Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon and welcome, all, to this afternoon's Plenary session. The first item will be questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Tom Giffard. 

Llywydd, a monitoring framework for 20 mph zones will be published by the end of September. This will set out the key performance indicators. One of these will be vehicle journey times and journey time variation on main through routes.

Llywydd, by far the largest ever Senedd petition in history is being signed this week, with over 162,000 people and counting registering their opposition to the Welsh Labour Government's 20 mph scheme. One of the reasons people will be opposing this scheme is because of the cost to our economy. The Government's own figures show that it could be hit by up to £9 billion, and people know we can't afford it, because, after 25 years of Labour in Wales, we're languishing at the bottom of league tables for economic prosperity. They used to want to aspire to bring us up to the UK average. Now their only aspiration is stuffing 96 politicians in this place.

But if he doesn't believe me when I say there'll be an economic hit, perhaps he'll want to listen to a constituent of mine who's an audiologist making home visits across south Wales. He contacted me to tell me, and I quote part of his e-mail: 

'It takes way too long from one patient to another, uses more fuel, too risky for prosecution and licence points. We can no longer visit care home patients either for the same reason and we've cancelled them. Home care nurses are complaining as they're not allocated travelling time between calls and makes it impossible to fit all patients allocated in.'

First Minister, that's just one business, but stories like this will be repeated across Wales. People across the country won't be able to receive the services that they rely on thanks to your Government's actions. So, will you commit, as the 160,000 plus-strong petition asks you to and rescind your disastrous 20 mph scheme?

No, Llywydd.

Can I start by wishing the First Minister a happy birthday today? I'm sure that's on all sides of the Chamber a matter of disagreement, but there we go.

We're also, of course, this week marking the anniversary of Liz Truss becoming Prime Minister. We listen to the Tories talking about the economy. They caused a £40 billion hit to the Treasury in an hour. The entire Welsh Government budget spent by an incompetent Prime Minister in an hour, and crashing the economy. And now they tell us that they're worried about business. If they were worried about business, of course, they wouldn't have supported Brexit either. 

But, First Minister, can the Welsh Government emphasise the importance of the new law on human beings, on people, on communities? One of the things that I've heard people speaking about over the last few weeks and the last few days has been about how they want their communities back, that they don't want their communities ruled by the car, that they want to feel safe in their communities, they want to feel safe on the roads. And one thing I've heard from younger people is that they don't always feel safe on our roads. The Tories don't care about them; I do. Let me say this, First Minister: let's hear about the stories of real human beings who support what the Welsh Government is doing. 

Well, I thank Alun Davies for that, Llywydd. Some people take a day off on their birthday, so I'm told. [Laughter.] Look, I want to reflect— 

You would have been in breach of Standing Orders if you'd taken the day off today, First Minister. [Laughter.]

I would never want to be in that position, Llywydd.

I want to reflect on the main point that Alun Davies made, because I was thinking about this at the weekend when I read a story that the BBC had reported of a man reflecting on the death of his brother in a car accident some years earlier, and how that death might have been prevented had the speed of the vehicle been travelling at 20 rather than 30 mph. And what that reminded me of, Llywydd, was the many conversations that I remember having in the lead-up to the organ donation Bill here on the floor of the Senedd, where I met the families of so many people who had lost their lives in road traffic accidents, and those families had gone on to agree for organs to be donated. But the impact of the loss of that individual was as alive in the lives of those people, sometimes 20 years and more after the accident had happened, as it was on the day itself, and behind this decision and this course of action lie those lives. It is the lives of people who will be saved. It is the lives of people who would otherwise be caught up in the road traffic accidents, which will not happen when people are travelling at 20 mph that do happen when people travel at 30 mph. That is the purpose of it. That is why this Government will stick fast to the decision that we have made, endorsed twice on the floor of the Senedd, not by a simple majority, but by a supermajority, because of the human stories that lie behind the decision we have made and will go on implementing here in Wales.

First Minister, I very much agree with you that 20 mph rolled out as a default speed limit is going to save lives and is going to prevent very many serious injuries. But would you agree with me that what we've seen is a distortion of the debate from the Welsh Tories—for example, trotting out this line repeatedly that it's a blanket ban, when we know that there will be exceptions? And that is part of a pattern, First Minister, a pattern coming from the top, from the leader Andrew R.T. Davies—for example, pretending that asylum seekers coming to Wales would receive cash handouts from the Welsh Government. It's part of a pattern, First Minister, and it's part of a pattern that is distorting and debasing our democracy. We must call it out.

Well, let me be clear once again, Llywydd, because I heard voices on the Conservative benches once again claiming that this is a blanket ban. They know—[Interruption.]—they know that it is not. It is a default speed limit, which is not the same as a blanket ban. [Interruption.] Llywydd, I'm prepared to go on explaining this to the leader of the opposition, but, as John Griffiths has said, some people have already concluded it's not that he doesn't understand, it's just that he's determined not to tell the truth, and that is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace, in someone who holds the office that he holds. Because the truth—[Interruption.]

Can I make an intervention?

No, you can't. You will have your opportunity to ask the First Minister in a minute. The First Minister to conclude.

So, let me say again to him: this is not a blanket ban.

