Professor Williams has agreed to continue to work with us after the publication of her final report to implement the recommendations—holding this Government's feet to the fire. Sometimes in Government, reports are published by eminent specialists, but then there is something lacking in the implementation. I hope that having that commitment from Professor Williams to continue to work with us on the implementation gives Members confidence that we will not just talk about it, we will actually do it.

Moving on, then, to amendment 44, I have to say that, again, this is already mandatory. Schools need to be anti-racist as well as promote diversity and an understanding of black, Asian and minority ethnic stories, and the upcoming consultation on the race equality action plan will set out how important this commitment is to promoting an understanding of diversity in teaching and learning, and how that sits alongside active policies to address racism. The key concepts that form the proposed 'what matters' code have been developed in a process of co-construction owned by practitioners, against a clear set of criteria. And I have to say, whilst I appreciate that Siân Gwenllian says that she has taken some advice in terms of drafting amendment 44, what the amendment suggests would limit and narrow the study of the matters of Welsh history and identity and of black, Asian and minority ethnic stories not within, now, the subject of history—so, we've moved on from that, and I'm glad of that—but we've simply moved to the issue of maintaining that within the humanities area of learning and experience, and I think there is a danger in that. I've been clear throughout this process that, through statutory guidance, diversity, the history of Wales and all of its cultures, is something that schools should embed across each of the six areas of learning and experience.

So, what Siân Gwenllian talks about is absolutely important, and I would argue that the mandatory nature of the 'what matters' code means that those subjects will be taught, but I don't want to see these subjects contained merely within the humanities area of learning and experience. Why should not the stories of Wales be explored through the lessons of literacy and communication, in the texts that schools choose to study? Do our stories not find a place in our expressive arts, in the production of drama, music and dance? Do these experiences of our diverse communities and the impact of our experience within those diverse communities not have a role to play in the teaching of health and well-being? So, I would argue that what we have here in the Bill is the opportunity for Welsh histories in all of their diversity to be explored, not just within a single subject, not just within an AoLE, but actually to have those histories and experiences reinforced in cross-curricular work across all elements of the curriculum. That's been a really important piece of advice from Charlotte Williams, who says, too often, when we have talked about these issues, they have been confined to a single topic within a single subject, and it's not reflective of the contribution of our diverse communities right the way across all aspects of our lives.

As I said, we will amend the words to make it even more explicit, to provide the confidence that they need. But let me be absolutely clear, the legislation before us today absolutely expects, demands and will ensure that Welsh histories and the experiences of our black, Asian and minority ethnic communities are taught in every school in Wales, and I want to be absolutely clear that that is our expectation, and the legislation before us provides for that.

Siân Gwenllian to reply.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. Amendment 44 does what you claim it does not do. Amendment 44 reads like this:

'The What Matters Code must set out how an understanding of the key historical events of Wales and the world, including—

'(a) Black and People of Colour History,

'(b) Black, Asian and minority ethnic experiences and contributions, and

'(c) the histories of racism and diversity,

'will be ensured across areas of learning and experience.’

I couldn't be more explicit that the intention of this amendment is to promote this area outside of the humanities to be exactly what you were saying it should be. So, you perhaps are deliberately taking us in a different direction to what we intend to deliver through these amendments.

If this area is to be mandatory, as you state will be, and that it will be mandatory through the 'what matters' statements, then what's the problem with supporting these amendments before us today? That isn't going to make any difference, is it? It will be on the face of the Bill if you support our amendments, and everything that you describe will flow down from that and will emerge from that. For me, that's the purpose of legislation: you state things quite clearly if you want everything else to filter down from there, and, if it's going to be in the guidance in any case, I don't understand your argument for not promoting it to be included on the face of the Bill.

I return to this point: you have decided to put RSE as a mandatory issue on the face of the Bill—excellent—and you're doing that so that everything else can flow from that decision. I can't understand the logic why not to put an area that is so crucially important for the development of our nation as we move forward and in respecting diversity and eradicating racism from our society. That too needs to be on the face of the Bill so that transformation that needs to happen can happen and can be given the valid status that it deserves. So, I would urge you to support our amendments here. Thank you. 

The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection, and therefore we'll move to a vote on amendment 43, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. [Inaudible.] In favour 20, two abstentions, 31 against. 

We move now to group 5, which relates to Welsh and English languages. Amendment 34 is the lead amendment. I call on Gareth Bennett to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Gareth Bennett. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I formally move the amendments tabled in my name and supported by Mark Reckless, which are moved with the support also of the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party. This group of amendments deals with the provision of Welsh teaching. The amendments I am moving today seek to reflect the fact that Wales has many different parts and they do not all have the same level of Welsh speaking. Rather than try to create one policy for the whole of Wales, which would be a waste of precious resources, we feel that Welsh language provision should be appropriate to the needs of the local population. We think, on the whole, that it would be better to focus resources on saving and keeping open rural schools in Welsh-speaking west Wales, rather than letting those schools close, which is what has been happening and what continues to happen. But we can't do anything to keep those schools open if we waste money on an all-Wales policy designed to hit some arbitrary target of 1 million Welsh speakers, because ultimately what does having 1 million Welsh speakers actually mean? What does it actually mean if you teach 1 million people to say 'bore da' and 'noswaith dda'? Is that actually a meaningful achievement and is it a useful employment of limited resources? Is it better to get all those people to be able to smile and say 'bore da' and not much else, or is it better to actually target local communities in Welsh-speaking Wales, keep schools open, keep community centres open and keep Welsh going as a living language, because that is what we're in danger of losing? 

Now, turning to our specific amendments today, the Welsh Government's amendments to their own Bill, laid at Stage 2, allow for some Welsh-medium schools to be allowed not to teach any English until age eight. So, the emphasis here is on schools being allowed to choose what is the best approach for their pupils. Our amendment 35 today allows a similar right for English-medium schools to be allowed not to teach any Welsh until age eight, which, again, will allow the schools to decide the best approach. To some extent, this may be regarded as a probing amendment. If the Welsh Government doesn't think, for whatever reason, that this is the right approach, then they may need to revisit their enthusiasm for their own amendments allowing Welsh-medium schools to opt out of teaching pupils English.

