Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon. Welcome to this Plenary meeting. 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 meeting, and these are noted on your agenda. I would remind Members of Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings, and these, of course, apply to this meeting.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is the Stage 3 debate on the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill. 

We will move to group 1, and that relates to repossession grounds. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 32, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Delyth Jewell. 

Diolch, Llywydd. It's not a secret that we believe that there should be a ban on no-fault evictions, and the amendments that we've tabled today reflect this position. Our amendments in this group are based on the Scottish model, which bans no-fault evictions but does allow evictions in a limited number of circumstances. The reason for using the Scottish approach is not because we think that that approach is perfect, although it is considerably better than the approach proposed today, but it's because if we went for a complete ban, considering what's been said at previous stages, I suspect the Minister would argue that this would risk being incompatible with human rights laws. Personally, I think evicting and making people homeless for no reason would itself be a violation of human rights, but, unfortunately, people who are homeless lack the financial resources to establish lobby groups for all parties and also to take the Government to court. So, instead, we have lifted the Scottish model, which, of course, has been in law for a number of years and therefore it is reasonable for us all to assume that that would be compatible with human rights law. It would significantly strengthen the rights of tenants and bring us far closer to ending no-fault evictions. At Stage 2, the Minister explained that the grounds may be too narrow and prevent a landlord from reclaiming their property if they fell outside these grounds. So, that is why the amendment gives the Minister the power to modify the grounds.

Speaking more generally, I want to outline my group's approach to the legislation. That is, we do not believe the Government has got the balance right between the rights of tenants, often the poorer party, and landlords, which is the group with the historic lobbying power. There hasn't been enough movement from the Government on this, at least not movement in the direction we would like to see. There was, of course, a pledge made by the First Minister for a total ban on no-fault evictions, but this has been watered down to merely increase the notice period required from two to six months. That's considerable movement towards the position of landlords and is, I'm afraid, a reflection of the power imbalance in terms of different groups and their access to understanding these issues and being able to lobby for change. It remains our understanding that the UK Government intends to ban no-fault evictions in England, but they've postponed that legislation due to the pandemic. Nonetheless, it means that passing this legislation today would leave Wales as the outlier. The rights of tenants in Wales would be the weakest, and that is a position my group cannot support.

In any other circumstances, we might at least consider this slight movement to be worth while, but the pandemic, to all intents and purposes, means that we are discussing here what the legal regime will be post pandemic. So, whatever happens this afternoon won't in practice impinge on tenants' rights at the moment, in the short term. However, in the longer run, passing this Bill would be damaging, as it would inevitably delay the changes we would want to see implemented. As such, without significant movement from the Government today, we will be voting against the Bill and seeking to introduce a far stronger Bill, should we be successful in forming the next Government. That would be a fairer approach for all, setting out our clear intention to bring forward our own legislation rather than accepting what is being offered here. I look forward to the debate. Diolch yn fawr.

Our Conservative amendments 51 and 52 introduce some mandatory grounds for repossession. I'm supportive of the overarching aim of the Bill to increase security of tenure for renters, as are most of us across the Chamber. However, it's worth acknowledging the concerns of many landlords and letting agents about the impact the Bill may have on their ability to regain possession of their property should they need to as a last resort. These concerns have been exacerbated given the bottleneck that courts in Wales are now experiencing, with research from National Residential Landlords Association Wales showing that it now takes private landlords an average of 22.6 weeks from making a claim in the courts for a property to be repossessed to it actually happening. This causes disruption and concern for landlords, increases the cost of action, and prevents homes from being available to people who need them. As such, the Association of Residential Letting Agents have called for additional mandatory grounds to be included in the Bill to ensure that it works and achieves a balanced approach. Amendment 51 therefore includes grounds such as if a landlord intends to sell the property or move into the property as suggested by ARLA. While the Minister did not agree with this in Stage 2, it is important to recognise that people's circumstances change. If a landlord is facing homelessness or financial difficulties, then they may need to move into their property or to sell it, and the Bill should recognise such exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 51 also includes grounds for anti-social behaviour and domestic abuse. I'd be interested to know how the Minister would respond to written evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing Cymru, which states that,

'careful monitoring would need to be established to glean the experience of both tenants and landlords'

to ensure that there are no unintended consequences that undermine the ability of landlords to respond to such serious issues.

Amendment 52, meanwhile, enables a mortgage lender to regain possession of a property. Whilst supporting the intentions of the Bill, UK Finance note concerns that the effect of the increased credit risk could have a dampening effect on the private rented sector in Wales, which would be counter to the Welsh Government's desire to see a vibrant, viable, high-quality and growing PRS for those who choose or need it. We are all aware of the issues in the supply of homes in Wales, and it is important that the Bill does not have any unintended consequences on the availability of homes. Does the Minister have any plans to review the impact of the Bill on housing supply in Wales, as part of the post-implementation review? Diolch.

The Minister, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. As Delyth has said, her amendments 32 and 33 combined would remove the landlord's ability to serve notice under section 173 in relation to the vast majority of occupation contracts, placing it instead with grounds for possession similar but not the same as the approach taken in Scotland. These new grounds set out in a new Schedule 8ZA are either mandatory or discretionary and require a landlord to serve a minimum 12 months' notice before a possession claim can be made. However, the ability for a landlord to serve a section 173 notice would be retained only for occupation contracts set out in Schedule 8A, which provide a minimum of two months' notice, so it would in fact be the least protection in the United Kingdom, and not the most, as she asserted.

I am not confident that the grounds listed in this new Schedule 8ZA would necessarily cover all the reasons why a landlord may wish to seek possession. Grounds-based legislation such as this does require detailed consideration and consultation to ensure the grounds provided for cover all the eventualities that may arise. Without this work being undertaken, landlords may indeed find they are unable to ever gain possession of their property.

I also don't think the balance between mandatory and discretionary grounds are right, either—for example, a mandatory ground for mortgagee possession, but a discretionary ground for the return of a property to a family home. In addition to my concerns around these new grounds, my real difficulty with Delyth's amendments is the requirement for a landlord to provide a minimum 12 months' notice. Renting Homes has always sought to strike the right balance between a contract holder having sufficient security of tenure and a landlord being able to obtain possession of their property. I do not think this could be claimed if we were to dump this requirement for a 12 months' notice period before possession proceedings could commence. For these reasons, I cannot support amendments 32 and 33.

Turning to Laura's amendments 46 and 51, I have very serious concerns about how these impact upon a contract holder's security of tenure. The amendments set out a number of mandatory grounds and enable a landlord to seek possession with just a maximum of two months' notice. I do not support the introduction of new mandatory grounds within a Bill aimed at increasing security of tenure. The use of mandatory grounds was considered very carefully by the Law Commission in preparing Renting Homes, and they remain in only a very small number of cases. The basis of this Bill is to provide a minimum six months' notice to a contract holder who has done nothing wrong during their occupation. I understand that a landlord may have good reasons to want to sell the property or live in it themselves, but these are not the fault of the contract holder and certainly should not take priority over their ability to find another suitable home. Two months' notice in these circumstances would simply maintain the current system and the devastating impact it has on families subject to such short notices.

Similarly, with regard to amendment 52, a contract holder is not at fault should a mortgagee wish to seek possession, and I cannot accept that a mandatory ground with just two months' notice is necessary here, either. As I say, this Bill is seeking to extend the period a contract holder will have to find a suitable home, not reduce it, and for these reasons, Llywydd, I cannot support these amendments. Diolch.

Delyth Jewell to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I thank Members for taking part in the debate. I think this is the first time that Laura and I have responded to legislation together since she has come to this role, so I welcome her to that. I think that the short debate that we've just had does go to show that there still is this imbalance in terms of influence between tenants and landlords. I'd certainly agree with what the Minister was saying about the Conservative amendments. I still do think that we need to go further in Wales and, for that reason, we will be pushing our amendments in this group to a vote, and I hope that Members will consider what was said. Diolch yn fawr.

The question is that amendment 32 be agree. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection, and we will therefore suspend proceedings temporarily to prepare for our first vote. We will do this only once during this Stage 3 debate. So, we will suspend proceedings. Thank you. 

So, that brings us to our first vote, and we will proceed to a vote on amendment 32 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, eight abstentions and 32 against, therefore amendment 32 is not agreed.

Amendment 33, Delyth Jewell, is that moved? 

Yes. 

Yes. Thumbs up means it is moved. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see that there are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 33 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 33 is not agreed. 

Our next group is group 2, which relates to notice periods. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 34. I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Delyth Jewell. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The amendments in this group are also reflective of our position of wanting to end no-fault evictions. We have tabled these in the spirit of seeking to find compromise with the Government, as we would consider supporting the Bill if it extended the no-fault period. So, these amendments extend the period of notice that must be given for a no-fault eviction, and we've provided several options here for Members to consider, which is why we have this series of votes. 

So, amendments 34 and 20 extend that period to a year; amendments 35 and 21 extend the period to two years; amendments 36 and 22 extend that period to three years; amendments 37 and 23 extend the period to four years; amendments 38 and 24 extend the period to five years; and, finally, amendments 39 and 25 extend the period to 10 years. So, I want to know what people think is an acceptable notice period to give to tenants when they are not at fault.

Six months, in my view, is not enough notice for people in many circumstances. I take the point that the Minister's made in previous stages that, in effect, it gives a year's security. I still think that this doesn't take into account some of the most complex situations that can face tenants, for example: families with children who attend a local school and need to stay living in the area because moving schools is disruptive; families containing people who don't deal that well with changes in routine, such as people on the autistic spectrum; people who have caring responsibilities for family living nearby; or perhaps people who don't drive but have work commitments where moving home could jeopardise that employment, because the person needs to have access to decent public transport. These are people for whom being evicted will be especially stressful and disruptive. Why should children face the disruption of frequently moving schools because we have failed to provide long-term secure housing? Why should people face massive disruption through no fault of their own? A six-month notice period is simply not enough time for many families in rural or in Valleys communities to find alternative accommodation within the same area. That's something that, often, those who live in large cities with a vibrant rental market don't consider. It's also not enough time for people with disabilities to find suitable alternative accommodation where they need adaptations to the home.

On that basis, I believe the Government's attempted compromise with the landlord lobbyists is incompatible with equalities laws and potentially with the rights of the child. I therefore tabled this series of amendments to correct this, starting with the minimum acceptable period that my group would consider in order to support the legislation. I do hope Members will reflect on the equalities implications of what's been said, and I look forward to the debate. Diolch.

The Minister to contribute to the debate—Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. As Delyth has said, amendments 34 to 39 set out a range of longer alternative minimum notice periods that a landlord must give to end a periodic standard contract under section 173 of the 2016 Act. Amendments 40 to 45 do the same in relation to notices issued under a landlord's break clause in fixed-term standard contracts. The Bill, of course, is already increasing notice periods in both these instances from two to six months. The increased notice period represents a balance between the interests of landlords and contract holders, and it is a position previously supported by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee in its Stage 1 report on the Bill.

Delyth, I understand entirely, wants to achieve a situation in which the private rented sector gives the sort of security of tenure that people in social housing would ideally get, but I would argue that there will be unintended consequences from some of these amendments, which we would need to take into account were we to try and extend the notice periods in this way, not least that people would simply withdraw from the private rented sector altogether if they had to wait several years in order to get a house back in circumstances where they may need it for perfectly good reasons. So, this is always about the balance between the need of the landlord to retain their property for their own use or for selling on or for whatever, and for the tenant to get a security of tenure that does allow them, as Delyth says and we have a lot of sympathy with that, to stay in the area where their children are at school and where they are established as a family. Absolutely, we want to get the balance right and we believe that what we are setting out in the Bill does get that balance right and will not have any unintended consequences.