It is.

Llywydd, the leader of the opposition appears to believe that by simply continuing to say something that is not true, he can make it true. It is, as the questioner at least had the grace to say in his question, a default 20 mph speed limit, and then local authorities have the ability, and all local authorities have exercised this ability, to set other speed limits. If it were a blanket ban, they would not have been able to do that. That is why it is simply untrue to keep repeating, no matter how many times it is explained, no matter how many times the leader of the opposition knows that what he is saying is a distortion of the truth, the position is it is a default speed limit, with the ability of local authorities, which local authorities are exercising, to amend that speed limit on roads where they know that that is the right answer for their local populations.

I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. The criteria used in determining listed building status are necessarily stringent. The legislative framework for the management and protection of listed buildings is complemented by planning controls that can safeguard buildings of special value to communities. Public bodies, the third sector and owners have important roles in conserving our historic buildings.

Thank you, First Minister. As you will know, the heritage sector in Wales is worth a staggering £960 million to the Welsh economy, and Wales is truly blessed with having a high number of historic buildings and monuments. However, these need considerable care if they are to be maintained and preserved for future generations. The First Minister will be aware of a number of heritage organisations who have expressed concern recently over the shortage of craftsmen and women who have knowledge of the traditional building skills that are needed to repair and restore these historic buildings and monuments. I acknowledge that Cadw are currently working with partners across Wales to address this issue and that the Welsh Government is working with Qualifications Wales on the development of new qualifications that will raise the profile of traditional building skills. But if we are going to attract people into this sector, they need to know the extent of skill shortage and the potential for work post qualification. With this in mind, what assessment has the Welsh Government made of the shortfall of skilled workers trained within the heritage craft sector and what efforts have been taken to advertise traditional building craft as a potential career for school leavers? Thank you.

Well, I thank Joel James for that important question, and I agree with everything, I think, that he said. The sector is a very important one here in Wales. We are lucky enough—we have over 30,000 listed buildings in Wales, and Cadw continues to list buildings of national significance. I think, in the last year, they listed 26 new buildings out of 88 applications. So, the criteria are stringent, and so they should be. But Joel James is right to say that there is a shortage of people with the very specialist skills that are needed to protect and preserve some of our most important historic buildings. It's why Cadw has taken the lead, in working with others in exactly the way that the Member said, to identify where skill shortages exist, to make sure that there are qualifications available for people who would be willing to train, and then that those people know that there will be a flow of work for them to do in future.

One of the reasons why it is so important that Cadw takes the lead is because those skills are likely to be needed to be shared across a range of different projects, not all of them being run by the same organisation. Cadw, as the co-ordinating body, is well placed to make sure that that flow of work can be made available, and Cadw, of course, itself is a major funder of the sort of work that those skills would be needed to complete. Last year, Cadw issued 58 historic building grants, worth nearly £2 million. The Welsh Government will continue to work with Cadw, with Qualifications Wales, to make sure that people who would be prepared to devote their working lives to some, I think, of the most rewarding work that they will find available for them know that those opportunities exist, and that we work together to increase the supply of people to take up those opportunities.

The First Minister may be aware that the Petitions Committee, of which, I believe, Joel James is a member, has considered—and it will be having a debate on the floor of this Chamber—the issue of conservation management plans and having those being made compulsory for historic buildings. I'm really glad that the committee has done that, and I say 'thank you' across party, across the committee, to those Members who've done it. The petition was initiated by the Ruperra Castle Preservation Trust, and I would strongly recommend that the Welsh Government, before preparing a response to the debate in this Chamber, speaks to the Ruperra Castle Preservation Trust on specifically why it would be helpful for Ruperra castle. Ruperra castle is in private ownership, but having a conservation management plan there would, at least, help secure the castle for the future, even if it doesn't open it up to visitors. Could I, therefore, ask for the First Minister's support in that and that the Welsh Government then, as I say, subsequently listens to Ruperra Castle Preservation Trust?

Well, thank you to Hefin David. I am a supporter of the Petitions Committee, and, I think, under the leadership of Jack Sargeant in this Senedd term, it's been doing some exceptionally interesting work. So, I'll look forward to having that debate on the floor of the Senedd. The Member responsible for these matters is in the Chamber and will have heard what Hefin David said, and he can be sure that the Government will be thinking carefully about the case for statutory management plans in this sector and will make our response when that debate takes place.

First Minister, it's sad to note that Cardiff has lost one of the last nineteenth century streets in the centre of our capital city. The residents of Cardiff of a particular age will speak longingly about the Victorian swimming pool, the Guildford baths, that were on that road—a building of great architecture that was destroyed to build a hotel that is meaningless in architectural terms. In destroying Guildford Crescent and depriving local businesses of their homes, the council said that there was no environmental impact assessment necessary from the developers. Certainly, given that the façade has now followed the rest of the buildings, there should have been a full assessment of the cultural and economic impact of losing these buildings too. As one who's lived in Cardiff for decades, First Minister, I'm sure that there are buildings that you miss greatly in the capital city that have now been forgotten. How can the Welsh Government work with Cardiff Council to ensure that our capital city doesn't lose more of its historic sites, and would you consider the call by the Chartered Institute of Building for a demolition levy on developers? Thank you.