Our amendment 37 seeks to insert a new Schedule into the Bill that devolves to local authorities the power to decide if and to what degree Welsh should be compulsory in English-medium schools between years 4 and 11—in other words, between the ages of eight and 16. Local councils would be able to come to their own decisions on this matter after appropriate consultations with their own local people and with regard to the proportion of Welsh speakers in their own area. 

Amendments 38 and 39 are needed if amendments 35 to 37 are agreed. If amendments 35 and 37 are not agreed, then in that event I wouldn't push for a vote for the other two amendments. 

To sum up, what we do need is a localised approach, rather than a one-size-fits-all policy, and what we also need is an element of choice, rather than compulsion, over how we decide to teach the Welsh language in different parts of Wales. To that end, I commend to the Siambr today these amendments. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

Our amendments in group 5 relate to the teaching of Welsh in our schools, and passing them would provide far more detail, and would provide consistency and an assurance that every child will have an equal opportunity to acquire our nation's language. The Welsh Government is committed to establishing a single continuum for the teaching of Welsh and to scrapping Welsh as a second language, and it has done so since 2015. The continuum would secure continuity in teaching and educating across the curriculum, and particularly in moving from the primary to the secondary sector. But, although they have committed to establishing a continuum, it hasn't happened, and the reality of the situation is that this Bill will not create a single continuum for teaching Welsh either. What this Bill will do is to recreate and entrench the current position, a position that is failing. We have two systems sitting alongside each other, and that's what we will have unless you accept the Plaid Cymru amendments in this group today. 

Aled Roberts, the Welsh Language Commissioner, agrees with that view, and states that the general framework for the curriculum—. Or rather, he argues that the general framework of the curriculum as it currently stands will not stimulate the changes that are necessary. If the curriculum places clear expectations, then the rest of the education system will follow and adapt to that. If the curriculum doesn't lead in this area, then the likelihood is that weaknesses in terms of teacher skills, school capacity, qualifications and resources will lead to a never-ending cycle that will continue to hinder improvements in pupils' Welsh-language skills in Wales.

Our amendments provide two possible ways forward. During Stage 2, the Minister rejected my amendment that would have established a code for teaching Welsh on a single continuum. I am still convinced that that is the best way forward, and that a code would be the best solution to the problem that we're seeking to resolve. That's the purpose of amendment 45.

Amendment 49 adds a new section, and you have a choice here—you could support this if you don't want to support the code, or you could support both, of course. But amendment 49 would add a new section that would establish a statutory Welsh language framework that would provide clear guidance on the implementation of the continuum. We desperately need to provide clear support for the English-medium sector as well as the local authorities, regional consortia and others within the education system on how to implement a single continuum that develops the Welsh-language skills of pupils, as happens in every other subject area. The Minister did refer to this in the Children, Young People and Education Committee on 29 January, and she did refer and suggest that there was a possibility that she may be in favour of a statutory framework. I look forward to seeing if she is still of the same view. Passing amendment 49 would secure that. The Welsh language education organisations all support the establishment of such a framework, and they argue that that's required on the face of the Bill in order to provide a statutory basis and a clear signal to the education sector on the Welsh Government's seriousness in implementing the continuum effectively.

There is an opportunity here to ensure that different aspects of the Welsh Government's strategy in relation to the education system in securing 1 million Welsh speakers are clearly interlinked, and that there is a way forward in ensuring that 55 per cent of pupils are able to speak Welsh at the end of their statutory education in 2027, and 70 per cent by 2050, which is the Government's own target, of course. A framework would enable us to move towards that, and would lead to fundamental changes in teaching practices, planning, continuity and significant development in terms of pedagogy and the linguistic skills of the education workforce. We need clear statutory guidance in terms of what's expected over the short, medium and longer term in terms of outcomes and action plans, and that is the purpose of our amendments to seek to secure that. Thank you.

The Minister to contribute, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was very pleased to be able to respond positively to the CYPE committee's recommendation to make English compulsory from seven to 16, while Welsh remains compulsory from three to 16. In Stage 2, I laid Government amendments that will allow the practice of Welsh immersion education to continue without any disapplication process. I also laid an amendment that places a duty on Welsh Ministers to promote access to and the availability of courses of study available through the medium of Welsh that lead to a qualification or a set of qualifications under the Qualifications Wales Act 2015. This is to replace the current duty on local authorities that will cease to apply when the new curriculum framework replaces the local curricula for 14 to 16-year-olds.

The Stage 2 amendments that I laid and were accepted give a clear emphasis to Welsh language learning within the new curriculum. They also aim to protect, support and promote the Welsh language by removing any perceived barriers to the use of Welsh immersion in our schools—immersion that has given the gift of the language to my three children.

As a Government, we have to be absolutely clear, and we have been clear, that we want to increase the number of those who can speak Welsh, not decrease them. And make no mistake, colleagues, amendment 34 will decrease the number of Welsh speakers. It does so under a veneer of equality, but those of us that understand the language know that we aren't dealing with two languages that are spoken by equal numbers, and the amendment will entrench the already existing inequality between our two national languages and deprive our children—deprive our children—of their birthright, the ability to speak both.

Not only does this go against our policy as a Government and the consensus of support that I believe used to exist in this Senedd and, indeed, the country, it also goes against the evidence of experts in language acquisition. It is vitally important that learners, especially those in English medium, are given a secure foundation in Welsh, and that’s why we have made Welsh mandatory from age three. And I strongly urge Members to reject this damaging amendment.

In January this year, I published the curriculum implementation plan, which sets out our next steps to work with our key stakeholders to develop a Welsh language framework. This will provide particular support for those teaching Welsh language in English-medium schools, and will also progress all learners along a single language continuum. 

I cannot accept amendments 45 and 50 to introduce a teaching Welsh on a single continuum code. As I explained to the committee at Stage 2 proceedings, a code of this kind would apply to all practitioners, including Welsh teachers in Welsh-medium schools. I believe that this would limit their creativity and agency in a way that their English teaching colleagues are not subjected to, and I would not presume to tell Welsh-medium educators how to teach their learners in Welsh-medium schools and I really do not believe or consider it necessary.