Furthermore, and it is a point I've made before but it's worth making again: under the Bill as drafted, tenants in Wales will have a greater security of tenure in relation to no-fault notice than anywhere else in the UK. In Scotland, for example, a tenant does not have to be at fault to receive only 28 days' notice in the first six months of a tenancy and less than three months' notice after that. The alternative minimum notice periods contained in these amendments would upset the balance between the rights of the contract holder and their landlord, and may well have unintended consequences in the private rented sector. As I indicated to the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee when these same amendments were brought forward at Stage 2, I do not think these increases could be justified, and for these reasons, Llywydd, while I appreciate that they are well intentioned, I cannot support amendments 34 to 45.

Delyth Jewell to respond.

Diolch, Llywydd. I do realise that the Minister has sympathy with the motivation behind these amendments. I thank her for the response. In politics, I think that obviously we always need to find a balance—the art of what is possible. I still feel that the balance here needs to be tipped more in favour of the people with the kind of either vulnerabilities or very precarious situations that are all too common, which I've noted. For those reasons, although I do appreciate what the Minister says, we will be pushing these amendments to the vote, and I thank her for the response. I hope that Members will consider what we've said when it comes to voting. Diolch.

That brings us to the vote. And if amendment 34 is agreed, amendments 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 will fall. The question, therefore, is that amendment 34 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see that there are objections, and we will therefore move to a vote on amendment 34. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 34 is not agreed.

Amendment 35, Delyth Jewell, is that moved?

[Inaudible.]

It is. Perhaps we should confirm orally too, in case a thumbs up isn't recorded on the official Record. Is it moved, Delyth Jewell?

Yes, formally.

Thank you. So, amendment 35, the question is that amendment 35 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We'll move to a vote on amendment 35. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 35 is not agreed.

Amendment 36, Delyth Jewell.

Moved.

A vote, therefore—.  Are there any objections to amendment 36? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We will move to a vote on amendment 36. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 36 is not agreed.

Amendment 37, Delyth Jewell.

Move.

Are there any objections to amendment 37? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 37 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 37 is not agreed.

Amendment 38, Delyth Jewell.

Move.

Are there any objections to amendment 38? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 38 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 38 is not agreed.

Amendment 39, Delyth Jewell.

Move.

Are there any objections to amendment 39? [Objection.] Yes, there are. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 39 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 39 is not agreed.

Amendment 40, Delyth Jewell.

Move.

Are there any objections to amendment 40? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 40 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 40 is not agreed.

Amendment 41, Delyth Jewell.

Move, please.

Are there any objections to amendment 41? [Objection.] There are. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 41. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 41 is not agreed. 

Amendment 42, Delyth Jewell. 

Move, please. 

Are there any objections to amendment 42? [Objection.] Yes, there are. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 42 is not agreed. 

Amendment 43, Delyth Jewell. 

Move, please. 

Any objections to amendment 43? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We'll move to a vote on amendment 43. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 43 is not agreed. 

Amendment 44, Delyth Jewell. 

Move, please. 

Any objections to amendment 44? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 44 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 44 is not agreed. 

Amendment 45, Delyth Jewell. 

Move, please. 

Any objections to amendment 45? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 45. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 45 is not agreed. 

Which brings us to group 3. This relates to standard and fixed-term contracts that can be terminated with two months' notice. The lead amendment is amendment 9. I call on Julie James to move the amendment and speak to the other amendments in the group. 

I move amendment 9 in my name. Amendment 9 further clarifies when a higher education institution is able to provide a two-month notice under either section 173 or, potentially, a landlord’s break clause. A higher education institution will only be allowed to provide two months’ notice to a contract holder who is provided with accommodation in order to be able to undertake a course of study. This is irrespective of whether the accommodation has also been provided for another purpose. I urge Members to support this amendment.

Regarding amendment 53 tabled by Laura Anne Jones, as I indicated when the same amendment was tabled at Stage 2, I do recognise the issue the amendment aims to address. Since the Stage 2 committee meeting, my officials have met with representatives of the three armed forces families federations and with the Ministry of Defence. The core concern is that the MOD provides only three months’ notice to terminate occupation of armed forces accommodation. Therefore, if a property owned by a member of the armed forces has been rented privately, the general requirement under the Bill to give six months’ notice could cause difficulties. However, it is clear from the discussions that have taken place that there are complexities that need to be further examined to ensure any provision we make to address this problem is sound. We also need to consider the position of someone whose landlord joins the armed forces after the start date of their contract, and could potentially be subject to a change in their security of tenure as a result. Therefore, I do not support amending the Bill now before these complexities are fully understood. As it stands, we already have regulation-making powers to provide for such an exemption if it proves to be appropriate and necessary.

Amendment 54, also tabled by Laura Anne, relates to the renting out of properties that are normally occupied by ministers of religion. Such private renting is, I understand, quite common for periods when such properties are not needed to house a minister of religion. I indicated during Stage 1 that I did not see a case for someone to be given only two months’ notice in such circumstances—a view with which the committee was in agreement. I remain to be convinced that this is necessary, and therefore do not support this amendment. However, should it at some point be decided that it is necessary, there is already a regulation-making power that could be used for such an exemption. 

Minister, I appreciate your comments on our amendments. Amendments 53 and 54 seek to provide an exemption to the Bill for members of the armed forces, as you explained, who have been given notice to leave service accommodation, as well as properties occupied by ministers of religion. Both amendments respond to concerns raised about the unintended consequences of the Bill. The National Residential Landlords Association Wales have highlighted that members of the armed forces who have been given notice to leave their service accommodation may face increased risk of homelessness or other housing difficulties due to the difference in notice periods provided for within this Bill compared to that used by the MOD.

I'm grateful to Cytûn for their support in helping us to draft amendment 54. They have also raised concerns about the impact of the Bill on faith communities. This includes potentially being able to rotate clergy on an annual basis between ministry roles and problems with a lengthy notice period before securing possession of a parsonage if a minister is removed due to a serious disciplinary issue. Minister, I appreciate that you've previously stated that you've been in discussions with stakeholders about both issues, as you outlined. Whilst I believe that our amendments will address the concerns that have been raised, I would appreciate if you could give me an update on the work that your officials have undertaken on this. When will you address these concerns, should you not be swayed by these amendments now? 

Was that the end of your contribution?

Yes.

Sorry—my mistake. I wasn't sure whether you'd lost the sound or whether that was the end of the contribution. That's great. Thank you. There are no other speakers, so I'll call Julie James to respond to the debate, if she wishes to.

Briefly, just to ask Members to support amendment 9, for the additional clarity it brings. I do ask Members to reject amendments 53 and 54 on the basis that I've already set out. We are in discussion with both groups of stakeholders and we would much rather use the regulation powers already available to us to tackle these concerns once the full extent of the issues has been properly explored. 

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 9 in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 9 is agreed.

We will now move to group 4, miscellaneous amendments to the 2016 Act. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 10, and I call on Julie James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Julie James.

I move the amendments in my name. The purpose of amendments 10, 16, 17 and 19 is to remove redundant references to the Displaced Persons (Temporary Protection) Regulations 2005, which have now been revoked.

Amendment 18 will remove the examples in section 33 of the 2016 Act of editorial changes that may be made to fundamental and supplementary terms set out in a written statement. On reflection, these examples may be unhelpful and are not considered necessary. As Members will appreciate, it is essential that the terms set out in written statements reflect the provisions included in the Act and any regulations made under it, as appropriate. But where there may be some opportunity to improve in this area and enhance the experience of model written statements for users, I do not want to take—for users, I want to take it. Forgive me; I mangled that up a bit. I'll say that again. Where there may be some opportunity to improve in this area and enhance the experience of model written statements for users, I do want to take that opportunity.

Amendment 20 further clarifies the circumstances where a community landlord may provide a standard contract, instead of a secure contract, to a contract holder undertaking study. This exemption only applies where the accommodation is provided solely for the purposes of the contract holder attending a designated course at an educational establishment. Where the contract holder has additional entitlement to the property outside of the need for accommodation to study, the community landlord is required to provide a secure contract, where the additional entitlement of the contract holder would otherwise qualify them for a contract of that kind. The accommodation covered under this provision is not connected to, and is for a different purpose than, that provided by a higher education institution.

Amendments 21 and 25 through to 27 amend section 256(2) of the 2016 Act. This section currently permits regulations made under the 2016 Act to make consequential amendments to enactments, and modifications, repeals and revocations of enactments. This amendment will expand that power so that it applies to any provision of the 2016 Act, as well as to other enactments. Such an amendment has been identified as necessary as a result of the considerations relating to the Jarvis v. Evans judgment. This amendment will facilitate the making of accessible and clear legislation by ensuring that required consequential amendments can be made to the 2016 Act and can be made in the most appropriate place within the 2016 Act.

Amendment 56 would remove accommodation occupied by ministers of religion entirely from the Renting Homes regime. The provisions of this amending legislation currently provide greater security of tenure to ministers of religion who often occupy their accommodation through a basic licence. We have received representations from Cytûn, representatives of churches in Wales, who have expressed concern that such an approach would have an impact upon the way that churches currently operate. Whilst my officials are in contact with Cytûn on this matter, I am conscious that the views of all affected parties have not yet been sought. The Welsh Government will keep this matter under review and look to use the available subordinate legislation powers to address any issue, if required. Therefore, I'm afraid I cannot support amendment 56. 

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 10. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, one against. Therefore amendment 10 is agreed. 

Laura Jones, amendment 53. Is it being moved? Formally? Amendment 53 in your name. Are you moving it formally? 

Move. 

Is there any objection?

Is there an objection to amendment 53? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 53. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 35 against. Therefore, amendment 53 is not agreed.  

Amendment 54, Laura Jones. Is that being moved? It's in your name. 

Move. 

Thank you. The question is whether there is any objection to amendment 54. [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 54. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 36 against, and therefore the amendment is not agreed. 

Delyth Jewell, amendment 46 is next. Is it moved? 

Move, please. 

If amendment 46 is agreed, amendment 1 falls. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see that there is an objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 46. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, two abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 46 is not agreed. 

We now move to group 5, which relates to restrictions on giving notice. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 1. I call on Julie James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Minister, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move Government amendments 1, 23, 29 and 30, which clarify when a notice under section 173 can be served upon a contract holder by re-titling section 175 so that the heading matches the section itself. This will remove the potential for ambiguity regarding a situation where the occupation contract doesn’t permit the contract holder to start occupying the property immediately. This can often be the case with student lets where the contract permits the contract holder to start occupying from a date in the future. In these and similar circumstances, a landlord cannot serve a section 173 notice during the period that starts with the day the contract is made and ending six months after the occupation date, and the amendment ensures that the heading of section 175 reflects that fact.  

Amendments 2, 24 and 31 clarify when a landlord’s break clause notice can be issued to a contract holder by re-titling section 196 so that the heading matches the text of the section. It will remain the case that a landlord is prevented from serving a break clause under a fixed-term contract until 18 months after the contract has elapsed, starting with the occupation date of the contract. This restriction will apply regardless of when the fixed-term contract was entered into.

Amendments 3, 4, 8 and 15 remove references to the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 within this Bill. Such action is necessary, following detailed consideration of the Jarvis v Evans Court of Appeal judgment in 2020, relating to the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. The judgment has proven to be quite complicated in its application, not only to the 2014 Act, but how this is expressed with the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. I have some concerns that any amendments brought forward at this stage to account for this judgment may not be accurate and would be difficult to correct. Therefore, I consider it prudent to remove these references to the 2014 Act so that the matter can be fully considered and provisions confidently brought forward.

Amendments 11, 12, 13 and 22 provide further clarity on serving a section 173 or 186 and a break clause notice by a landlord who has not provided a written statement to the contract holder. Amendments 11, 12 and 13 remove any potential uncertainty around the ability of a landlord to issue a notice where a written statement has not been provided to the contract holder. Where a written statement has not been provided by the landlord, regardless of whether this is during the 14-day period provided for under sections 31(1) and 31(2), the landlord will be prevented from serving a notice set out under schedule 2 until a written statement is provided.