I thank Rhys ab Owen. What's happened in Guildford Crescent, as I understand it, is that the developer has moved forward with things without gaining consent from Cardiff Council. So, it's up to Cardiff Council now whether they're going to take any formal action against the party that has preceded without consent.

Generally, Llywydd, I referred in my original answer to the fact that local authorities have powers to create local lists, and when they do so and put those buildings and so forth on those lists, they can strengthen what they can do to protect those buildings for the future. The Deputy Minister wrote out to the local authorities back in last July, drawing their attention to the powers that they have and to try and tell them about the importance of using those powers, using the powers that local councils have, to protect buildings and other locations where there is a lot of local interest, and when those kinds of buildings make reference to the local character, in terms of things like Guildford Crescent here in Cardiff.

Questions now from the party leaders. Leader of the Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many happy returns, First Minister. I'm sure we could all think of better places on our birthday to be than the debating Chamber of the Senedd, or maybe not in this case. But I'd like to raise with you the tweet that the Counsel General put out on Saturday, and it's worth repeating:

'Tories so happy to see people and particularly children killed and injured on our roads.'

That, surely, is unacceptable language to use when trying to engage in a policy position that we have a disagreement over. To say that we would be particularly pleased to see children killed and injured is not acceptable, is it, First Minister?

Well, as I understand, the Counsel General took the tweet down immediately and has since acknowledged that he would not have expressed it in that way had he been in a position to give it further consideration.

I'm grateful that that tweet was taken down, but I didn't hear an apology to the people that it was aimed at. Ultimately, it was a very offensive tweet, to say the least, to say that we would wish to see children being injured. But it's been taken down. I had hoped that you as First Minister might have apologised on behalf of the Counsel General, but, obviously, that's not forthcoming.

So, could I ask you, First Minister, on the budget proposals that your Government is considering at the moment, what level of protection will the NHS budget be afforded in those discussions, given the statement from the health Minister last week that all health boards are in some form of financial special measures now and that the projected overspend of their budgets is £800 million?

Llywydd, it is the case that all health boards in Wales are facing challenges with their budgets. That is no surprise to anybody who recognises the impact on all our public services of more than a decade of Conservative austerity. That is the reason that health boards in Wales are under such pressure: it is because their budgets have been held down year after year. If you want to look, Llywydd, at the graphs that are there in the public domain, they show that, in 2010, briefly, as a result of a decade of rising investment, the proportion of national income spent on health services across the United Kingdom reached the average spent in countries like Germany and France and others with whom we would often compare ourselves. Ever since, that graph has drifted, drifted down and down, so that the gap between what is needed in our public services and what is available as a result of central Government decisions simply means that health boards end up in the position that they are in, compounded now by inflation, the impact of rapidly rising energy costs, unfunded pay settlements, where the UK Government strikes pay deals and provides no money at all with which to fund them. The result is health boards right across Wales—and right across United Kingdom, be in no doubt at all; health boards everywhere—. This is not a Welsh phenomenon; just look at what is happening across our border and see the difficulties the health boards there are in as well.

This Government will always prioritise the national health service. That has been the character of the conversations that we have had right across the summer to make sure that, despite the pressures that are there and the difficulties that the health boards are reporting, we are mobilising whatever help we can find across the Welsh Government to protect them from the worst of the effects of his party’s onslaught on public services.

It’s always someone else’s fault when it comes to the First Minister—

Well, in this case, you're telling me it is.

—a Minister, when he was an MS, who pressed the button to obviously cut the NHS budget here in Wales. And my initial question to the First Minister was: will the health budget be afforded any form of protection under the current discussions that are going on in Government? I fully accept there are challenges across the whole of the United Kingdom, but Wales is the only country where all health boards are in some form of financial special measure. No other country in the United Kingdom has that in place. But you really do have to ask: have you got your priorities right, First Minister? There is a petition, as we’ve heard, on the Petitions Committee website against the 20 mph blanket ban that has come in, up to 162,000 signatures. You are proposing to put another 36 politicians into this institution, at a cost of £120 million, and yet, when I offer you a simple chance to offer some comfort to those in the health service and those who depend on the health service that it would be afforded some form of protection in the budget round, you choose not to take that opportunity to offer that protection. So, have you got your priorities right, First Minister?

Well, first of all, Llywydd, let me repeat everything that we have done over this summer is designed to protect the health service. So, if he wants an answer on that, he’s got it. Everything we are doing is designed to help the health service in the difficulties that they are reporting; let nobody be in any doubt of that. And of course, the £92 million that the health service will save as the result of fewer road accidents is itself a help to the health service during these difficult times, and that’s every single year that they will benefit in that way. And equipping the Senedd to make sure that it can do the job that we are asked to do, dealing with a £20 billion budget, dealing with the powers that we now have to raise taxes, dealing with the powers that we have to legislate for people in Wales, making sure that this institution is fit for the responsibilities that we exercise and will be so into the future, that is an investment in all our public services to make sure that the decisions that are made here are the very best decisions that can be made.

Leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd. Yesterday, exciting plans were published to turn this Parliament into a stronger, more representative Parliament that will better serve Wales, and that is 26 years since the original devolution referendum. I look forward to collaborating within this Senedd to deliver this; it's a historic step.

One thing reform of this Senedd will do is to bring us closer to the level of representation that they have in the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday marked nine years since the Scottish independence referendum. I’d like to ask the First Minister: is this a fairer, more equal union now as a result of that vote?

Well, Llywydd, I agree with what the leader of Plaid Cymru said, that the changes that we propose to make will bring the representation of people in Wales closer to the representation that other parts of the United Kingdom already enjoy, and I don't think there is anything that anybody would regret in making sure that the democratic rights of Welsh people are commensurate with the democratic rights that people elsewhere in the same United Kingdom have. Do I think that the United Kingdom today is a stronger union than it was some time ago? Well, I don't. I've long said that the assault on devolution, particularly since 2019, has the effect of undermining support for the union rather than building it up. My aim, of course, Llywydd, is to make the case for the union, a case that I believe is there to be made and made powerfully. But the actions of the 2019 Conservative Government, with its mistaken policy of muscular unionism, taking back money, taking back powers, undermining the settlement that was voted for in two referendums here in Wales, I'm afraid has the opposite effect.

I'm grateful for the response. Of course it's an unequal union; the evidence is quite clear. That's why I think it's time for a redesign of Britain. The First Minister thinks it's time to double down. But let's look at how inequalities are manifested. One example: last week, I asked the First Minister about Keir Starmer's lack of commitment to pass on HS2 and Northern Powerhouse rail funding to Wales—the perhaps £6 billion currently denied to us by the Conservative UK Government. The actual figure, I suppose, is up for debate because the Tories are making such a hash of delivering HS2, but the principle remains the same. 'It's not a pledge for me to make', was the First Minister's answer. Why does the First Minister believe that a prospective Labour Government is able to make spending commitments in other areas but not in this? Shouldn't fairness for Wales be a red line?

Well, let me say first of all—. Well, first of all, Llywydd, let me just correct the very first thing that the leader of Plaid Cymru said. I am in favour of redesigning the United Kingdom; he is in favour of breaking it up. That's the difference between us. I am in favour of redesign; he's certainly not. As far as HS2 is concerned, if there is any truth in the rumours that we read about it now not proceeding into the north of England, then the fiction that has been used by the Treasury to deny funding here to Wales will be exposed even further.

We are approaching the point when the UK Government will have to embark on its next comprehensive spending review. We are in the third year, or approaching the third year, of the current three-year period. That is an opportunity to make the case again for how comparability factors between different UK departments and the Barnett formula can be put right. And the finance Minister will be meeting again with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—her seventh Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as I always remind people. She is with him on Wednesday—tomorrow—of this week, and we will be making that case to him again.

Of course, I look forward to the days when there is a Labour Government, because a Labour Government will instinctively wish to make sure that the right decisions are made across the whole of the United Kingdom, and quite certainly that will include Wales. 

And it's that kind of commitment to all parts of the United Kingdom, including Wales in particular for us, that I'm still looking for from Keir Starmer. I'm really interested in the language used by the First Minister talking about us wanting to break up Britain. I'm not interested in breaking up Britain, but in building up Wales. I don't consider myself to be a separatist; I think we can be closer together as independent nations within these islands. But, on Saturday, I do look forward to marching for independence in Bangor. I invite the First Minister to come too. Perhaps he'll finally get swept along by that progressive wave. There'll be many supporters of his party there, no doubt, alongside members and supporters of Plaid Cymru and those with no party allegiance, all under one banner. 

Now, I'm heartened by recent polling, which suggests that running our own affairs is an increasingly appealing prospect, or, should I say, that it's becoming more and more apparent that it's necessary, because, for me and those of us on these benches, independence has and always will be about being able to build a fairer Wales and being able to be more ambitious for Wales. But, when the Conservatives and then Labour make pledges like denying HS2 funding and on not scrapping the two child benefit cap, and on so many other issues that run against Welsh values or show unfairness towards Wales, does the First Minister believe that will lead to more or less support for independence?

Well, Llywydd, I can't help but think that had the leader of Plaid Cymru been able to fulfil his ambition to leave the Senedd and make his way to Westminster, he would have had ample opportunity to put these points directly to Keir Starmer instead of having to constantly act as though I was some proxy for where he really would like to be. I don't think it's completely unfair to point that out to him. Anybody who believes that breaking up the United Kingdom would lead to a closer relationship between Wales and the component parts of the United Kingdom would surely wish to reflect on the experience of Brexit. Do we really believe that, having left the European Union, we are somehow closer to Europe than we were before that happened? It is a thought really rooted in fantasy to believe that you could break up the United Kingdom, leave the other component parts, and then be closer to them as a result.