Extra guidance for teaching Welsh already exists in the literacy framework, and this can be used by teachers in Welsh-medium schools to teach Welsh. It is clear to me, and this is where I agree with Siân Gwenllian, that the main issue here is not the teaching of Welsh, as such, but an improvement in the teaching of Welsh in some of our English-medium and bilingual schools, and I have committed to work with stakeholders to develop and implement a Welsh language framework that can support teachers in English-medium schools to help their learners progress along the language continuum quickly and successfully. I therefore urge Members to vote against amendments 45 and 50.

With regard to amendments 35, 36, 37 and 39, which seek to introduce a duty on local authorities to publish a Welsh language requirements plan, I do have to ask the question, Presiding Officer, 'Why?' We already have Welsh in education strategic plans, in which local authorities set out how they're going to increase the number of Welsh-medium provision places in an area, and we have a curriculum where Welsh is mandatory for three to 16 in all of our schools. So, why do we need this plan?

The reality is, of course, because the proposers want to reduce the amount of Welsh taught in our schools, and deny, as I said, the right of our young people to be taught both their national languages. I have a very different vision for Welsh to the backward-looking nature of these proposals. I want to see our young people being proud, confident speakers of both our languages, and indeed many more, and therefore I urge Members most strongly to reject these amendments that want to take us back to the past rather than forward to a brighter bilingual future.

I mentioned earlier a Welsh language framework to support practitioners in English-medium and bilingual schools when discussing the teaching Welsh on a single continuum code. I believe the best way to address the teaching of Welsh in some of our English-medium and bilingual schools is a framework for teaching Welsh that is flexible enough to be targeted at those schools that require this extra support, but does not constrain the agency and creativity of teachers who do not require it. I understand the intention behind amendment 49, to make it a duty for Welsh Ministers to issue such a framework, but at this stage I cannot support that amendment.

Firstly, it requires those persons listed to have regard to the framework in everything that they do in this Bill, and I believe that is an overly onerous requirement, as some of the decisions taken will have nothing to do with the teaching of Welsh. Secondly, it is a framework that would apply to all schools, so once again we would be saying to all practitioners, including Welsh teachers in Welsh-medium schools, that they need to be told how to teach Welsh, and I have already stated my position on that. Finally, I would direct Members' attentions to powers that Welsh Ministers have under section 69 to issue guidance—guidance to which the persons listed in the amendment must have regard. These powers can be used to issue guidance to support the teaching and learning of Welsh in the way that the Member envisages, and I want that guidance to be targeted at English-medium and bilingual schools, where I believe it is needed the most.

So, there are a number of reasons why I cannot support this amendment, but I do of course support the thinking behind it, and I am happy to state again today that we will be working with our partners to develop such a framework to support the improvement of teaching Welsh in English-medium schools. This will be done, as always with the curriculum, in the spirit of co-construction involving practitioners, stakeholders and experts, and I'm very pleased to have received a request from those that have expertise in this area, demonstrating their willingness and indeed their enthusiasm to participate in such work. And I do believe that Ministers should use their powers under section 69 to issue that on a statutory basis.

Finally, we come to amendment 38, which attempts to define what an English-medium school is. The amendment does not say how the amount of teaching in English is to be measured and in practice that will give rise to significant difficulties. We are, of course, as a Government, consulting separately on non-statutory language categories for all schools, not just English medium. If a future Senedd wants to make them statutory, the right approach would be to do that for all categories of all schools, so that it is done properly. I sincerely hope that the person that is fortunate enough to have this job after me will put those categories on a statutory footing. This amendment is only there for the purpose, once again, of decreasing the amount of Welsh in English-medium schools, alongside the other amendments that we've heard Gareth Bennett talk about today, and I would ask Members to reject them in the strongest possible terms. Thank you.

Gareth Bennett to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thanks to Siân and to Kirsty for their contributions to the debate.

Siân's comments were largely pertaining to the need to develop a single continuum for the teaching of Welsh, which, in itself, is an admirable concept, but of course it is aligned to the pursuit of the target of 1 million Welsh speakers, which, as a party—my own party, Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party—we are inherently sceptical about this target. We are worried that, effectively, it'll be little more than a tick-box exercise and there will be a lack of meaningfulness in the quality of the Welsh language that's provided to many of these 1 million people that are targeted, and that was what I sought to address in my contribution. Siân, of course, developed her points with her usual eloquence, so I can't detract from that, but nevertheless, of course, my party won't support those precise points. We are intending to abstain on her amendments.

Turning to the Minister's comments, she used a lot of emotional or emotive language about deprivation and denial of people's birthright. The real deprivation is the loss of a living language, and pushing something that is just a waste of resources and a tick-box exercise is not going to do anything to develop Welsh as a living language and to keep it going as a living language. What we need is to target those resources, which is what I was talking about in my contribution; not a load of emotive nonsense, which is what the Minister tends to specialise in on this subject. The real denial, despite her talk of a brighter future, is the loss of Welsh in the future as a living community language, unless scarce resources are targeted in the right way, which is what our amendments aim to address.

So, thank you very much for listening, everybody, and thank you for your contributions and hopefully, we will proceed to the vote. Diolch yn fawr.

The question is that amendment 34 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. Therefore, we will move to a vote on amendment 34 in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour five, two abstentions and 47 against. Therefore, amendment 34 is not agreed.

Amendment 3, is it moved, Suzy Davies?

No, it's not moved.

So, there'll be no vote on amendment 3.

Amendment 44, Siân Gwenllian, is it moved?

It is.

Amendment 44 has been moved. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 44 in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, two abstentions, and 32 against. Therefore amendment 44 is not agreed.

Amendment 52, Llyr Gruffydd. Is it moved?

It is.

We move to a vote, therefore, on amendment 52 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. Is there any objection to amendment 52? [Objection.] There is. Therefore, we'll move to a vote on amendment 52. Open the vote. In favour 20, two abstentions, and 32 against. Therefore amendment 52 is not agreed.

Suzy Davies, do you wish to move amendment 4?

Yes, formally.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. We'll, therefore, move to a vote on amendment 4. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, and 29 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.

Amendment 41, Darren Millar. Is it moved?

Yes, I move.

The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 41 in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, two abstentions, and 39 against. Therefore amendment 41 is not agreed.