Section 31(1) provides a period of 14 days for the landlord to provide a written statement to the contract holder, starting with the occupation date of the contract. Section 31(2) provides a period of 14 days, from the date of occupation or where the landlord becomes aware, for the landlord to provide a new written statement to the contract holder should the contract holder change during the life of the contract. A landlord who provides a written statement within this 14-day period is not subjected to further sanction. Amendment 13 clarifies that a landlord who has failed to comply with this requirement is prohibited from giving a notice under section 173 or 186 under a landlord’s break clause for a period of six months, starting with the day on which the landlord provided the written statement to the contract holder.

Amendment 14 provides clarification that a landlord is restricted from serving notice when they are in breach of the security requirements in relation to the occupation contract.

Amendment 28 deals with those existing tenancies and licences, which will convert to an occupation contract upon implementation of the Renting Homes Act. An existing landlord, upon implementation of the Act, will have a period of six months from the appointed day—the date of implementation—to provide the contract holder with a copy of the written statement. During this six-month period, the occupation contract is in force and applies to both landlord and contract holder equally. Amendment 28 clarifies that a landlord is not prevented from serving a notice under section 173, section 186, or a landlord’s break clause during this period, whether or not the written statement has been provided to the contract holder.

I therefore urge Members to support all the amendments in this group. Diolch, Llywydd.

Thank you. Before I call Laura Jones to speak, may I apologise to Laura Jones for not having called her in the previous group of amendments? That was my fault entirely and would have confused you. Sorry about that. So, if you wish to make any comments on amendments 53 and 54 from the previous group just to place them on the Record, please feel free to do so. And of course, speak to this group of amendments as well. My apologies, Laura.

Thank you, Llywydd, I appreciate that. Okay, yes, we'll go back to group 4. Amendment 56 in my name is linked to our amendment 54, which we've just debated and voted on. It seeks to clarify the occupation status of the minister of religion and I am, again, grateful to Cytûn for their support. 

In written evidence, Cytûn state that it is their view that ministers of religion who occupy parsonage properties do not fall within the scope of the Bill. For example, Church in Wales ministers do not pay any rent, licence fee or other payment to the representative body or to any other Church in Wales body. Cytûn therefore contend that the direct effect of the Act would alter the relationship between the Church and ministers from a relationship that is not an employment relationship to one that is an employment relationship. However, they also acknowledge that this is an unintended consequence of the Bill that would be addressed through this amendment. It is my hope that Members would support this.

Minister, I would also ask for some clarification about amendment 25, which gives the Welsh Ministers a number of additional powers over the 2016 Act. The purpose and effect table is not very clear on how you intend to use these potentially wide-ranging powers in the future. So, I would appreciate some clarity on this. Shall I go straight on to group 5, Llywydd?

Yes, please. Carry on.

Restrictions on giving notice. Minister, we will be abstaining on amendments 1 and 2, and their consequential amendments. This is not because I disagree with the intention of increasing security of tenure, but because I want to raise issues discussed by my colleague Mark Isherwood MS during Stage 2.

At Stage 2, we brought forward an amendment based on recommendations made by the NRLA to allow for a six-month section 173 notice to be served after four months, but to take effect at the end of the six-month fixed term. The NRLA, whilst not disrupting the Bill's intentions, have voiced concerns about the impact that this may have in markets where the preservation of an annual cycle, mainly the student sector, is essential for the smooth running of the rental sector. This was also supported by the leader of Ceredigion County Council, a Plaid Cymru councillor, in a recent letter received by the NRLA.

The Minister refused to accept this amendment, instead arguing that students would not be treated differently. This was not the intention of this amendment. Nor would this amendment have encroached on the Welsh Government's objective of a year's security of tenure and increased notice period. All it sought was to give the landlords extra flexibility to preserve the business cycle that is essential to the efficient running of the sector. Minister, how do you respond to the legitimate concerns of some within the housing sector about the impact that this provision will have on the student housing sector, in particular, and how can you alleviate these concerns?

Moving on to amendment 2, we put forward a compromise amendment at Stage 2, allowing for a six-month, 10-year tenant-only break, which was proposed by the NRLA. However, this was rejected by the Minister. This was based on concerns that some tenants want some flexibility so that they can respond to changes in their personal lives. As such, will the Minister provide confidence about how the Bill provides for tenants who require flexibility, while also increasing security of tenure?

Finally, we are abstaining on amendment 15, as it does not seem to fully resolve the judgment of the recent Jarvis v. Evans case. Indeed, it returns to the status quo, as outlined in the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. As such, I wanted to ask whether this is a stop-gap amendment ahead of further changes, or whether you are satisfied that it responds to the recent judgment. Thank you.

Julie James to respond.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, starting with that last point first, I think I made it clear in my submission that we were removing the references because of the complexity of the case in point. The complexity of that judgment requires further consideration. Therefore, we have removed all references to the 2014 Act as a result of that.

In terms of the other points, I understand the point that Laura Anne is making, but we don't accept that the landlords' business cycle is unduly interrupted by the provisions set out here. The amendments in the group make various changes to the restrictions on giving notice. We have worked very hard with all stakeholders—both tenants and landlords—to make sure that this is a reasonable compromise between them. I therefore ask Members to support all of the amendments in the group. Diolch.

The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection. We'll move to a vote on amendment 1. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 35, nine abstentions, and five against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

Amendment 2, Julie James.

Is it being moved?

Moved.

The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. We'll move to a vote on amendment 2 in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. In favour 35, nine abstentions, and four against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

Amendment 3, Julie James.

Moved, Llywydd.

The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 3. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 35, 11 abstentions, and two against. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed.

Amendment 4, Julie James.

Moved.

Are there any objections to amendment 4? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move a vote on amendment 4. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, 11 abstentions, two against. Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed.

Amendment 11, Julie James.

Moved, Llywydd.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 11. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 11 is agreed.

Julie James, amendment 12.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we will move to a vote on amendment 12. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 12 is agreed.

Amendment 13, Julie James.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 13. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, one against. Therefore, amendment 13 is agreed.

Amendment 14, Julie James.

Moved, Llywydd.

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 14. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, four abstentions, none against, therefore amendment 14 is agreed.

Amendment 15, Julie James.

Moved.

Are there any objections to amendment 15? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 15. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, 12 abstentions and one against, therefore amendment 15 is agreed.

The next group is group 6, and the amendments relate to withdrawal of notice. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 47, and I call on Laura Jones to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Laura Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. I speak to all amendments 47, 48, 49, 50 and 55 in my name, which require a landlord to explicitly give notice to the contract holder that a notice has been withdrawn. Section 8 allows landlords to withdraw a defective section 173 notice and reissue it in the correct form, with the proviso that the notice period begins from the date of reissuing. In written evidence to the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, Shelter Cymru argued that the provision under section 8, as drafted, is unclear. Shelter have also suggested that, whilst the implication will be that the new notice replaces the former notice, this leaves room for confusion. Shelter provides an example of when such confusion may occur: a contract holder might not understand which notice is the correct one or a landlord might seek to rely on either/or if one has a defect. This amendment assures that tenants are notified when a notice has been withdrawn, so both landlord and tenant are clear about their rights and obligations. As Shelter contend, if we want compliance, then clarification is needed. I hope Members will support our amendments, and I look forward to the debate.

The Minister to contribute to the debate. Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I appreciate the intention behind these amendments is to clarify, through being more explicit, that the relevant notice is being withdrawn. We can see there is merit in making some adjustments to the provisions in the 2016 Act, but, unfortunately, we don't think these provisions work as they stand. Unfortunately, these weren't raised at Stage 2, where we would have welcomed an opportunity to work with you on the wording, but, unfortunately, that's not now possible.

However, I'm confident that we'll be able to prevent any potential confusion by making the requirements absolutely clear in supporting guidance, and I'm very grateful to you for drawing the matter to our attention. Further, I'm also mindful that we have a power in section 236(3) of the 2016 Act to prescribe the form of notices, and this could also be used, if necessary, to ensure there is no confusion about withdrawal notices. Therefore, I'm afraid the Government is not supporting these amendments, albeit I entirely understand the intention behind them. Diolch.

Laura Jones, do you wish to respond?

I appreciate those, and thank you for your kind comments earlier, Delyth. And thank you for contributing to that debate. But, without going over the debate again, there is—. We do still feel that these are necessary amendments, and I do hope that Members will support them. Thank you.

So, the first amendment is amendment 47. Does any Member object to amendment 47? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 47. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, four abstentions, 36 against, therefore amendment 47 is not agreed.

Amendment 48.

Laura Jones, is it being moved?

Move.

The question is that amendment 48 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 48. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, four abstentions and 36 against, therefore amendment 48 is not agreed.

Forty-nine. Amendment 49, Laura Jones, is it being moved?

Move.

The question is: is there any objection to amendment 49? [Objection.] Yes, there is. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 49. Open the vote. Close the vote. So, in favour nine, four abstentions and 36 against, therefore the amendment is not agreed.

We move now to amendment 50.

Laura Jones, is it being moved, amendment 50?

Move.

The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 50. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, four abstentions, 36 against, therefore the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 16 is next.

Julie James, is it being moved?

Moved.

The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 16. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, four abstentions and none against, therefore amendment 16 is agreed.

Amendment 17, Julie James.

Moved.

Are there any objections to amendment 17? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 17. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, four abstentions and none against, therefore amendment 17 is agreed.

Laura Jones, amendment 51.

Amendment 51, is it being moved?

Move.

The question is that amendment 51 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 51. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, three abstentions, 36 against, therefore amendment 51 is not agreed.

Laura Jones, amendment 52.

Move.

The question is that amendment 52 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 52. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, two abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 52 is not agreed.

Group 7 is our next group of amendments. They relate to changes to permitted payments under the Renting Homes (Fees) Act (Wales) 2019. Amendment 5 is the lead amendment, and I call on Julie James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. Amendment 5 amends Schedule 1 to the Renting Homes (Fees etc) (Wales) Act 2019 and permits payment for a further copy of a written statement of an occupation contract. Broadly, the purpose of the 2019 Act is to prohibit landlords and letting agents requiring payments from contract holders or tenants under a standard occupation contract, unless those payments are permitted under that Act. Those payments that are permitted are set out in Schedule 1 to the 2019 Act. Given that section 31(5) of the 2016 Act states that a landlord may charge a reasonable fee for providing a further written statement, this payment does need to be included in Schedule 1 to the 2019 Act.

Amendment 6 permits the payment of service charges to community landlords and supported accommodation providers in respect of standard occupation contracts, with retrospective effect from the date the 2019 Act came into force. Amendment 7 provides for early commencement of amendment 6 upon Royal Assent, which is considered an appropriate and practical step to reduce the period of retrospection.

As is the case with copies of written statements, the list of permitted payments included at Schedule 1 to the 2019 Act does not currently include service charges—that is, things such as grounds maintenance, the maintenance of common areas of blocks of flats and external window cleaning. The focus of the 2019 Act is on ensuring that contract holders are not subject to additional and/or unreasonable fees charged by letting agencies and private landlords. Most tenancies in the social housing sector will be secure contracts and therefore not subject to its provisions. However, introductory standard contracts, prohibited standard contracts and supported standard contracts issued by community landlords and supported accommodation providers would be subject to its provisions. As a result, service charges in relation to these types of social housing tenancy are prohibited by the 2019 Act. This effect is unintended. Service charges are a necessary element of social housing tenancies, especially in supported accommodation, where the cost of the services necessary to keep vulnerable people safe and suitably housed can be considerable. Amendment 6 rectifies this situation. It adds service charges levied by a community landlord or supported accommodation provider as a permitted payment under Schedule 1 to the 2019 Act, except for situations where a community landlord is undertaking commercial rental activity.