Look, Llywydd, I am very happy to go on making the case that I do, and I believe it is a case that resonates with people here in Wales in far, far larger numbers than those who will turn out to march with him again in Bangor, and that is a case for a solidarity union. That is a case for a United Kingdom rooted in the beliefs of the Labour Party, in which we pool our resources and we share out the rewards according to need, where people know that by being a member of the United Kingdom they have certain unalienable rights—rights that have been attacked over the last 10 years. But an incoming Labour Government will restore to people rights to know that if they fall into illness or old age or disability, they will be protected by the state; knowing that if they are in the workplace, there will be rights there to protect them; knowing that when they buy things in the shops there will be consumer rights to make sure that the goods they buy are of the standard that they are entitled to expect. That's the sort of union that I want to see. That's the sort of union that the Labour Party will be putting in front of people at the next election, and that's the union that I think that people in Wales will, in very large number, demonstrate that they support.

I thank the Member, Llywydd, for that question. The statement on the legislative programme on 27 June confirmed that a Bill establishing an environmental governance body for Wales will be brought forward during this Senedd term. In the meantime, we are strengthening arrangements to ensure that the interim assessor can continue to do her valuable work.

Thank you, First Minister, for your response, and of course when the people of Wales voted for Brexit, one of the things that we gained was control over that environmental governance, and as you've outlined today, I welcome that coming though in this Senedd term, because it was of course in 2018 that Welsh Government committed to legislating for these new domestic arrangements for environmental governance. It is a shame it's taken five years in the meantime for this to come through, because of course we've seen the equivalent laws in place in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland in that time, and as a result we've potentially had a gap in our environmental legislation. And of course, I'm sure you would support me in seeing this work well for species like the species that I champion, which is the common dolphin. So, I wonder, First Minister, within this legislation coming through, what commitments you can ensure so that species like the common dolphin receive the protection and oversight that they deserve.

Well, Llywydd, I thank Sam Rowlands for that question, and I repeat that there will be legislation during this Senedd term. A White Paper is due to be published in January. The points that the Member makes will be able to be taken up there, because that White Paper will set a path to a Bill that will contain biodiversity targets and nature restoration targets, as well as post-EU environmental governance arrangements. In the meantime, I do commend the work of the interim assessor, Dr Nerys Llewelyn Jones. I think she has done a very fine job with the powers that she has. We are going to strengthen her office in the meantime, through the appointment of a deputy interim assessor, and we are increasing the budget available to her to make sure that she has access to the specialist advice that she will need.

If Members here haven't had an opportunity to read it, I commend her annual report, which was published to Senedd Members earlier this year. In it, it sets out the work that she has done on protected sites, on water quality, on land contamination, on forestry, and sets out the programme of work that she continues to pursue during this calendar year. So, while we are committed to bringing permanent arrangements into place and, as I say, we'll set out our proposals in that White Paper, no-one should believe that there is not, in the meantime, a very active, committed and, I think, successful set of arrangements in place that continue to make sure that environmental protections are offered here in Wales, and implemented with rigour and with success.

I also commend the work of Dr Nerys Llewelyn Jones, the interim assessor. She's appeared twice in front of the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee, chaired so ably by Llyr. But it is, as you say, First Minister, an interim arrangement. It will be strengthened, going forward. But we're looking forward to those future environmental governance arrangements. Can I set out, for his thoughts, three suggestions that should underline what that should do?

First of all, it should give voice to the citizen, including our younger citizens who were in the gallery earlier today, within environmental governance. It should further the principles and fit within the principles of our groundbreaking Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and it should achieve nature restoration. So, could you assure me that, in Wales, we will do nothing, as we seek to strengthen environmental governance within Wales, that would weaken the protections for nature and for our healthy ecosystems, and that certainly we are not going to follow preposterous suggestions like that we have heard from the UK Conservatives to get rid of nutrient neutrality? There is no choice between affordable homes and healthy rivers. That is a false choice, and we should reject thinking like that here in Wales.

Well, Llywydd, I was struck by what Sam Rowlands said in opening his question, that, liberated from the European Union, we're now able to take an axe to environmental standards here in the United Kingdom. That may not be exactly what he said, but if you look at the actions of his Government in London, that is clearly what they meant. Now, of course, they were incompetent enough to say that they were going to remove the nutrient neutrality rule in new housing development. Let's be clear, the only consequence of that will be more pollution in rivers, but they were incompetent enough to bring forward a vote that they then lost in the House of Lords, and did it at a point where it was impossible for them to bring that vote back for further determination. So, having said they were going to do it, they now find that they can't do it.

Well, thank goodness, that they can't, and I agree with Huw Irranca-Davies: we will not be pursuing them down that path because, here in Wales, we are determined, by bringing everybody round the table together, to take action that will allow house building to go ahead, while not adding to the pollution in our rivers. And, of course, the environmental governance arrangements in England mean that the regulator is now thinking of pursuing legal action against the UK Government because of their failures in this area. Our environmental governance Bill, when it comes forward, I can assure the Member, will include nature restoration targets and it will certainly give a voice to citizens and young people, for whom we know this whole agenda is so important.

I thank Vikki Howells, Llywydd. The crisis continues to produce new and adverse impacts in the lives of Cynon Valley residents. Latest Bank of England figures, for example, show that mortgage arrears increased by 13 per cent over the last quarter, and 29 per cent over the last year, as interest rate rises bite sharply into household incomes.