Our next group of amendments is group 6. These relate to minor and technical amendments. The lead amendment is amendment 30, and I call on the Minister for Education to speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Amendments 30 and 32 are minor and technical changes to update the Bill. I have introduced amendment 33 to amend section 68 of the Bill. As drafted, the Bill does not allow regulations to modify the Bill's provisions when applying them to detained children and young persons. Given their circumstances, some modifications could be necessary. This minor amendment will provide that appropriate flexibility. I therefore ask Members of the Senedd to accept amendments 30, 32 and 33. Thank you.

I have no speakers. I assume the Minister doesn't wish to reply to the debate. Therefore, the question is that amendment 30 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection, and I therefore call for a vote on amendment 30. Open the vote. In favour 48, four abstentions and one against, and therefore amendment 30 is agreed.

Amendment 45, Siân Gwenllian, is it moved?

It is. Move.

The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 45, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 19, two abstentions and 33 against. Therefore, amendment 45 is not agreed.

Amendment 53, Llyr Gruffydd.

Move.

Is there any objection to amendment 53? [Objection.] Yes, there is. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 53, in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, nine abstentions and 32 against. Therefore, amendment 53 is not agreed.

Siân Gwenllian, amendment 46—is it moved?

Move.

The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 46, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, two abstentions and 32 against. Therefore, amendment 46 is not agreed.

Our next group is group 7, and the amendments relate to implementation and advice. The lead amendment is amendment 5. I call on Suzy Davies to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 5. Minister, the thrust of these amendments will be familiar to you from Stage 2, but we have tweaked them a little bit to see if we can make progress here. Amendments 5 and 7 are to be read together, and allow schools to be able to delay the implementation of the curriculum by up to a year, provided that—and it is a big proviso—no pupil is disadvantaged by the decision. Basically, schools will have to make up for that lost time. These amendments don't seek to delay implementation of the curriculum per se, and those schools that can do this should just get on with it, but the amendment is for schools that just won't be able to. I am mindful of your concern that some school leaders might see this as a green light to slacken off the pace, and, to be honest, I think that we have some heads who are so close to burnout that maybe they just need that extra time.

While you agreed at Stage 2 that I'd identified, and I'm quoting here, 'a real issue', your solution was more support rather than a short delay for those who might need it. So, it hasn't been a surprise that the demand for training has shot up in recent months. But the one thing a commitment of more support cannot do is create time. The disruption of the pandemic has driven teachers to think about things differently, and many will have called on ideas in the new curriculum to actually accelerate progress on their own new skills—digital competence and understanding of well-being are the obvious ones—and your implementation plan will also give some new steer. But the bottom line is that teachers will be caught up in 'recruit, recover and raise standards' for the foreseeable future. There will be some schools with high numbers of the most badly affected children, and they will need time, not just support. Too many of those concerns voiced by teachers who weren't in the pilot schools, if you like, are still there.

Amendment 12 is a simple probing amendment requiring Welsh Ministers to review the curriculum. At Stage 2, Minister, you confirmed that there will be regular reviews. So, this amendment is here as an opportunity for two things, really: first, so that you can give us some detail or reassure us on how reviews will be reported upon, and then, importantly for us—this came in up in the CYPE committee—how Members could influence the evaluation questions. Reports on Government performance aren't much use to us if they don't answer the questions that Members think matter most to constituents, and so I'd be interested in the thoughts of the Minister and, actually, other Members on a practical way forward, not least because it may start to set a precedent for the way that reviews might be conducted in other areas of policy in the future. The role of Members of the Senedd is pretty important here, I think. I know in the last 10 years or so I've sat on statements or listened to debates on reports when I've thought, 'I didn't really need to know this stuff, but what I did want to know hasn't been covered.' So, that's all amendment 12 is about. Thank you.

The Minister to contribute—Kirsty Williams. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to Suzy Davies. I would ask Members to resist amendments 5 and 7. I am very well aware and very sympathetic to the pressures that schools are under at the moment and the massive impact that COVID has had on their operations and their ability to teach as they would like. The priorities for us going forward, as part of our learning recovery, are to promote and enable high-quality teaching and learning, and to address the challenges for disadvantaged learners and those in key cohorts. These are also, it should be said, priorities for curriculum reform, and as I set out in my written statement alongside the curriculum implementation plan on 27 January, learning recovery is a path towards curriculum reform. It doesn't take us away from it. They are not alternatives, they are not either/ors, and there is no 'business as usual' now, so we must move ahead and grasp the opportunity that the new curriculum affords us.

My concern about this amendment is that actually what it could lead to is that those schools that are further behind in progressing with curriculum reform will be the ones that are delaying implementation, and I do not believe that that is right or that it is fair. These are the schools where we should put our efforts to support them, and enable them to move confidently towards curriculum reform. I believe that this amendment would risk creating a two-tier system, which would be confusing for schools, parents and learners and risk creating inequity between schools and learners. The solution, I truly believe, is to ensure that schools have the support they need to implement the curriculum. I have set this out in the curriculum implementation plan, which will be kept under review. A plan on recovery is also being developed to set out the support for schools that we will put in place as we move forward to the next phase of this pandemic. I would therefore urge Members to resist amendments 5 and 7.

With regard to amendment 12, again, I would point out that the curriculum implementation plan sets out clearly our priority areas of work for curriculum realisation. It also, in line with the regulatory impact assessment, sets out our intentions around evaluation and understanding progress. Our curriculum implementation plan already commits to annual reporting from the Welsh Government on the progress of implementation and the wider impacts of our reform on our well-being goals as a nation. That is, it'll focus on the difference that our reforms are making to learners and our aim that they should embody the four purposes and, as a nation, that we should achieve excellence in education and close the attainment gap.

Alongside this, of course, will sit the work of our partners, the work that they do with schools and settings to progress curriculum reform, including in particular Estyn's role in inspection and the regional consortia in helping to develop capacity and capability in the school system. The annual reporting process will provide the opportunity for debate on the floor of the Senedd, and will enable Members to share their priorities for implementation and feed back on key issues or any concerns.