Pending the implementation of the system of occupation contracts to be introduced by the renting homes Act 2016, transitional provision regulations, which came into force in September 2019 at the same time as the 2019 Act, apply certain Parts of the 2019 Act to existing assured shorthold tenancies.  Amendment 6 amends these regulations so that, during the transition period, service charges will be a permitted payment in relation to assured shorthold tenancies in otherwise the same circumstances as they will be made permissible in relation to standard occupation contracts.

The amendments to the transitional regulations retrospectively apply the inclusion of service charges as a permitted payment from the date the 2019 Act came into force, that is, 1 September 2019. The effect of this will be that the service charges levied by applicable landlords will be lawful from that date. Whilst we do not anticipate any adverse impact on tenants of this change, amendment 6 prohibits a landlord that has charged a service charge during that period from issuing a section 21 notice for a period of six months. For similar reasons, two savings provisions are included. The first means that any section 21 notice served before the amendment comes into force remains invalid. The second means that any repayment order made under section 22(1) of the 2019 Act is saved.

Amending the 2019 Act to permit service charges in relation to standard occupation contracts issued in the social housing sector is vital to ensuring that it remains economically viable for providers to make provision for specific groups of vulnerable people. This is especially true in the supported accommodation sector. Ensuring that the change applies retrospectively is critical to ensuring that social housing providers are not caused serious financial harm by having to pay back money previously collected, thus reducing their capacity to make future provision. For these reasons, I urge Members to support amendments 5, 6 and 7.

Minister, I welcome these amendments, and in particular amendment 6. I understand that many in the social housing sector have made representations to you about the issue, and I'm pleased that a way forward has been found. Whilst I understand the action that the Government has taken, I do wonder about how the issue arose in the first place. In your explanatory notes, you acknowledge that the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Act 2019 has resulted in some unintended consequences. This is a theme that has arisen during the passage of the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill. I understand that we cannot foresee all issues that may arise through legislation, but respectfully I question whether ambiguities within the drafting of the Welsh legislation is creating these avoidable issues in the first place. 

As you have outlined, RSLs are thought to have a total financial exposure of £3.5 million. This goes to emphasise how serious this so-called unintended consequence actually is. Most importantly, however, I would like to ask you about your assessment of the impact that this will have on tenants, many of whom are on lower incomes. Will any tenants receive a rebate for any costs incurred, and could you give some information on your discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions about mitigating any possible impacts on the benefits that those affected may be receiving? There will also be concerns as to whether all of the provisions of amendment 6 are within legislative competence. And so I'd be grateful for your clarity on this. Diolch. 

The Minister to respond. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Firstly, I want to stress that these are charges for services that have been delivered and for which tenants have continued to make payments. Social housing providers are unaware of any tenant who has refused to make a payment on the basis that it was unlawful under the 2019 Act. For the most part, the amendment is simply regularising that which has already taken place. Furthermore, it's important to remember that a large proportion of the payments that have been made will have been covered by housing benefit or universal credit. If we did not make these changes retrospective, any repayment of service charges that landlords may consequently be required to make may well result in the suspension of benefit payments whilst a claim is reassessed. At worst, it could lead to demand for benefit payments to be repaid and for individuals to be transferred from housing benefit to potentially less favourable arrangements under universal credit. 

I also want to emphasise that there are a number of safeguards for tenants built into amendment 6. Currently, no-fault section 21 notices are invalid where prohibited payments have been made. The amendment requires that, even after the payments have been made lawful, any invalid section 21 notice previously issued would continue to be invalid. What is more, landlords who have levied a service charge during the period from 1 September 2019 to the coming into force of the amendment will be prohibited from issuing a section 21 notice for a further six months after the legislative change comes into force. This will allow the tenant time to understand the legal position and remedy any service charge arrears that may have occurred as a result of the retrospection. I also think it's worth pointing out that no tenant could be retrospectively charged for services for which no charge was levied during the period when this was prohibited. 

The other point the Member made is very straightforward, Llywydd. We are satisfied that this is within the legislative competence of the Senedd and the Welsh Government. Diolch.

The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 5. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, two abstentions, one against. Amendment 5 is therefore agreed. 

Amendment 6, Julie James. 

Is it being moved?

Moved, Llywydd. 

Thank you. Are there any objections to amendment 6? [Objection.] There are. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 6. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, two abstentions, two against. Therefore, amendment 6 is agreed.

Amendment 18, Julie James. 

Moved. 

Are there any objections to amendment 18? [Objection.] There are. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 18. Open the vote. In favour 45, four abstentions, and none against. Therefore, amendment 18 is agreed.

Laura Jones, amendment 55 in your name. Is it moved?

Moved.

Thank you. Any objections to amendment 55? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 55. Close the vote. In favour nine, four abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 55 is not agreed.

Amendment 19, Julie James.

Moved.

Are there any objections to amendment 19? [Objection.] There are. We'll move to a vote on amendment 19. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, four abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 19 is agreed.

Amendment 20, Julie James.

Moved.

Any objections to amendment 20? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 20. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions and one against. Amendment 20 is agreed.

Amendment 56—

—in your name, Laura Jones. Is it being moved?

Moved.

Thank you. Are there any objections to amendment 56?

Can I see—? Yes, I can see an objection. [Objection.] Yes, thank you. It's objected and I call for a vote on amendment 56.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 56 is not agreed.

Amendment 21—

—Julie James, is it being moved?

Moved.

Are there any objections to amendment 21? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 21. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, nine abstentions, four against. The amendment is therefore agreed.

Amendment 22, Julie James.

Moved.

Are there any objections to amendment 22? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 22. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 22 is agreed.

Amendment 23, Julie James.

Moved.

Are there any objections to amendment 23? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore open a vote on amendment 23. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, 12 abstentions, one against. Therefore, amendment 23 is agreed.

Amendment 24, Julie James.

Moved.

Are there any objections to amendment 24? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 24. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, 12 abstentions and one against. Therefore, amendment 24 is agreed. 

Amendment 25, Julie James.

Moved.

Are there any objections to amendment 25? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 25. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, nine abstentions and four against. Therefore, amendment 25 is agreed. 

Amendment 26, Julie James. 

Moved. 

Are there any objections to amendment 26? [Objection.] Yes, and we'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 26. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, nine abstentions and four against. Therefore, amendment 26 is agreed. 

Amendment 27, Julie James. 

Moved. 

Are there any objections to amendment 27? [Objection.] There are. We'll move to a vote on amendment 27. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, nine abstentions and four against. Therefore, amendment 27 is agreed. 

Amendment 28, Julie James.

Moved. 

Are there any objections to amendment 28? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 28. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, no abstentions and four against. Therefore, amendment 28 is agreed. 

Amendment 29, Julie James.

Moved. 

Are there any objections to amendment 29? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 29. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, nine abstentions and four against. Therefore, amendment 29 is agreed. 

Amendment 30, Julie James. 

Moved. 

Are there any objections to amendment 30? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 30. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, nine abstentions and four against. Therefore, amendment 30 is agreed. 

Amendment 31, Julie James. 

Moved. 

Are there any objections to amendment 31? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 31. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, nine abstentions, four against. Therefore, amendment 31 is agreed. 

Amendment 7, Julie James. 

Moved.

The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. [Objection.] No, there is an objection. We will move to a vote on amendment 7. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, one against. Therefore, amendment 7 is agreed. 

Amendment 8 is next. Julie James. 

Moved. 

Are there any objections to amendment 8? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote on amendment 8. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, 12 abstentions, one against. And, therefore, amendment 8 is agreed.

And that concludes voting on Stage 3 consideration. We've reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill, and I declare that all sections of and Schedules to the Bill are deemed agreed. That concludes Stage 3 proceedings, and I will now suspend the meeting, and we will reconvene at 2.40 p.m.. The meeting is suspended. 

Item 2 on the agenda this afternoon is questions to the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd. Question 1, Janet Finch-Saunders. 

We have committed more than £2 billion in support for businesses and £1.7 billion of that funding has already reached businesses across Wales. Last month, an additional £200 million was announced to support businesses affected by alert level 4 restrictions, which will help them with operational costs through to the end of March.

Thank you. Now, it has been made clear to me by many in the tourism sector, including in my hoteliers forum this morning, that grants to date by this Welsh Government have 'barely touched the surface'. Their words, not mine. And that they, as business owners, feel demoralised and actually hard done to by your Welsh Government. Now, there are numerous steps you can take to help back our tourism industry now: work with your colleagues and local authorities to see costs, such as parking permits, wedding and drink licences waived; give certainty to businesses by ending the fallacy that the tier system is a natural recovery plan. They need to know now if they can open by Easter, so to start planning staff recruitment, organise supplies and accept bookings.

There are calls for you to address the scandalous fact that Wales Fiscal Analysis has found that there is £655 million of COVID-19 funding from the UK Government waiting to be committed. Let's be under no illusion: this money was intended to support these very businesses, not to sit in Welsh Government coffers. So, what discussions have you held with other Ministers in your Welsh Government to ensure that this money is given to these businesses? And what recovery plans will you put in place so that tourism has clear guidance on reopening? Whilst I reiterate the recovery plan for this sector and clear protocols relevant to the current COVID risk need to be outlined urgently, please clarify now, today, how you will ensure that the remaining £655 million reaches our businesses, and does so before the end of this financial year. Thank you.

Well, let's be under no illusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, that Wales Fiscal Analysis have also noted that the Welsh Government has distributed more money to businesses across Wales than we've received from the UK Government in consequentials. And that means that the package of support that we have on offer for businesses here in Wales is the most generous across the UK. 

A typical hospitality business in Wales with the equivalent of six full-time staff could have been eligible to receive between £12,000 and £14,000 to help them through the period of restrictions and into the new year. And that does compare very favourably with the UK Government, when £9,000 is the highest award and that's given to those with a rateable value over £51,000. So, it's very clear that we do have the most generous package of support anywhere in the UK. That's not to say that we take any of this for granted and that we're resting on our laurels. We're constantly exploring what more we can do to support businesses.

And with regard to the additional funding yet to be allocated, I will be, of course, publishing our third supplementary budget very shortly, and that will set out a whole range of allocations right across the Welsh Government portfolios in order to help us respond to the coronavirus outbreak. I look forward to laying that before the Senedd very shortly. 

Minister, I'm particularly concerned about the smaller bed-and-breakfast businesses that got little or no help last year. Many were thriving little businesses that provided pension top-ups and company for their owners and part-time employment for the locals. What analysis has your Government done to establish the toll taken on the tourism sector in Wales due to the pandemic? And what assessment have you made of the impact of the support packages made available in this sector? Thank you.

Well, it is absolutely the case that the pandemic has had a very serious impact on the hospitality sector right across Wales, which is why we're working so hard to put in place the best possible support that we can. Bed-and-breakfast businesses in particular are able to access the discretionary support that we put in place via local authorities and we've done that because we recognise that there will be a number of businesses out there that do not have access to the non-domestic rate funding that we've put in place. So, we're trying to be as flexible as we possibly can in order to offer the best package of support to businesses. But, as I say, we take none of this for granted. We're very clear that this is a very difficult time for business and we're keen to do what we can to see them through and also to support them then into the recovery and renewal phase.

We're providing an extra £102 million to the education portfolio next year in recognition of the impact of the pandemic on children and young people. This is in addition to the uplift of £176 million for local government, which will support front-line services, including schools.

What discussions have you had with the education Minister about making additional funding available for catch-up measures such as the summer schools, as suggested by the Minister?