Thank you, First Minister. I'm sure you will have seen the stark warnings from the well-respected Resolution Foundation that, thanks to Tory UK economic incompetence, UK workers' living standards will flatline in 2024. Households will be worse off next year, worse off by 4 per cent than they were in 2019, thanks to a perfect storm of zero growth and rocketing costs. The Resolution Foundation note that never, in living memory, have families got so much poorer over the course of a Parliament. First Minister, how is the Welsh Government working to protect citizens from this Tory cost-of-living crisis?

Well, Llywydd, I thank Vikki Howells for that. I'm absolutely familiar with the work of the Resolution Foundation. I wonder if I could focus on just one aspect of the cost-of-living crisis in my reply. I referred in my original answer to the impact of interest rate rises on mortgage holders. I want to focus on that this afternoon, because the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England meets again on Thursday of this week. I used my quarterly meeting last week with the Bank of England to set out my concerns that when it comes to interest rate rises, the Bank of England has already overcorrected, that the rises that they have already put in train risk choking economic recovery—and that's not just my view; it's the view, of course, of Andy Haldane, the former chief economist for the Bank of England, and, indeed, of the UK Government's own economic advisory council. But everything we read suggests that there is a real likelihood that the MPC will raise interest rates yet again on Thursday of this week.

The Resolution Foundation analysis, to which Vikki Howells referred, Llywydd, suggests that only half the impact of interest rate rises already announced has fed through into higher mortgage payments, but that almost the whole of the second half will be felt in household budgets by the end of the next calendar year. And, astonishing, Llywydd: over this Senedd term alone, if you compare 2026 with 2021, people who pay mortgages in the United Kingdom will be paying over £17 billion more—£17 billion taken out of the purchasing power of families right across Wales and the United Kingdom. Vikki Howells said that households will be 4 per cent worse off next year. Disposable incomes for mortgage holders will be 7 per cent, or £2,700 every year lower than they would have been before the Liz Truss disastrous mini-budget set this rise in interest rates in train.

Now, the Welsh Government, we've always sustained our mortgage rescue scheme, it's still there, and later in this autumn we will launch here in the Senedd our Help to Stay scheme, which will be a form of help for mortgage payers that will move help earlier into the process—not waiting to rescue people at the end, but to make things easier for them from the point where the problem begins to impact on them. That's the difference between a Labour Government here in Wales and what is being inflicted on people by the decisions of the UK Government.

Sadly, First Minister, as you will know, those living in poverty are some of the most vulnerable in society, with many of them being elderly or disabled, and in a recent meeting with the Older People's Commissioner for Wales, it was highlighted to me that many are, more often than not, not aware of or extremely apprehensive about applying for the additional financial support that they're entitled to. Each year, there is an estimated £15 billion-worth of unclaimed benefits from across the United Kingdom, of which I'm sure many people living in Wales and the Cynon Valley would be entitled to, and if those who were entitled did access this support, I have no doubt it might help to address some of the issues that they may be facing. With this in mind, First Minister, what steps are you taking to help raise awareness of and increase access to unclaimed financial support that might be out there for people in the Cynon Valley and Wales on the whole? Thank you.

Well, Llywydd, I commend the older person's commissioner for her pension credit campaign. Joel James is right that the benefit least likely to be claimed in Wales is pension credit, and the older you are, the less likely you are to claim it. So, the campaign that the older person's commissioner has initiated is an important one. It's one that we support; we support it in many practical ways. Our work on the cost-of-living crisis through the whole of the last year has focused on making every contact count. When there are professional workers who come into contact with people who may be entitled to benefits that they are not taking up, then every one of those opportunities ought to be taken to promote that possibility to those individuals, and to make sure that they are put in touch with those advice services that can assist them in making that claim. There are millions of pounds that pensioners in Wales are entitled to that, at the moment, they do not receive. The Welsh Government will work with the older person's commissioner, and other organisations in Wales, to try to make sure that we make an inroad into that position.

Thank you for the question. The Deputy Minister for Climate Change has ensured, earlier this year, that £46 million was available from bus budgets to prevent the widespread disruption of bus services. Local authorities, Transport for Wales and operators are working together on a regional basis to plan the network that best meets the needs of the travelling public.

Diolch, Prif Weinidog. Last night I held a public meeting in Treorchy. Whilst people understand the need to close the train line in order for the south Wales metro work to be completed, the works, coupled with a reduction in local bus services and the closure of Maindy bridge in Ton Pentre, mean that travel is severely disrupted. This is making children late getting to and from school, making people late for medical and dental appointments, and local businesses told me last night that they're seeing a reduction in footfall and are subsequently struggling to survive, as more people are opting to shop online rather than potentially sit in traffic for two hours, just to be able to shop locally. How is the Welsh Government working with Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council to ensure all works impacting Rhondda residents and businesses are planned to minimise disruption? And what support will be made available for businesses impacted and workers who either can't take up employment opportunities at present, because of the disruption, or are at risk of losing their jobs because they cannot get to and from work?

I thank the Member for that supplementary question. I'm very familiar with the issues that she describes, because they have been very regularly communicated to me by Buffy Williams, the Senedd Member for the Rhondda. I commend her for the very energetic work that she has been carrying out, together with Transport for Wales and with the local authority, to deal with the difficulties that are being experienced in that area.