So, I would ask, therefore, Members to resist amendment 12, although I agree with you, Suzy, it would be interesting to explore—unfortunately, it'll be neither of us doing that exploring—how the CYPE committee in particular can express their opinion on particular aspects of implementation reporting that they would like to see fed back on, and I think that's a perfectly legitimate thing that the committee should have a view on, although I suspect the person that takes on this job after me will regret the fact that I ever put this on the record. But that's my special parting gift to them, because I do believe there is a legitimate role for the Parliament to be able to frame some of these reporting requirements. Thank you very much.

Suzy Davies to respond to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you, Minister, for coming back to some of these points. I appreciate that your position won't particularly have changed from Stage 2 on the opportunities for a small number of schools, perhaps, to delay the implementation of the curriculum, and I do understand the arguments that you're putting forward as to why, perhaps, this amendment, you wouldn't be prepared to support it. What I'm not clear about, I suppose, is what happens on day 1 of the curriculum implementation. Some schools, despite any support they've had, are so far behind that they're actually in breach of this Bill. I’m hoping that the genuine answer to that will be, 'Well, obviously, they'll be at the front of the line for some quick catch-up of their own', if you're allowed to use the words 'catch-up' in the context of education these days. But it is a consideration, and I'm sure that both our successors will be on it, as they say, if that problem does arise.

I'm really grateful to you for your final comments on this. I understand it's quite difficult to try to introduce something specific in the course of a Bill like this one, but the role of committee is greater than it could be. I think you're quite right, the Parliament is the body that represents constituents, and we need to be able to ask the questions that they want answered. So, I hope your successor will look at this in the way that you have. I'm pretty sure that my successor is going to be delighted you've got this on the record, and if they happen to be in Government, all the better. Thank you. Diolch.

The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 5 in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote.

Close the vote.

In favour 14, three abstentions, and 37 against. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed.

Amendment 6, Suzy Davies. Is it moved?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. We move to a vote on amendment 6 in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 6 is not agreed.

Amendment 7, Suzy Davies.

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We therefore move to a vote on amendment 7 in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, three abstentions, and 37 against. Amendment 7 is not agreed.

Amendment 8, Suzy Davies.

Yes, please.

Is there any objection to amendment 8? [Objection.] There is. We'll move to a vote on amendment 8 in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 8 is not agreed.

Amendment 9, Suzy Davies.

Is it being moved, Suzy Davies?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore we move to a vote on amendment 9 in the name of Suzy Davies. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 9 is not agreed.

Amendment 10, Suzy Davies.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. We'll move to a vote on amendment 10 in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against, therefore the amendment is not agreed.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 54. Is it moved?

Move.

The question is that amendment 54 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 54. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, nine abstentions and 31 against, therefore amendment 54 is not agreed. 

Amendment 42, Darren Millar. Is it moved?

I move, yes. 

The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we'll move to a vote on amendment 42 in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, two abstentions and 39 against, therefore amendment 42 is not agreed. 

Amendment 35, Gareth Bennett. Is it moved?

Yes, I move. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 35 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we'll move to a vote on amendment 35 in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour three, three abstentions and 48 against, therefore amendment 35 is not agreed. 

Amendment 36, Gareth Bennett. 

I move, Llywydd.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we'll move to a vote on amendment 36 in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour three, three abstentions and 48 against, therefore amendment 36 is not agreed. 

Amendment 37, Gareth Bennett.

I don't move it, Llywydd, or 39.

Thank you. Therefore, amendment 37 is not moved, and amendment 39 in the name of Gareth Bennett is not moved.

That brings us, therefore, to group 8, and the amendments relate to religion, values and ethics. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 13, and I call on Suzy Davies to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Suzy Davies. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and I move amendment 13 and ask that Members bear with me on this. I appreciate it's getting late. 

Again, this group contains amendments that arise from issues of conscience, and Welsh Conservatives will have a free vote on those. However, we agree with the assertion that, should the Government view prevail, and that voluntary aided schools still find themselves in the position of having to provide two syllabuses if requested, then the cost of that extra work must be met by the state. Otherwise, you are discriminating against certain maintained schools as compared to others, but I'll let Darren Millar speak more fully to those amendments. 

Moving on to amendments 13, 14 and 15, could I begin by thanking the Minister once again for her close consideration of arguments made before Stage 2, and her introduction then of amendments that meant that all maintained schools, whether of a religious character or not, have the same relationship with the agreed RVE syllabus, namely that they all have to have regard to that syllabus? Originally, the cutting and pasting of existing words from other legislation had imposed a greater degree of observance of the agreed syllabus on voluntary aided schools than others, and that was discriminatory. 

My next concern, which hasn't been allayed, however, was that discrimination against those schools continued by imposing upon them a duty to provide two syllabuses if requested. Now that voluntary aided schools have to have regard to the agreed syllabus when deciding on their inevitably more denominational syllabus, that's been a step towards avoiding a situation where a request for a separate syllabus might be made, and I have accepted the oft-made argument by Catholic schools in particular that they've never had a problem providing a broad and balanced RE syllabus despite the religious character of their school, and have every confidence that they'll still be able to do that, because the agreed syllabus to which they must have regard, under the Minister's previous amendments, will have been agreed locally by a group of people still dominated by those of theocratic belief and principle. And the fact that there are other people in the world with strong non-theocratic beliefs should come as no surprise to pupils these days, and they should know about them. Can I just say at this point that I was assured in the Stage 2 debate that we were talking about people actively holding to a creed, if you like, rather than the passively disinterested areligious population at large?

But my personal confidence in voluntary aided schools being able to make sensible decisions I don't think is enough. What 'having regard' doesn't do is give voluntary aided schools any steer on how to balance that duty to have regard with their relationship with their own deeds and tenets. And we need to bear in mind that it is hard to argue that you've given regard to the agreed syllabus if you can still hide behind your deeds and tenets to effectively ignore it, and I don't think that's what schools of a religious character want to do. The reason they won't want to do it is that they're not going to want a child coming forward and claiming that regard has not been shown to the agreed syllabus and, therefore, requesting a separate syllabus. So, it's in the interest of voluntary aided schools to find a way of avoiding that. 

My proposal is to ensure that voluntary aided schools apply the same principle of 'have regard' to both the agreed syllabus and their deeds and tenets, and that removes both the temptation and the scope for a complaint that school leaders are treating these two pressures on their decision making in a less than equal way. It's not an extra burden on these schools, as they look to their deeds and tenets anyway in deciding on the school's religious education curriculum. So, along with amendment 16, these amendments help voluntary aided schools navigate the changes in this part of the new national curriculum in a less risky way.