I have regular discussions with all colleagues and particular discussions with the education Minister in terms of how we can support those children and young people who have been badly affected by the pandemic. In response to the issues that we're facing as a result of the pandemic, we have launched the recruit, recover and raise standards plan, which is accelerating learning for individuals and groups with funding for schools to recruit new staff to address the lost learning. That's additional investment of £29 million for the academic year 2020-21 and is providing the equivalent of 600 extra teachers and 300 teaching assistants. It is targeting that support at years 11, 12 and 13 as well as disadvantaged learners and vulnerable children and young people of all ages. I know that local authorities are reporting that they're very pleased with the way in which the recruitment is taking place in that particular regard. I think that's been particularly successful in terms of our efforts to support children and young people. We're also providing additional funding of £12 million in 2021-22 to continue that important work to combat the loss of learning, skills and productivity, to bring those benefits to children and young people across Wales.

We'll now turn to spokespeople's questions. The first this afternoon is Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

I'm sure the Minister will have read the damning article in BusinessLive on 2 February, which highlighted the fact that the Welsh Government failed to use its full borrowing powers in 2019-20 and 2020-21. Can the Minister explain why the Welsh Government underused the current borrowing powers, particularly given the problems that we are facing as a result of the pandemic? Why did the Government decide not to take the opportunity to fund capital projects that could have had a positive impact on the Welsh economy?

I don't accept that assessment at all. The 2020-21 budget was, of course, impacted by the very late in-year adjustments by the UK Government at its supplementary estimates, which meant that we were provided with additional funding at the very end of the year, which made it very difficult for us to manage that particular situation. Throughout Wales, our Wales infrastructure investment plan has delivered really ambitious capital plans. Over the administration, we've allocated £12.2 billion of investment for capital projects right across Wales and £27.8 billion since we published the Wales infrastructure investment plan in 2012. You'll have seen investment, for example, of £1.7 billion to support the delivery of our £3.7 billion twenty-first century schools and education programme. That's having an impact in communities right across Wales. A sum of £2 billion was invested during this term for housing, delivering more than 20,000 affordable homes, smashing our target, even though we've gone through this crisis. So, the Welsh Government has been making significant infrastructure investments right the way through the course of this whole Senedd.

The Minister says she doesn't agree with my assessment. It's not my assessment; it's just a statement of where we're at. We're not the only ones advocating using the facilities that we have. In that article I mentioned, economist Gerry Holtham is quoted as saying that the Welsh Government should be able to manage its budget to ensure it makes far more use of its capital borrowing powers. He went on to say that late payment of capital receipts from the UK Government couldn’t really be used as an excuse and warned that a lack of appetite for capital borrowing could undermine the Welsh Government’s case for current levels being increased. Now, the Minister knows that Plaid Cymru and myself have been calling for greater fiscal powers during the course of this pandemic, as has she. She's told us a number of times that negotiations are currently ongoing with the UK Government over allowing greater fiscal flexibility. I've encouraged her to pursue that vigorously, but does the Minister agree that Welsh Government is undermining its own case by failing to use the full extent of the borrowing powers it already has? 

I don't need Plaid Cymru's encouragement to pursue that particular line with the UK Government vigorously, because it's something that we have been doing for some time. However, we have not yet had that clarification as to our request for flexibility, which will become much clearer to us as we move towards the supplementary estimates, which the UK Government will be publishing in due course. However, we have published our budget for 2021-22, and that shows that we do plan to borrow the maximum £150 million that is available to us within our annual limit. You'll see right across our budget for next year really ambitious plans. You'll have seen that even where we can't do everything that we would want to do within the powers that we have, we've created the mutual investment model in order to help us undertake those larger projects that simply would not be possible within our existing capital settlement and within the borrowing that we currently have. So, we've found innovative ways to address the issue that is being described.  

The Minister can make as many excuses as she likes about what happened in 2019-20 and 2020-21, but the reality is that the Government has failed to use an opportunity there to invest in the future of Wales. I'll quote Gerry Holtham again:

'Failing to borrow in two successive financial years seems unambitious. Not knowing the capital allocation is not a decisive reason because they know what it will be within a 10-20% error margin and could plan for contingencies.

Does the Minister disagree with his assessment and analysis, I wonder? We know there are significant projects that need to be under way—the metro, retrofitting houses, there's a long list—and with interest rates at an all-time low, now is the time to invest. In contrast, looking to Scotland, since the Scotland Act 2012, the Scottish Government has borrowed £1.6 billion in capital and plans to raise a further £300 million in low-interest-bearing debt by the end of the current financial year. Will the Minister admit to the reality that an unwillingness to fully utilise already inadequate fiscal powers is further evidence that this Labour Government lacks ambition for Wales? 

Absolutely not. Of course, we have a very different settlement to Scotland, so I don't think those comparisons are necessarily valid. If you want to look at the ambition that the Welsh Labour Government has, you only have to look as far as the Wales infrastructure investment programme and the pipeline that we've set out. That extends well beyond the period for which we have set budgets, but we nonetheless have identified important projects that we will want to explore taking forward: the A55 third Menai crossing, for example, a £130 million plan to start in 2022; the A55/A494/A458 Flintshire corridor, a £300 million plan to start in 2022; the north-east Wales metro, £504 million, and our Welsh Government will be making a contribution towards that; £1 million in the Tech Valleys programme; the next phase of the twenty-first century schools programme, £2 billion; and the south Wales integrated transport metro, £738 million. These are all serious investments in communities, which will no doubt have an impact on job creation and providing economic stimulus. So, it's absolutely not the case to say we're not ambitious in this area; in fact, we have a Wales infrastructure investment plan that says quite the contrary.  

Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood. 

The Scottish Government have announced they're providing grants for Scottish hostels and bunkhouses with a £2.3 million hostel support fund. Several operators of rural bunkhouse and outdoor alternative businesses in north Wales have written to me calling for a Welsh hostel and bunkhouse support fund from the Welsh Government, equivalent to this. As they said, 'We provide a service to our local community, bringing in visitors all year round who use local pubs and shops, but we're being catastrophically affected by the COVID rules and reduced social mixing, because we provide shared accommodation for people from different households.' How do you therefore respond to the Independent Hostels in the UK report, 'The Case for Extra Financial Support', which states:

'Without extra financial support this winter 34% of hostels are predicted not to survive until the tourist season next year'

and

'An ideal support would be a "Support Grant" directed specifically at hostels and group accommodation in the tourism sector'?

In the first instance, I'd be encouraging those businesses to explore whether they have made the most of all the opportunities available to them by the Welsh Government. For example, were they to be businesses paying non-domestic rates, have they received the grants that are specific to businesses within the non-domestic rates sector? And also, the Welsh Government has introduced, of course, our £180 million sector-specific fund. That was opened on 13 January. So far, over 7,600 applications have been received and 4,401 offers have been made worth £33 million. This could be somewhere where those businesses could explore to see whether or not they are eligible. It's very much targeted at businesses in the hospitality, tourism and leisure sector. I'd be more than happy to provide Mark Isherwood with some further detail that he might share with those businesses to explore whether this might be that fund that they're hoping to secure support from.

I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of that report if you don't have it, because it shows that they are aware of the existing funding streams and have accessed them where they've been able to.

Responding to the Finance Committee's consultation on the Welsh Government's draft budget proposals, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action said:

'The voluntary sector must be supported and resourced to fulfil its central role in the recovery from the pandemic'

and

'Co-production must play a key part in the design and delivery of preventative services.'

Their response to the draft budget proposals went further, stating: 

'The voluntary sector continues to require greater resource to respond to increasing demand on its services'

and 

'The sector has many groups and organisations which have developed to redress specific problems or prevent them worsening.'

They're also preventing massive additional financial pressure on health and care services. How will you therefore respond financially to their concern that although the draft budget states that an additional £700,000 will be provided on top of the £3 million to support the sector in its response to COVID-19 and the £24 million Welsh Government third sector COVID-19 recovery fund, charities in Wales have lost around 24 per cent of their income this year, or £1.2 billion for charities based in Wales? In other words, without the extra investment required, it's going to cost the Treasury and the Exchequer in Wales a lot more money than they would otherwise require to prevent that demand being created.

We've worked very closely with the WCVA and the charity and third sector here in Wales right throughout the pandemic. I've met with the sector myself in order to hear the challenges that they're facing, and they are very much, as Mark Isherwood described, in terms of not being able to undertake their usual fundraising activities, for example. That's why we've put in place the specific support for the sector, but also sought to give them some kind of assurance in terms of the future of the response to the pandemic as well. I'll be exploring the issues that have been raised right throughout all of the committees with my colleagues within the Welsh Government as we move towards the final budget, listening also to the comments that were made in yesterday's debate and having some further discussions regarding what support might be needed.

I urge you to look at those essential services being provided by the sector, without which everyone in Government's job would be harder, but also our job in opposition would be harder, and everybody's lives would be a lot harder also. One of those, of course, is hospices. Although the Welsh Government initially allocated £6.3 million to the hospice emergency fund, this was less generous than equivalent funds in all other UK nations, as the evidence shows, and falls significantly short of the total allocated to the Welsh Government in consequential funding from the UK Government's support for hospices in England.

However, our hospice and community palliative care sector has continued to provide vital care and essential services throughout the pandemic. Up to £125 million was added to the original hospice emergency funding package for 2020-21 in England, but nothing more was added in Wales. Hospices in Wales are facing a combined shortfall of £4.2 million by March, but after I led the debate on palliative and end-of-life care here last week, the Welsh Government only announced £3 million extra to support them this financial year. Further, there was no indication in the Welsh Government's draft budget for 2021-22 of continued support for hospices to maintain their essential services, despite their estimated combined shortfall of £6.1 million during 2021-22. Where, therefore, is the rest of the extra funding received from the UK Government in consequence of increased funding for hospices in England this financial year to provide their essential services? And how will you respond to the urgent funding needs of hospices in Wales during the next financial year?

Well, as Mark Isherwood says, hospices do provide an incredibly important service to the people of Wales and we absolutely recognise the enormous contribution that they do make. We worked alongside the hospice sector here in Wales to understand the particular financial support that they would need, and that's the reason why we've allocated £9.3 million with emergency funding to support those hospices throughout the pandemic, and this is being used to protect clinical services and strengthen hospice bereavement support.

And there's quite a simple answer, really, in terms of the consequential funding received, and it is very simple, and that is that the hospice sector here in Wales is smaller than it is across the border, so this is one of those areas where the consequentials were of a different order to the identified need that we have here in Wales. And I say, 'identified need' because we did work with the sector to identify the funding that it would require. And there are areas, of course, where we get consequentials from the UK Government that do not meet our need and where our need is much greater than across the border. So, we can't operate simply as a post box for consequential funding from the UK Government, we have to work with the individual sectors to understand the need that is identified. And as I say, when we worked with the sector, the need that was identified is the need that we have met, but clearly, if there's further discussion to be had, I would be more than happy to have those discussions with the sector.

Over this administration, the Welsh Government has allocated £12.2 billion for investment in capital projects across Wales, including £120 million across the Cynon valley and wider Rhondda Cynon Taf region through the twenty-first century schools and colleges programme, for example.

Thank you, Minister. There's no doubt that the Cynon valley has benefited significantly from Welsh Government funding over the past five years. Perhaps the most significant area of capital expenditure has been the continued investment in educational buildings within the area.

The Cynon valley has seen more investment from the Welsh Government's twenty-first century schools funding than any other constituency in Wales, to the tune of over £100 million, and that's something that I am very proud of indeed. This current Senedd term has seen the opening of the £22 million Coleg y Cymoedd campus in Aberdare; the £7.2 million Cwmaman Primary School; and in just September of last year, the £10.2 million Hirwaun Primary School. Minister, would you agree with me that this represents a substantial investment in our children and young people, which will make a real difference to their educational attainment and future life prospects?

I would absolutely agree with Vikki Howells there, and she has absolutely been a strong voice for education within her constituency and has been instrumental in making the case for additional funding in her area, so, congratulations to Vikki for what she has achieved on behalf of her constituents. And the examples of the projects that she has described are exciting. It's important that we do give children the absolute best learning environment in which to work and in which to grow, because that's the way in which we tell them that they matter, and that we are there to support them and help them achieve their full potential.