Some of them, I'm afraid, are difficult to avoid. We are investing millions of pounds in a generational shift in the transport infrastructure of the south Wales Valleys. In this particular case, that has coincided with the necessary action to deal with the difficulties at Maindy bridge. I understand that that is having a real impact upon people locally, but the bridge is not safe for the future. It was damaged during storm Dennis, and its replacement is vitally necessary for the long-term sustainability of the transport infrastructure. And it's complicated by the fact that the bridge, although not a large bridge in itself, is also the way in which many utilities—gas mains, water mains—are conducted across the river.

I know that there are further practical ideas that are being proposed; I know that Buffy Williams is putting those to the local authority, just as I know that the local authority has acted to increase community bus services in that area, to help people to deal with the particular difficulties that are undoubtedly being experienced at the moment. All of the work is being designed to be completed as fast as it safely can be, and then I think people locally will genuinely see the benefit of the investment that is being put into their community.

The nature of online disinformation changes rapidly, with the emergence of new threats and new hostile actors. I hope that Ofcom's extended role and responsibilities as part of the implementation of the UK Government's Online Safety Bill will be used to maximum effect in this deeply troubling area. 

Diolch, First Minister. Earlier this year, the UK Government published the integrated review refresh, called 'Responding to a more contested and volatile world', which highlighted its priorities for protecting the United Kingdom. It is clear from this report that one of the biggest threats to the UK, its institutions and its democracy is disinformation, which is defined as 'false information which is deliberately intended to mislead—intentionally misstating the facts'. We are all aware that, since 2015 in particular, there has been a concerning rise in disinformation, with both hostile powers and criminals becoming bolder, as well as bots and artificial intelligence.

The UK Government Online Safety Bill, as you mentioned, was meant to go some way to address this, and particularly to protect children online. So, it's increasingly disappointing when we see politicians regularly spreading disinformation on social media, because another starker definition of 'disinformation' in this context is the use of half truth and non-rational argument to manipulate public opinion in pursuit of political objectives. Let me be clear: there is no moral high ground for the opposition to stand upon today, because it's not just the false blanket 20 mph speed limit statement, as my colleague John Griffiths referred to earlier, but also the targeting of individuals with personal attacks; criticising Welsh Government support for new teachers from diverse backgrounds; misinformation about single-sex changing rooms; using vulnerable asylum seeker children as 'political footballs'—that's a direct quote from the Welsh Refugee Council; and targeting our Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. It really does have to stop. It's doing none of us any favours. First Minister, what steps can the Welsh Government take to address corrosive disinformation that is potentially undermining our democracy in Wales? 

I do thank Sarah Murphy for that very important supplementary question. Let me deal first of all directly with the point that she makes about democracy itself, because here in Wales we will be bringing forward legislation to strengthen Welsh democracy—the Bill that was laid yesterday, the electoral reform Bill that the Counsel General will bring forward later in the term. Llywydd, I was taken aback by a letter that the Electoral Commission wrote to the Counsel General on 15 September, where they say that their analysis shows that almost 400,000 people across Wales are missing from our electoral registers—400,000 people not able to exercise their right to vote here in Wales.

Our Bill will put that right. It will move us down the road of automatic registration to make sure that people are able to exercise their democratic rights here in Wales. In the way that Sarah Murphy pointed to, that is a complete contrast to the way in which the UK Government seeks to put fresh barriers in the path of people seeking to exercise their democratic right. We know now from Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg that all the claims that were made by UK Ministers that this was in order to eliminate fraud—fraud for which they had no evidence whatsoever—was exactly the sort of disinformation that Sarah Murphy refers to, because Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg says quite clearly that what it was was an effort to gerrymander the results in English elections. 

Sarah went on to make a broader argument than that about the corrosive effect of politicians deliberately putting forward arguments that they knew to be untrue. I don't want to rehearse everything that we rehearsed earlier this afternoon, Llywydd, but let me just take up one of the points that Sarah Murphy made. I think it is a disgrace—nothing short of a disgrace—when leading politicians continuously make claims that I believe they know not to be rooted in the facts. When our scheme for universal basic income is extended to some of the most vulnerable children—and that's what they are, children; children who have no families of their own and who arrive in Wales and are now part of our society here in Wales—I think that is a sign of the Wales we want to be, and when that is used and abused by opposition politicians to stir up people's feelings against refugees and asylum seekers, knowing that what they say cannot be true, absolutely knowing—. I've seen what has been said and I know what intention lay behind it, and I say that is an absolute disgrace. 

In addition to significant and sustained funding for mental health services, we are providing dedicated mental health resource in the new NHS executive. This includes a national mental health programme director leading the efforts to deliver constant improvement in mental health services across Wales.

Thank you, First Minister, for your response. Last week, and today, we've heard a lot of discussion about taking action to save lives across Wales, and one evidence-based way of doing that is to provide more mental health support across Wales. It’s incredibly tragic that in 2021 there were 347 cases of suicide here. I find it extremely shocking that the Welsh Government’s suicide and self-harm prevention plans expired last year, in 2022, with no update being provided. So, First Minister, will the Government pledge to update these plans and take meaningful action to provide more mental health support for the people of Wales?