Now, I understand that the deeds and tenets are critical to the ethos of a school of a religious character, otherwise we wouldn't have them. This is not about diminishing this; it is about removing the opportunity to leave out parts of a child's education that they would be getting elsewhere, about not depriving a child of knowledge of the world, and not closing down questions, or, if a school does try to do that, to put them in a position where, bluntly, they have to show their workings on how they have come to their decision on what they will be teaching. And I can't see this way forward would limit denominational teaching. Children in a religious school will naturally expect that, but these amendments mean that denominational teaching cannot go so far as to shut down children's knowledge or enquiry, because that couldn't be a logical consequence of a correctly exercised 'have regard' duty in respect of the agreed syllabus. I did ask you to try and stick with this—it is complicated. 

To help schools know how to use this 'have regard' duty, we have amendment 16, and this requires Government to introduce regulations that set out the minimal evidential requirements necessary to show that the duty to have regard has been properly exercised. And this could just as easily be statutory guidance, but I'd just like to stick with regulations for the purpose of the argument. This is necessary because amendment 18 gives parents, and children themselves, of course, the right to challenge their school of a religious character or not on the grounds that they've not been provided with an appropriate RVE syllabus because that school, whichever sort of school it is, hasn't exercised their 'have regard' duty properly. So, as well as ensuring that pupils in non-religious schools don't get drawn into crazy nonsense because their school hasn't had regard to the agreed syllabus, it's a better way forward for schools of a religious character too. It's much better to have a mechanism that tweaks their syllabus than providing for a situation where a child is entitled to demand a whole new separate one. 

Now, Llywydd, I don't expect the Government to go with this, because they've spent an endless amount of time trying to come up with an answer to the same problem that I have—a balanced RVE curriculum in all schools whilst fully respecting the core ethos of a school of a religious character. But what I would like, Minister, is to understand whether you've considered the route that I've proposed and, if so, why you've dismissed it in favour of a more, frankly, punitive and onerous option.

I think it might be worth pointing out as well that my amendments here have come to the notice of Professor Sandberg of Cardiff University's school of politics and law. I've never met him, so I'm extremely grateful to him for noticing them, and the reason for that is because he is a lawyer, and so he is alert to the practical effects of legislation and its value to practitioners who have to apply it in giving advice or resolving disputes. In his piece for Law & Religion UK, he says that my amendments are worth considering, as they ensure that all pupils get

'access to a syllabus informed by nondenominational RVE'

but not to the exclusion of denominational RVE in schools of a religious character, where the RVE corresponds to both. Effectively, he's saying they square the circle, and he recommends you support these amendments, and so do I, obviously. Thank you very much.

We as a group agree with the Government that religion, values and ethics should be on the face of the Bill as a mandatory element in order to help to create an inclusive society that respects all views, cultures and religions. We will therefore not be supporting Darren Millar's amendments, which would undermine that, and neither will we be supporting Suzy Davies's group 8 amendments. This is a complex debate, as we've already heard, but we are highly aware that there has been a great deal of discussion on this issue, and I am aware that the Government has sought consensus on this already and we therefore support their view today.

Suzy's amendments did engender great debate within our group, and we did consider some deep spiritual issues on the role of faith in the lives of people in Wales today. Wales is an inclusive nation that celebrates diversity. Equipping our young people through education to understand diversity and to fully understand the nature of the different religions and cultures that provide huge wealth to our nation is crucial. That's how we can entrench values that respect cultural and religious diversity in modern Wales. Thank you, Llywydd.

I move amendments 23 to 29, and amendment 19, all of which have been tabled in my name. The Bill in its current form is discriminatory, unfortunately, in that it places burdens on schools with a religious character across Wales that do not apply to those schools without a religious character. At present, schools across Wales either provide a religious education curriculum that has been agreed by the local standing advisory committee on religious education, or SACREs, as they're also called—it's also termed a 'locally agreed curriculum'—or they provide an RE curriculum that has been provided by the denomination to which the faith school belongs. These arrangements have served schools well across Wales for a long, long time, and there has been no clamour for change, but the Bill proposes that, in future, faith schools must, if requested to do so by a single parent, provide the locally agreed curriculum for the new subject of religion, values and ethics alongside the curriculum provided by their denomination. Delivering a dual curriculum is not going to be straightforward. In fact, it will be a significant challenge for faith schools, so I would rather there wasn't such a requirement at all, especially given the fact that parents know the religious character of a school when they actually choose to send their child to that school.

Now, if agreed, my amendments 23, 24 and 25 will ensure that if faith schools are to be required to deliver a dual curriculum, then the costs of providing that second RVE curriculum will not fall on either the individual school or the local education authority in which it's based. Llywydd, if parents in faith schools will be able to request the locally agreed RVE curriculum for their children—that is, the curriculum set by the standing advisory committee—then it's only fair that parents in non-faith schools, those schools that don't have a religious character, should be able to request that a denominational RVE curriculum should be available to their children. My amendments 26, 27, 28 and 29 would deliver just this. They would address the discrimination between faith schools and other schools in Wales by levelling the playing field to give parents with children in both types of school the same rights to request a curriculum of their choice. Also, they would ensure that the cost of making an extra curriculum available to learners will not fall on the schools or the local education authority, whether they be faith schools or no-faith schools, as a result of parents exercising that choice.

Finally, if I can just speak briefly to amendment 19, as is the case for relationships and sexuality education, the Welsh Government's Bill will remove the rights that are currently enjoyed by parents to be able to withdraw their children from RE lessons. Now, these parental rights are very important. As I indicated in the debate on the relationships and sexuality education amendments earlier, they recognise that parents, and not the state, are the primary educators of their children, and they also ensure that education legislation in Wales will be compatible and compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Education Act 1996, both of which I referred to earlier and both of which recognise the rights of parents to ensure that teaching conforms with parents' political and philosophical convictions and that children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. Now, the Minister said earlier this afternoon that the legislation, in her opinion and in the opinion of her Government lawyers, was compliant with the human rights Act, and I guess it will take a court case to determine whether that is the case in the future, but she didn't refer earlier on this afternoon to the obvious conflict that the Bill currently has with the Education Act 1996 in relation to children being educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. So, I would hope that she will be able to respond to that particular point in this debate.