Other areas where we've been, I think, really successful within the Cynon Valley would be in our particular support that we have given to social housing. So, for example, we've transformed the Aberdare Girls' School into flats, houses and bungalows designed specifically for wheelchair users. That's £4.8 million of support. And, there is a £2.7 million social housing grant to develop the former Aberdare Boys' School into 30 much needed affordable homes, again including flats, houses and bungalows. And, there's the work that we're undertaking with the integrated care fund to redevelop Pen Llew Court to provide that 19-bed facility for individuals with a learning disability. Every resident will have their own self-contained flat. So, I think there's so much exciting work going on in the Cynon valley, and it is a demonstration of the investment that we've been able to make in the area.  

The UK Government has not engaged meaningfully or respectfully on this issue, despite the huge amount of work that has taken place across the Welsh Government and with organisations across Wales over the last three years to develop a new framework for investing replacement EU funds.

I'm grateful to you for that, Minister. You will have seen the Welsh Affairs Select Committee's report from Westminster, published in the autumn, which was a devastating report and a devastating condemnation of a UK Government by a committee largely dominated by Conservative Members. They made two criticisms of the UK Government. First of all, there was the lack of engagement that you described. Secondly, there was an arrogance, as I read it, in wanting to ignore the expertise that we have in Wales, in terms of delivering the sort of investments that you have just described in the Cynon valley.

Does it concern you as much as it concerns me, Minister, that this is a betrayal? It's a real betrayal of people, not just those of us who voted 'remain' in 2016, but more so, people who voted to leave the European Union in 2016, who were promised that they wouldn't lose a penny of investment—that all of the investment that was coming to places like Blaenau Gwent would be replaced by the UK Government. That has been demonstrated to be an absolute lie. That means that places like the constituency that I represent, the constituency that you represent, and many of us in this Chamber, will see investments that would have taken place in our people, our places and our infrastructure, but will not take place now because of a real betrayal by the UK Government of people in Wales.

I couldn't agree with Alun Davies more in terms of his assessment of the way in which the UK Government has used people to deliver its own agenda, and then not fulfilled the promises that it made to them. We don't have that same arrogance here in the Welsh Government. We've worked really hard, looking internationally, and looking to the OECD, to see what we can learn in terms of delivering regional investment in the future here. We have had a national conversation, speaking to thousands of people to explore what the best way forward will be for reconstruction and how we use our funds best in the future.

The UK Government was really quick to argue that we would receive more funding this year than last. But, of course, netting off the payments has reduced our funding, and disregards the fact that, had we remained in the EU, we would now have a full year's financial allocation for new programmes, in addition to the payments due from the programmes that are beginning to tail off. So, we would have been in a very different situation as compared to the UK Government's £220 million UK-wide shared prosperity fund, of which we yet are to find out any details. Compare that to the annual £375 million that we would have had from the EU. The UK Government still has time to deliver on its promise that we won't be a penny worse off, and I would encourage them to do so.

Minister, Alun Davies, the Minister emeritus, makes his arguments with his usual passion and vigour, and I appreciate that there has been, to date, anyway—. The Welsh Government has complained about a lack of detail on the shared prosperity fund. Nonetheless, it is, in principle, a mechanism that, eventually, will hopefully deliver for Wales. So, looking beyond the current situation to that point, would you agree with me that, if we want to devolve more power down to local government and give local authorities more control, then the shared prosperity fund presents us with an ideal opportunity to give that more control to local authorities and to allow them to participate in the expenditure of this fund. They have, after all, taken part in the successful city and growth deals. So, in your negotiations with the UK Government, and also within the Welsh Government with the Minister for local government, will you ensure that local authorities are given a key role in the roll-out of the shared prosperity fund? Admittedly, not with us at the moment, but when the details are finally clarified.

Well, as Nick Ramsay says, the details haven't yet been clarified, so I don't know if I can agree with his assessment that it will put power into the hands of more local people and make that decision making as close to the ground as possible. Welsh Government has developed its regional framework for investment, and that was published in November following three years of engagement, collaboration and consultation. And we were clear that our priority areas would be more productive and competitive businesses, reducing the factors that lead to economic inequality, supporting the transition to a zero-carbon economy, and healthier, fairer and more sustainable communities. And we absolutely see local authorities as being key partners in that. And the local government and WLGA were really actively involved in the development of our framework and are represented on the steering committee that has guided that work for three years. So, local authorities should play an important role in future in terms of regional development, and I hope that we're able to do so within that framework that we've been developing here in Wales.

I wonder if I can ask you, Minister, as well to pay particular regard to the loss of the European social fund and structural funds on our works and skills programmes in Wales. I'm hearing some rather disconcerting rumours—well, they're more than rumours—that there's an intention now with the Department for Work and Pensions to centralise their work programmes. Now, we've had some exemplary work programmes here in Wales, particularly for those hard-to-reach people who need additional support to get into work because of skills and transport and other challenges they face, and we know how to do it. So, it would be disastrous if there was some centralised, Westminster-driven approach to this that reiterated the problems that they had in the 1980s Thatcher-style work programmes. So, could I please ask, Minister, that you make representations that if these programmes are being redesigned, that when they look for partners to deliver these, they use the local authorities and the regional consortiums that have been delivering them on the ground with great success—far better than in England and elsewhere—in the future as well? We're not only losing the money—it's taken away our ability to control what we do with some very important employment and skills programmes.

Absolutely. And, obviously, Huw Irranca-Davies speaks with real authority on this having chaired our group, which has been looking at this particular agenda for some time. And he'll know better than anyone about the impact that those EU projects have had in Wales, creating over 56,400 new jobs and 15,400 new businesses since 2007, and also supporting 30,000 business, and helping almost 100,000 people into employment in that time. And that's the kind of thing that we need to keep doing.

We have tried to take some early action to mitigate the early impact, so we've been proactive in extending a number of our key economic interventions supported by EU funds that were due to end in the next financial year, to extend them to subsequent years, and this includes support for entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises currently being delivered by Business Wales. Support for advanced, sustainable manufacturing, investment in business research, development and innovation, and support for low-carbon energy technologies and investment at key tourism sites—these are things that we've been focussing on as we've been preparing our budget for next year.

Question 5 was in the name of Rhianon Passmore, who is not present. Therefore, we move to question 6, David Rees.

Throughout the year, I have engaged with the UK Government on the legacy impacts of the extraordinary flooding in Wales. We have also provided support through our emergency financial assistance scheme, alongside the £390 million we have invested in flood and coastal risk management over this term, benefiting over 45,000 properties.

Can I thank you for the answer, Minister, and can I also thank the Welsh Government for the support they're giving to flood victims in Skewen who have been flooded out because of water coming out of a mine, an old mine workings? The Coal Authority have clearly stated that they are not liable for water damage coming from their mine workings. This was reinforced yesterday in the House of Commons, when the Minister answered my colleague Stephen Kinnock's question on this matter. Now, if the Coal Authority are not taking responsibility, and the UK Government, whose record on this is poor when you consider what's happened in Pontypridd—is it now time for you to press the UK Government for funding from them so we can help these people? Because many citizens in that area haven't got good insurance, and those who have are going to lose money because they have to pay their excess, and there are additional costs on top of that, and they're out of home for long periods of time and that's not being covered. We need to help these people, and it's clear the UK Government is not going to. So, can you therefore press the Treasury for enhanced funding so we can help people in these situations to ensure they are not out of pocket, that they're not in difficulties and we are able to help as soon as possible?

Yes. Welsh Government has made available those support payments of up to £1,000 per household, and that's the same level of support that we were able to offer people affected by the extraordinary situation with the storms last March. But, you know, clearly, families and individuals affected are affected particularly badly. I do want to pay tribute to the work that Councillor Mike Harvey's been doing in terms of disseminating information to residents by his WhatsApp residents' group and also ensuring that people locally are having the kind of support and information that they need. But, yes, there's more to do with the UK Government on this particular agenda, both in terms of the immediate issues that we're facing, but that longer issue of coal tips and the mine works and the remediation that is necessary to prevent these kinds of things happening in future, which is why I hope that we can make some progress with the UK Government in this regard. In terms of support for local authorities, we are able, and we have been able, to meet the eligible local authority costs for this immediate response to the flooding during tier 3 and tier 4 by providing 100 per cent of the funding, and I think that that demonstrates the importance that we put on them as our local partners in terms of responding to these terrible events.

Can I just associate myself with the remarks of David Rees with regard to how people have really stepped up to the plate in Skewen? Two weeks ago, on the back of his topical question, I asked the local government Minister a question that she didn't answer, but I think you might be able to—maybe you're better placed to do that. Obviously, with the Skewen floods, the focus was very much on the role of the Coal Authority property, but my question was wider, about the liability of landowners through whose land water runs—so, things like canals and other conduits; I'm not talking about water mains, but that kind of conduit. Some of the land's going to be publicly owned, either by local government, central Government or Natural Resources Wales, so can you tell us how public bodies are financed to meet the costs of liabilities incurred as the result of a failure of infrastructure on their land that leads to flood damage, either on their own land or third-party land, as we've seen in Skewen, and how is that reflected in the Welsh Government budget?

Thank you for raising that particular issue. I will, if it's acceptable to Suzy Davies, seek some particular advice, because I think that some of those questions stray into legal areas that I might not be qualified to talk on this afternoon. So, in terms of the liabilities and so forth, I will provide a written update to Suzy Davies on liabilities.

I certainly agree that some sort of flooding victims guarantee in terms of financial support for the future is absolutely essential. We know that, in Skewen, the Coal Authority has given some sort of financial assistance, but only for external gardens—any changes that need to be made to the gardens, because of the impact—but that doesn't go anywhere close enough. So, anything additional would be welcome. But, recently, we all would have had a joint letter from the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Government saying that there had been identified additional mine shafts here in Wales. I think 2,000 is the number now; it used to be 1,200. Now, this could be a ticking time bomb for other happenings across Wales that we simply do not know about at the moment. I wasn't reassured, from the reply to the letter, that we knew where they were and what was going to be done so that we can mitigate this from happening in the future. So, what are you going to do in terms of budgeting to ensure that we have the support necessary—although we don't want it to happen, it may happen again in the future—so that these victims can be supported through any experience that they may find themselves in?

Well, we've been having some discussions with the UK Government, which originated with the discussions about flooding, but then, obviously, became larger and took on the discussions relating to coal tips, and now, of course, that's extended again into the mine works. We know that the remediation of coal tips will require a piece of work over—probably a 10-year programme of work. And we're probably, I think, at this stage—and it's very hard to say exactly, but we are talking £500 million of work that would be needed over a long period of time. So, this is a major piece of work. And when we bring the mine works into this as well, I think that we are talking about some extremely serious funding that will be required to address what are, as you've set out, really important issues that can't be ignored. And this is why we're trying to make the case to the UK Government that we should be able to access additional funding, because Wales is disproportionately impacted. With coal tips, for example, we have 40 per cent of the whole of the UK's coal tips in Wales, so this isn't a Barnett consequential kind of situation. But we are continuing to try and make that case for a joint piece of work between the UK Government and Welsh Government. We realise that we have a major part to play in this as well, but I think that it does have to be a genuinely collaborative response to what is a serious matter.

Yes. With significant ongoing uncertainty about the path of the pandemic, we remain focused on providing the right funding at the right time. In 2020-21, we have already allocated more than £4 billion, including nearly £2 billion to support businesses, with further significant allocations in our third supplementary budget this month.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. Clearly, the UK Government has access to far greater finances than does the Welsh Government, and it will be very necessary to have those finances to help us recover from the coronavirus. So, can you tell us what discussions you have had or are planning to have with UK Government to support the rebuild of Welsh finances?

So, I'll be looking very carefully at what will be said at the UK Government's budget on 3 March in terms of what it might say in terms of providing support for a recovery effort and the reconstruction of the economy. I'm particularly keen to see what they have to say in terms of capital, because, of course, when we look at what the Chancellor said back in March, we were expecting to be receiving around £400 million of additional capital funding in next year's budget, and that would have been really something that we could use to motor forward with the reconstruction work, with the kind of infrastructure projects that will be necessary for the reconstruction effort. But, in the event, we actually received a cut to our capital budget, which was very unexpected. So, I'm wondering if the Chancellor might be taking the opportunity to announce additional funding in March. That's what I would hope to see. And then Welsh Government would obviously want to put in place those projects that actually we've had the opportunity to discuss right at the start of questions today with the spokesperson for Plaid Cymru, in terms of the infrastructure projects that we have in the pipeline. So, I think that would be one area where I would like to see much more action from the UK Government, and some more clarity in terms of funding for the future years.

I've heard your response, Minister, to David Rowlands, but, of course, it's a matter for the Welsh Government how the Welsh Government cuts its cloth in terms of the funding from central Government. Now, I am concerned that, in the budget for national transport, infrastructure has gone from £150 million this year to £129 million in the next financial year. There are certainly long-term infrastructure projects and upgrades that are required across Wales, and so I'm just trying to understand why that is the case, why this budget has been significantly cut.

Well, there'll be a number of different challenges in relation to transport for next year. So, on the capital side, as I say, our capital budget has reduced next year, but I am hoping that the Chancellor will take the opportunity in March to provide additional funding and then we can always do more. Right at the start of today's session, I was rehearsing some of the particular projects that we would be looking to bring forward—for example, the third Menai crossing, the work on the A55, A494, A458 Flintshire corridor and the south Wales integrated transport metro and all of those kinds of projects. So, that's part of the story.

The other part is, of course, the COVID-related funding for transport. So, you'll have seen in the draft budget I've provided additional transport funding for buses, because I'm really keen that that sector has the certainty across the financial year and they're not worrying, as we come to the end of this financial year, that there won't be support, and that would have, obviously, negative impacts on service provision for the passengers. So, clearly, one of the next things I'm doing is exploring what, if anything, we need to see at the moment in terms of rail. So, there are further discussions, I think, to be had about support for the transport sector, but, in terms of the infrastructure side of things, clearly, we are more constrained than we would want to be in terms of the capital budget.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 3 on the agenda is questions to the Minister for Education, and the first question is from Mark Isherwood.

Thank you, Mark. I recognise that the uncertainty arising from the circumstances we are facing as a result of the current pandemic is particularly challenging for children and young people with additional learning needs, including autism. I remain committed to supporting learners, parents and carers during this extremely difficult time.

Thank you. When the Welsh Government first advised schools to close in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, it stated that this was with the exception of making provision for children who are vulnerable, or whose parents are critical to the COVID-19 response. Welsh Government guidance states that vulnerable children includes those with care and support or support plans and those with statements of special educational needs. However, I was then contacted by several affected Flintshire families—but not by families anywhere else—denied provision on the incorrect grounds that their parents also had to be key workers. The council there only backed down several weeks later after I obtained a definitive statement from the Welsh Government. How do you therefore respond to the solicitor representing families across Wales who has contacted me stating they have a legal case, raising the issue of when an autistic child should be schooled at home or in the special school that the child normally attends—the child's parents want the child to go to school, as they can't cope—and asking does the Welsh Government guidance allow children with autism SEN or additional learning needs to attend school if home schooling is a problem for parents?

Thank you, Mark. Quite rightly, as you identify, schools continue to provide education on site for vulnerable children and children of critical workers. The two are mutually exclusive; you do not need to be a child with additional learning needs and the child of a key worker to access that provision. And I am very grateful to all of those involved in our special schools and our pupil referral units, as well as our mainstream schools, for providing that support at this time. I'm glad to hear, Mark, that our correspondence to you regarding the contents of our guidance was helpful in assisting your constituents, and I would urge you to write to me once again with the case that you outline. There is considerable flexibility with regard to vulnerability, but we are very clear that, where at all possible, vulnerable children should be able to access face-to-face learning. But, if you would like to write to me, I will do my very best to endeavour to help you once again. 

Question 2 [OQ56264] and question 3 [OQ56269] have been withdrawn. Question 4—Gareth Bennett.

The disruption to schools has had a significant impact on learners’ progression, health and well-being and confidence. It has affected some more than others, particularly examination cohorts, early years, and our disadvantaged learners. We are working with partners to develop a sustainable and resilient approach to promoting learning in the coming years and addressing the interruptions.

Yes, thanks for that evaluation. It is a difficult situation. It seems to me that the experience of home learning has varied massively, which, I suppose, we should have expected. Before we can address how to catch up on the lost education of school-aged children as we come out of the COVID crisis, we will need somebody to assess authoritatively exactly where we are. Given that, do you foresee that Estyn will have a big role in assessing where we are, and what is your current thinking as regards the resumption of school inspections in Wales?

Well, I think it's important to recognise that all children will have had a COVID experience and their learning interrupted, and therefore, we will need an approach that supports all of our learners, but we also recognise that some parts of the cohort, as I said in my original answer, will have particular challenges, and indeed some individual children will have challenges that we will need to support.

In the first instance, we will work with local education authorities, regional school improvements, the professionals themselves, to develop a sustained intervention programme to support learners both in the short, medium and long term, and I would expect Estyn, as always, as part of the Welsh education family, to play a role. I hope inspections can move forward as planned, but clearly, we keep all of these issues under review as we deal with the consequences of the impact of the pandemic on education.

Minister, can you reassure us that the assessment of qualifications will take into account the different opportunities students have had to effectively learn from home?

Yes, indeed, David. Yesterday, the WJEC published further information as to how grades will be designated by schools and colleges. It is designed to be as flexible as possible, and to ensure that the different experiences that children will have can be adequately accounted for in that process. So, for instance, if I could give you an example: it does not designate, for instance, how many pieces of work are necessary to arrive at an assessment, recognising that each individual student will have had a very different experience.

Thank you. We now turn to spokespeople's questions, and the first this afternoon is Conservative spokesperson, Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Afternoon, Minister. We were all very relieved, of course, to hear you announce that primary schools will be open for face-to-face learning for foundation phase pupils after half term. However, with just three days to go until half term, we've seen the publication overnight of the guidance that schools have been clamouring for for some days now. Only this morning, actually, parents in one part of Wales received notice that their school would not reopen as anticipated because they hadn't had the guidance on how to carry out risk assessments, so I hope they're going to manage to catch up. 

You know that the teaching unions are very reluctant to see their members return without additional measures to make these safe spaces even safer, whatever the views of individual heads. So, I wonder if you could just summarise us for us the new steps, and tell us how you'll be getting the money or materials to the schools in time for them to implement, and maybe just tell us how you've informed schools, as it's clear from today that some of them still don't know. Thank you. 

Thank you, Suzy. The guidance was shared with our trade union partners on Friday of last week, and we have been working with them in the meantime to ensure that the guidance meets their satisfactions, and to work with them rather than issuing guidance and then only having to retract it as a result of comments that are made by the profession. I have been very keen to release that guidance as quickly as possible, and we have advertised across Welsh-medium channels this morning the availability of the guidance. 

Can I just stress though that what headteachers and school staff successfully did in the autumn term, to make their establishments as COVID secure as possible, remains the same? We know what works in terms of hand washing, ventilation and social distancing, as far as that is possible, especially with older children. But you are right, we are placing additional measures in place, including £5 million of investment for high-quality face coverings, which will be the same and distributed across Wales, as well as lateral flow testing. Lateral flow testing kits have been given to special schools this week, and lateral flow testing for those returning to school on 22 February will be in school for the start of that return.

Thank you for that. And I'm taking it from that as well that the trade unions are satisfied with the steps that are now in place, certainly for the foundation phase years. I'm hoping that they'll feel the same for secondary schools as well, because, as we know, Welsh Government's position at the moment is that it's pressures on the NHS that determines which parts of our society are released and when. But its position also is that schools—and that's in the round—should be the beneficiaries of any headroom in the drop in infection rates, which, I think, sounds like a commitment to open the secondary schools and colleges next, rather than starting to open up bits of the economy.

You mentioned that schools have now been contacted with high-level guidance for assessment in those exam years, which allows, and I'm quoting here,

'relatively few pieces of clear evidence would be sufficient to demonstrate attainment across overarching key themes for many qualifications.'

It's what you said to David Melding. And although that high-level guidance warns against awarding grades on a learner's potential, as opposed to their actual achievements, I think the temptation is still going to be there, isn't it, in the absence of a body of gradable work? So, I'm wondering if you can confirm that Welsh Government will be using any new headroom—supported by the twice-weekly testing of staff—to allow maximum face-to-face learning for those years, to help them not just to catch up if they're digitally disadvantaged, but in order to build up a body of gradable work, assessed in controlled conditions. And if you can say that, can you also say whether you've given some thought to, I don't know, more localised full reopening of schools and colleges, as the A-level indicators continue to vary across the country?

Thank you, Suzy. There is indeed a real enthusiasm from the trade union side and local education authorities to look to prioritise examination years, for exactly the reasons that you have outlined. Teachers would like those children back to as much face-to-face provision as possible, so that those assessments and that work around assessment can be carried out. I want to give reassurance: the guidance does say that work carried out at home can also form part of an assessment, but there is an absolute determination across the piece to now move towards a safe return to face-to-face learning for those older students.

Suzy mentioned the pressure on the NHS. That is just one of the factors that we will need to take into consideration; it's an important one, of course. And it is the danger of overwhelming the NHS and the level 5 notification from the chief medical officers across the United Kingdom that made me take a very regretful decision to have to close schools for face-to-face learning for the majority of pupils. We also need to continue to monitor community transmission levels. We also need to continue to monitor positivity levels, and we need to assess what a return for more face-to-face students would mean for the R rate. But clearly, there is a determination across the piece, and I hope that, by the next three-week review, we will be in a position to outline next steps to returning more children and young people for face-to-face learning.

That's encouraging, because older learners and parents are starting to get very agitated now as they see us heading towards the traditional exam period—I know the process is different now—and they're seeing their children getting quite worked up about this. So, the sooner they're open the better on that. You didn't say anything about differences across Wales, but that's possibly because you're not in a position to do that.

I was going to ask you about the curriculum implementation plan, but unless Siân's going to ask you about it today, I'll save that for our final exchange next month, and ask you a quick question about school funding, if I may. Members have expressed concern about the historically high levels of reserves, especially at primary level in our schools. So, a decrease of 22 per cent in that sector as of March last year, before COVID, is worth noting, but at the same time the overall decrease was actually 32.6 per cent, showing that secondary schools were still struggling and, in fact, some primary schools were starting to struggle. And, now, we're in a position heading into COVID, last year, with 35 per cent of our schools in negative reserves. So, that's not even nil, it's below nil. So, how will your education COVID recovery plan be affected by the fact that so many schools are the equivalent of being insolvent? And, as nine of them are special schools, will you be looking to find additional additional learning needs funds for those particular schools?

Well, finance for recovery is in addition to usual school budgets and, in this financial year, we have invested £29 million in our recruit, recover and raise standards fund, and additional moneys for examination cohorts, as well as additional moneys for the production of support material for examination cohorts. I always take every opportunity to maximise funding to the ALN system, recognising the specific challenges associated with education for children with additional learning needs and, if I am able to, I will be very pleased to add additional sums to that particular budget line. 

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. In three weeks' time, the full Senedd will be discussing the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill. If passed the legislation will set the educational direction for our nation for many years to come. Learning about relationships and sexuality is included on the face of the Bill as a mandatory element to be included in the curriculum of all schools. Learning about mental health and well-being has now been added to the face of the Bill at Stage 2. Can you explain why those two elements need to be on the face of the Bill?