Now, as I said earlier, parents have long enjoyed the right to withdraw their children from both sex education and religious education lessons, and it's therefore no wonder that a significant majority of respondents to the Welsh Government's two consultations that were undertaken in advance of this Bill—. In both of those consultations, there was overwhelming opposition to the removal of the parental right to withdraw from either RSE or RVE: 88.7 per cent of respondents to the 'Our National Mission: A Transformational Curriculum' consultation wanted to retain the right to withdraw. And 60 per cent of those responding to the consultation document on ensuring access to the full curriculum also wanted to maintain the parental right to withdraw, and that's in spite of the fact that, in the second consultation, there wasn't a question asking about his particular subject. I think that shows the strength of feeling. If we set up consultations, as a Government or an institution, then we should listen to the views that are expressed.

Now, this legislation, if it proceeds unamended, will fundamentally shift the balance between the rights of parents and the rights of the state—something that none of us in this Welsh Parliament has a mandate to do. It wasn't mentioned in anybody's manifesto at the last Senedd elections, and when people have been asked, as I indicated earlier, they said they wanted to retain these rights. That's why my amendment 19, along with amendments 20, 21 and 22 that we debated earlier, seek to ensure that these parental rights are not eroded when it comes to either religious education or sex education in the future, and I therefore urge Members to support my amendments in both groups.

Like RSE, the teaching of religion, values and ethics generated a large amount of correspondence from concerned parents, particularly from those whose children attend faith schools. Once again, the Welsh Government has ignored the wishes of parents who wanted to be able to remove their children from lessons that went against their religion, values and ethics. And it's not the job of the state—it's not the state's job to dictate what those religions should be.

As a Christian, I'm proud of our nation's Christian heritage. On Monday, we celebrated St David's Day, Wales's national day, which marks the feast day of a sixth century bishop. Christianity is engrained in our culture and heritage, but that does not mean that everyone in Wales should be a Christian. Another proud tradition of our nation is the freedom to choose any religion or, indeed, none, and that is why faith schools exist. Those faith schools should not be forced to teach secular RVE and I will not, therefore, be supporting amendment 13. Unfortunately, not every parent can send their child to a faith school, which was why the parental opt-out to RVE was so important. Parents are the primary educators, and they should have the right to withdraw their children from lessons that contradict their cultural and religious beliefs, and I will therefore be supporting Darren Millar's amendments. However, I know that the way this new curriculum is designed will make it difficult to maintain the opt-out, which is why, sadly, I will have no choice but to vote against the Bill, even if, by some miracle, these amendments pass. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.

The Minister, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and can I, first of all, thank Siân Gwenllian for her recognition of the immense amount of work that has gone into this part of the curriculum, and for her and Plaid Cymru's understanding about why these lessons are so necessary if we're to fulfil the purposes of our curriculum? It is absolutely right that children learn about and are ready to enter into a world where people will have a diversity of religious and non-religious views and will, potentially, live their lives through adherence to a set of values or ethics. So, I think it's really, really important that all of our children have access to education of this kind.

Can I start with amendments 13 to 17? These would amend the Bill so that religion, values and ethics in a school of a religious character would have to be designed having regard to the school's trust deeds, rather than in accordance with them, and would potentially enable schools of a religious character to provide one course of study for RVE that has regard to both an agreed syllabus and the school's trust deeds. In removing the requirement on these schools to design denominational RVE that accords with their trust deeds, however, the amendment does create the possibility of such schools breaching their trust deeds. In other words, there may be a tension between what a trust deed requires and what the agreed syllabus may require. That tension can be resolved if two RVE syllabuses are designed separately and in accordance with the Bill’s current requirements, but the tensions can't necessarily be resolved within a single RVE syllabus. The Welsh Government does not see those school trust deeds and so we cannot be certain what they require. As such, we cannot legislate to require schools with a religious character to prepare a single syllabus of RVE that has regard to both an agreed syllabus and the school's trust deeds, as we cannot be certain that it would be possible for the schools to comply with this kind of requirement. This amendment would introduce a discretion that such schools do not have under current legislation, or under the Bill as drafted, to depart from their trust deeds in their teaching of RVE. That could result in such schools providing RVE in breach of their trust deeds, and this is not something that I would wish to facilitate. Government amendments to Schedule 1 of the Bill were tabled at Stage 2 after very lengthy discussions with our partners in the Church in Wales and the Catholic Education Service to address their concerns in this area, and these partners have advised the Welsh Government that these amendments address their key concerns. Therefore, I would ask Members to vote against those particular amendments.

Moving to amendments 23, 25, 27 and 29, these are aimed at ensuring that a school or local authority does not have to meet the costs for providing denominational RVE in voluntary controlled faith schools when requested by parents, or agreed syllabus RVE in voluntary aided faith schools where requested by the parents. They do not explain, however, how these costs are to be met. I do not agree that the costs of this kind of RVE provision should be treated differently from the costs of other kinds of RVE provision.

The Bill respects the role of schools with a religious character in state-mandated education, and ensures that they're able to continue to provide RVE in accordance with their trust deeds or the tenets of their faith. There is no obligation for the state to provide faith-based RVE in accordance with parents' wishes in UK law or in the European convention on human rights. This is a matter for schools of a religious character.

However, the Bill ensures that all learners will have access to pluralistic RVE where that is wanted, and there is an obligation on the state to do that, and that is what current law requires. As I have said, we've been working really closely with the Catholic Education Service and the Church in Wales about the two syllabi during the development of the Bill, and I agreed at Stage 2 that the non-denominational RVE syllabus that schools of religious character will now need to provide will be one that has been designed having regard to the agreed syllabus, rather than in accordance with it. This allows schools of a religious character to have more flexibility in developing their syllabi. It is also an option for schools of a religious character to work with neighbouring schools to deliver non-denominational RVE if they wish to do so. 

However, I would draw Members attention to data provided to me by the Catholic Education Service, where we have been advised that the number of pupils previously withdrawn from denominational RE in 2020 was just one. So, the anticipated extra costs of this proposed change should be minimal. My officials will, however, continue to monitor the position over the coming years, working closely with our partners in the Catholic Education Service and the Church in Wales. As I have said, both of them have been clear that they are content with the changes made at Stage 2 by the Government, and they consider these to be their key priorities. Therefore, I would ask the Senedd to vote against these amendments.

Moving, now, to amendments 19, 24, 26 and 28, RVE, I agree, raises complex issues, which a school can play a vital role in helping learners understand, and the Bill ensures that all learners will have access to pluralistic RVE, which will include a range of religious and non-religious views. There is no absolute right to have a child educated in accordance with the parents' religious or philosophical beliefs, either in UK law or under the European convention on human rights. Similarly, there is no right to have education provided by the state according to one's own religious beliefs. So, whilst the state recognises a place for religious schools, its obligation under the rights protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 is to provide the opportunity for pluralistic provision alone.

The Bill does not prevent parents immersing or teaching their children in any faith that they choose, either at home or in a place of worship, but that is a matter for the parents to arrange and not for the school. In ensuring that all learners in all schools have the right of access to a RVE syllabus that has been designed having regard to an agreed syllabus, we are supporting learners to garner an appreciation of other religions and to develop tolerance and community cohesion. The issue of the removal of the right to withdraw from RVE has been carefully considered and consulted on, but I accept that there are strong views. As the Bill will no longer allow parents to withdraw their children from RVE, it does require schools of a religious character to give effect to parents' requests for alternative RVE provision, whether that is RVE designed having regard to the agreed syllabus or RVE that accords with the school's trust deeds.

In the new curriculum, schools of a religious character will continue to be able to deliver denominational RVE in accordance with those trust deeds, and I've been very clear that nothing proposed in this Bill is intended to prevent schools of a religious character from teaching their own denominational RVE syllabus. Throughout the development of the new curriculum, we've worked with stakeholders and partners like the Catholic Education Service and consulted widely. Their schools make a valuable contribution to the education system, and, as I have mentioned previously, both they and the Church in Wales have confirmed that the Stage 2 amendments have addressed their key concerns.

Finally, turning to amendment 18, this amendment I do not believe is required, because a complaints process is already in place for all elements of a school's management, including the curriculum. There is already provision in section 409 of the Education Act 1996 that requires a local authority to establish a complaints process in respect of a complaint around the provision of a curriculum, or where a governing body of a maintained school has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably in relation to a power that they have or the duties to which they are subject.

Governing bodies of maintained schools must also adopt a complaints policy under section 29 of the Education Act 2002, but complaints relating to the curriculum should be made to the local authority first. Ultimately, if a person remains unhappy and feels that the school has exercised its powers unreasonably, they can ask the local authority in the first place, and potentially, then, Welsh Ministers, to exercise their powers of direction under the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013. Adding another complaints process I believe would be an unnecessary duplication, and would simply be an additional burden for schools to cope with, when the requirement for a complaints procedure is already set out in legislation. And I don't believe that RVE should be singled out for its own complaints process; I don't believe that there is a rationale for doing so. Therefore, I would urge Members to reject this amendment and not add an additional burden on schools. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Suzy Davies to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you to everyone who's participated in this debate. It's a full debate and quite a complicated one, as we discussed earlier. Can I just begin by agreeing with Siân Gwenllian, and, in fact, the Minister, that we need our children growing up to not only respect but to understand all kinds of faiths. Part of the purpose of this Bill in the first place is to raise children to be less judgmental and less discriminatory, less prejudiced. That's why I've been pleased that RVE is itself a compulsory part of the curriculum.

For Caroline Jones, I just want to say that we're not talking about a situation here where about all schools just have to learn only secular RVE. That's not the case at all. The Minister has already indicated that denominational RVE is a core part of what is taught in religious schools, and I have to point out that the SACREs that Darren Millar referred to in his contribution are made up primarily of religious representatives. So, it's not secular RVE, however much you want to think of it in those terms.

The tension between the deeds and the agreed syllabus, Minister—I hear what you say on this, but that's actually the whole purpose of amendment 16, in defining what 'have regard' actually means and relating it specifically to RVE, because 'having regard' doesn't mean that you have to adopt exactly the same amount of each type of curriculum, it doesn't mean that you have to adopt the whole of either of the two types of curriculum that we're talking about here. But what it does mean is that, if you decide that part of a curriculum is not to be taught, you have to explain why—you have to show your workings of what thought you've applied to the decision that you're making.

Actually, if you want me to not move amendment 18, for example, and I understand your perfectly sound reasons for doing that, that would make far more sense if you supported amendment 16, which gives the tools to both schools to defend a position, and children, not just parents, of course, to bring a complaint through the complaint procedures that you've described in other pieces of legislation, because at the moment it's not clear what they would need to show in order for a complaint to stick, or in fact to be defended.

The comments, I'm afraid, Darren, that you made about the rights of parents and the rights of the state, that relationship changing—even though that might well be true, what we're considering here are the rights of children, and of course they've got the right to be educated in line with family beliefs under protocol 1 article 2, but that's a qualified right, as we've already heard, and it's not a right that's exercised in isolation. It cannot ever be a right that limits what a child learns, and that's what I can see this curriculum trying to do, and, albeit that I've tried to support schools of a religious character in the way I've approached it, and certainly with the amendments that I've been bringing forward, it's children first, and they're in a world that doesn't look like the world we've ever had. From that point of view, this opportunity for mutual understanding has got to be what trumps everything. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is. We'll move to a vote on amendment 13, in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, three abstentions, 42 against, therefore amendment 13 is not agreed.

Amendment 23. Darren Millar, is it moved?

I move.

The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 23. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, two abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 23 is not agreed.

Amendment 14. If amendment 14 is agreed, amendment 24 falls. Suzy Davies, do you wish to move amendment 14?

I move.

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore open the vote on amendment 14 in the name of Suzy Davies. Close the vote. In favour eight, four abstentions, 42 against. Therefore, amendment 14 is not agreed.

Amendment 24, Darren Millar. 

I move. 

The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We'll move to a vote on amendment 24 in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, one abstention, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 24 is not agreed.

Amendment 25, Darren Millar. 

I move. 

The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 25 in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, two abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 25 is not agreed.