The decision to put relationship and sexuality education on the face of the Bill is as a result of the recommendation by the independent review that I set up as the Minister. The inclusion of making sure that, in setting the curriculum, schools have regard for mental health and well-being is perfectly in line with the policy direction of this Government to ensure a whole-school approach. So, what we are changing and what we are amending is ensuring that, in actually designing a curriculum, mental health and well-being of students is a key consideration. With regard to the content of curriculum, mental health and well-being, of course, will play a very important part of the area of learning and experience, which is a statutory part of the curriculum.

I agree entirely with you that including these two elements could contribute significantly towards transforming our society in a positive way: helping to eradicate the abuse of women and creating an equal society; helping to deal with prejudice against the LGBT community; and in terms of preventing mental health problems. Education is the key in creating the transformation that we need. But the Bill is deficient and flawed, because it isn't rational. 

Your Bill is defective, because it's illogical. 

Including the two elements that we're discussing in order to ensure that they are taught consistently across our schools, because they can be complex and difficult issues to teach, and because we believe that learning about them could create a better society in Wales—. Now, you've included them for those reasons, but, again, it's exactly the same argument and exactly the same valid argument on the inclusion of a third element on the face of the Bill, namely placing Welsh history in all its diversity, including black and people of colour history, on the face of the Bill. Can you explain the logic for including two important elements, but rejecting that third element on the face of the Bill?

It will be compulsory under the terms of the new Curriculum for Wales for both Welsh history and black and minority history to be taught in our schools. That is because they are outlined in our 'what matters' statement, which is a statutory part of the curriculum.

But your arguments are flawed, because that isn't logical. What you've just explained now demonstrates that you don't intend to promote Welsh history, in all its diversity, to the face of the Bill in the way that you have chosen to—and I agree with that choice—include two other specific elements on the face of the Bill. Welsh history in all its diversity must be on the face of the Bill if we are serious about our aim to create a curriculum that will enable pupils and children to develop into principled and informed citizens of Wales and the world, which is one of the founding principles of the Bill. It must be included on the face of the Bill, if we are to tackle deep-seated problems of racism and racial inequality, which are systemic within our society, unfortunately. Don't you agree that the world has transformed since this Bill was originally drafted and that including a third mandatory element that could create far-reaching change would mean that legislation could be passed that would be far more powerful, transformational and logical?

Siân Gwenllian is right; these subjects must be taught in Welsh schools, and they will be taught in Welsh schools—[Interruption.] No, if you let me finish, Siân Gwenllian—they will be taught in Welsh schools because they are included in the 'what matters' statements, which are a mandatory part of the curriculum. I'm sure Siân Gwenllian knows the meaning of the word 'mandatory'. They will be required in law to be taught.

Can I just caution the Member? Because I know she has taken the time and the trouble to meet with Charlotte Williams, who is taking a particular interest in advising the Government on the subject of black history. Charlotte Williams does not believe that what Siân Gwenllian is hoping to achieve can be done by simply talking about black history within the humanities area of learning and experience. She does not believe that that is the correct approach. If we are to see the transformation that Siân Gwenllian talks about, we need these issues taught as cross-curricular themes right the way across the curriculum and that's what will be achieved by our 'what matters' statement, which, as I repeat again, is compulsory and therefore will have to be taught.

The range of measures to support learning include extensive professional learning, significant investment in devices and the £29 million accelerating learning programme. Schools in Rhondda Cynon Taf have received over £2.3 million from that £29 million investment and an allocation of over £358,000 from the £7 million fund to support coaching and mentoring for examination years.

Thank you very much, Minister, for that comprehensive answer. Evidence has consistently shown that those pupils eligible for free school meals are at more risk of falling behind their peers while learning from home, for a variety of complex and interrelated reasons. I recently had the privilege of attending the Senedd's Children, Young People and Education Committee, where you spoke about the emerging plans to use the school holiday enrichment programme as a vehicle to help those pupils who are eligible for free school meals to catch up through the summer holiday on the learning they may have missed during the pandemic. This is a strategy that could prove to reap rich rewards for young people in my constituency and across Wales. So, Minister, are you able to share any further details on this ambitious scheme with us today?

The Welsh Government's budget for 2021-22 includes £4.85 million for the school holiday enrichment programme. This represents a £2.15 million increase on the amount that was available in the previous year. We believe that this will allow us to fund places for up to 14,000 children in Wales. We continue to work with the Welsh Local Government Association, who manage the programme with us, to maximise that budget. We are discussing the potential need to adapt the nature of the programme in light of COVID to be a broader part of our recovery programme. I know, in the past, that the SHEP programme has made a massive difference to children, and it provides us with a really, really helpful model and vehicle to begin to address the very real impact that, as you have quite rightly identified, has hit more disadvantaged children particularly hard. 

I am very pleased with the significant progress of the coleg Cymraeg since the publication of the ambitious and robust action plan. Over 100 additional learners have been supported, and much-needed health and social care resources have been created. The next Prentis-Iaith language modules are also in development after the first level surpassed all of our expectations.

The Minister launched the action plan over two years ago, and although some progress has been made, we are still in a position where only 11 per cent of further education staff and 7 per cent of apprenticeship staff are able to teach through the medium of Welsh. Can the Minister explain what the Welsh Government is doing to ensure that colleges have the resources that they need to employ more staff who do have Welsh language skills to provide bilingual provision, particularly in areas such as childcare and health and social care, where we need a bilingual workforce?

I've provided the coleg with over £0.5 million this year for a range of projects, and strategic projects have been extended to all colleges in the priority areas of health and social care and childcare and public services. Because you're absolutely right; we need to make sure that we have the workforce with the linguistic skills to meet the needs of all communities and citizens in Wales. This has enabled the colleges to employ additional teaching staff and put structures in place to support the learners, and embed bilingual provision within the colleges. What's particularly pleasing, Mike, is that colleges themselves have provided match funding to these projects, which demonstrates their commitment to extending bilingual models and courses for learners. This is a joint endeavour, both from the coleg themselves and also the individual institutions. Over 305 staff in 10 colleges followed the Work Welsh/Cymraeg Gwaith course provided by the National Centre for Learning Welsh last year, and the sector's response has been extremely positive again this year by ensuring that more and more of their staff can access such professional learning opportunities. I'd like to pay tribute to the work that the coleg is doing. The post-16 action plan is a long-term plan, and I have full confidence in the coleg in achieving its very stretching and robust goals. 

Russell George. 

My question has been addressed in an earlier question. Thank you. 

Thank you. Bethan Sayed. 

I have heard you say here today how well the coleg Cymraeg is doing in the work that they're doing, and I agree, and I've met with them to discuss that work. But, when the Minister for the Welsh language attended our committee, the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, very recently, we raised the issue with her that there was nothing in the draft budget to enhance that budget. The coleg Cymraeg has asked for £800,000 in addition this year, and then further future allocations in order to deliver this laudable work in our FE institutions. So, what do you say to them on that, and do you intend to listen to them and make changes to the budget when it comes to that stage?

I can confirm that discussions have been ongoing between the Welsh language division, the further education and apprenticeship division and finance officials to further explore what more we can do to support the important work of the coleg. 

As I said earlier, the disruption to schools has had a significant impact on learners' progression, health and well-being and confidence. It has affected some more than others—particularly those that are in the examination cohorts, the early years, and those that are disadvantaged in some way. We are working with our partners to develop a sustainable and resilient approach to promoting learning as we emerge from this pandemic.

Thank you, Minister, for that frank and honest answer. As you've touched on in that answer, home schooling and associated issues have presented a number of challenges for families during the pandemic. Whilst many schools have seen an increase in the number of pupils attending hub provision, the overwhelming majority of children are still at home, and a large number are struggling, particularly where parents are balancing home schooling with homeworking and other issues. Whilst I welcome the £9.4 million announced by the mental health and well-being Minister last week, can you confirm that we will see a ramping up of counselling and emotional support for children and young people in our schools, and indeed their families as well, and that this will be an urgent priority of the Government during the current budget process and beyond that, so that these families can get the support that they need as we come out of the pandemic?

Thank you, Nick, for your recognition of the real challenges that families have been facing at this time. I don't think anybody has not found home schooling or supporting remote learning at home particularly challenging. I'll hold my hands up myself; it is really, really difficult to do, and if you are working yourself, then it is particularly challenging. I want to say thank you to parents across Wales who have been working to support their children throughout this time. They've done a sterling job, and I know sometimes that has come at the expense of their own well-being. I'm very grateful to them.

Going forward, as part of our recovery programme, we need to address both the issue of interrupted learning from a content point of view, but we also need to ensure that our children's emotional health and well-being needs are also addressed, so that they're in a position to learn. Sometimes, the discussion around recovery is all about cramming in more opportunities for more lessons. But as Yeats is sometimes said to have said, education is not about pouring more into the pail, it is about lighting fires. Our approach to recovery will be about supporting learners to re-engage and to relight that fire as well as addressing the issues of content that they may have missed.

Demand for Welsh-medium education in South Wales East remains high. Our investment in five new Welsh-medium primaries and several childcare and school extensions in this region will further support this upward trend. This is encouraging news, I think, as local authorities head towards the publication of their new Welsh in education strategic plans, with individual targets aligned with the Welsh Government's overall aims of 'Cymraeg 2050'.

Thank you. At the moment, at the moment, Minister, there is only Welsh-medium school in Blaenau Gwent, and travel there is a barrier, particularly for younger children. Obviously, parents don't want to put three-year-olds on two different buses to go to a school which is two valleys away. And local campaigners have been concerned for many years about the reduction in the number of children from the county attending Welsh-medium schools; that is until now: the council in Blaenau Gwent has proposed the construction of a new Welsh school, opening the first classrooms in 2023. Would you, first of all, Minister, join with me in congratulating campaigners such as Meryl Darkins and Ann Bellis, and also ensure that you will support the council in order to ensure that the school does open on time? In the meantime, Minister, could you speak to the Minister for transport to see whether there is any means of improving the transport situation for the children in the meantime, before that school opens? And this is my last point, I promise, Deputy Presiding Officer: I understand that this is a matter for the council, but you helped to put momentum behind Welsh-medium education in Merthyr last year when you provided grant funding. Places like Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr are so central to the target of a million Welsh speakers, so Government support would be truly beneficial here. Thank you.

Thank you, Delyth. Welsh Government are supporting Blaenau Gwent with the development of the school that you have just referenced with a grant of £5.8 million. That grant has been awarded to address the very real logistical and travel problems that you have identified, and that has meant that families who would previously have chosen Welsh-medium education have not done so, because of the long distances involved. Therefore, it is very important that this need has been recognised, and with the help of that £5.8 million from Welsh Government, we will see a new Welsh-medium primary school in the Tredegar-Sirhowy area. It's much needed, much longed-for, and as you said, people have been campaigning for that. The local authority have also identified the need to improve their marketing and promotion strategy in relation to Welsh-medium education to sit alongside the development of that school. My only regret is that I will not be the Minister who gets the privilege and the pleasure of opening it and welcoming children to that new establishment.

Minister, six months ago the Welsh language commissioner expressed concern about the decline in the number of newly qualified teachers able to teach Welsh, and said it could undermine your Government's ambition to have a million speakers of the language in 30 years' time. I'm just wondering what you've been doing to address this.

You're absolutely right. To achieve the target in 2050 we do need to recruit more teachers who are able to teach in our Welsh-medium schools and in our bilingual schools, and we also need to equip our teachers working in English-medium schools to deliver high-quality Welsh lessons. We have set targets for ITE providers to recruit to the initial teacher education programmes, and we have established, although the pandemic has slightly impacted on it, a new conversion programme for teachers who have previously qualified to teach through the medium of Welsh in the primary sector, where we sometimes, in certain parts of Wales, have an oversupply, to allow them to convert quickly to be able to teach through the medium of Welsh in the secondary sector. We have seen significant demand for that professional learning programme, which I believe will help us to address some of the issues identified by the commissioner.