Peter Fox makes an important point. Suicide figures across Wales are a matter of genuine concern. They have been for some time. They're concentrated, as he knows, amongst particular groups in the population and amongst particular occupational groups. I was very struck earlier in the summer when the Minister for rural affairs and I were at the Pembrokeshire show and we met with people who were part of founding the DPJ Foundation. Your colleague Sam Kurtz will know them very well. Farming communities are particularly exposed to the risk of suicide because they so often have the means of suicide at hand. So, we work closely with the foundation and with many other voluntary and third sector groups. The Minister is working with those groups and the wider mental health community here in Wales to refresh that strategy. We're very fortunate in having some UK-leading clinicians here in Wales who work in this field and who give their expertise very freely to us to go on addressing that issue and improving services, and I can give him a complete assurance that the Minister is utterly dedicated to making sure that we align our mental health services in a way that offers the prospect of reducing that risk of suicide here in Wales. 

Good afternoon, First Minister. Thank you to Peter Fox for raising this really important issue. I just really wanted to focus in on children who have mental illnesses. We know that there's a particularly vulnerable group in those who are looked after, and I know you have a real dedication and commitment to making sure that those young people in particular have a good service in mental health. We know that those young people are four times more likely to suffer from a mental health issue. We've seen rapid improvements in Wales in terms of waiting times in our mental health services for children and young people, but they have actually risen in the last six months. Since December, in fact, we've seen a rise in the number of children waiting for mental health services across Wales. So, I just wondered if you could reassure us and reaffirm your commitment to making sure there is a real laser-sharp focus on making sure that the waiting times don't increase any further. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

I'm happy to give that commitment, but to do it in the way that we have tried to advance here in Wales over many years. The best way of reducing waiting times is to have fewer people needing to be referred to those tier 4 services, as they're called—sorry to use the jargon; the more intrusive services—and the investment we have made in those everyday services, services that you don't need to be referred to but you can use, like school counselling services. We know that the more you invest for young people at the point where they begin to feel a sense of mental non-well-being, the better the chance you have of helping those young people to get to a successful resolution. What we don't want is for those young people to feel that they've got nowhere else to go other than the specialist services, where they will often wait and then find that that service is not the service that is right for them. So, we are very keen indeed to go on investing in those services that provide immediate, early-stage help to young people to obviate the need for them later on to have to access specialist services, so that those people who do need specialist services—and there always will be young people who are genuinely acutely mentally ill—can get to the front of that queue as fast as possible, because the queue isn't full of people who, actually, would have been better served by a different sort of service. 

And finally, question 8, Llyr Gruffydd. 

I thank Llyr Gruffydd, Llywydd. Organic farming practices align well with the principles of sustainable land management, our framework for agricultural support in the future. Organic farms already adhere to the principles of sustainable land management principles, and so they should be well placed to transition more easily to the sustainable farming scheme in 2025.

Well, the truth of the matter is that the current support, Glastir Organic and Glastir Advanced and so on, is coming to an end. So, many organic farmers have contacted me expressing great concern about the future of their businesses. It appears that what we see, because of the uncertainty, is that many are already taking the decision that they are going to leave organic farming. Now, that undoes decades of work and investment by agri-environmental schemes in the past. It also undermines what you claimed would be the policy aim of your work around the sustainable land management scheme, encouraging more of this kind of thing.

Now, I've heard that organic farmers will be able to access the Habitat Wales scheme. But that's going to be open, of course, for all, not just those who have organic certification. So, what assurance can you give the sector that there will be specific support for them in the future, and how soon can you give that assurance, because, as things stand, people are already making the decision to leave organic farming?

Well, Llywydd, I've seen the letter—the letter came from the Member to the Minister, and I've seen the Minister's response to him as well. I can say that officials met with the sector recently, and we'll continue to co-design a scheme to ensure that the benefits of organic farming are recognised appropriately in the plans that the Minister will publish. And I know that the Minister is looking at options, and whether there are other options to support the sector.

But just to be clear, the sector will be in a particularly good situation to take advantage of the sustainable farming scheme, and also the new Habitat Wales scheme. So, there is great strength in the sector. We've supported the sector over the years. We're eager to do so in the future, and the way to do that is what we're discussing with the sector in terms of outlining now, and the Minister is eager to co-operate with them to see the best way to support them in the future. 

I thank the First Minister.

The next item will be the business statement and announcement, and the Trefnydd will make that statement. Lesley Griffiths. 

Diolch, Llywydd. There are three changes to this week's business, all of which are published on the Plenary agendas. After this business statement, the Minister for Economy will make a statement on the steel industry. Later this afternoon, the Minister for Social Justice and Chief Whip will make a statement to update the Senedd on a nation of sanctuary. And finally, as agreed at Business Committee this morning, tomorrow's opposition debates have been reordered. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically. 

Trefnydd, can I ask for a statement from yourself, as Minister for rural affairs, regarding the recent announcement from the Prime Minister to ban XL bully dogs following the fatal, tragic attacks by these dogs across the UK? As I'm sure you will be aware, two in four fatal dog attacks involved the breed across the UK in 2021. This figure rose to six in 10 in 2022. Since November 2021 three people have lost their lives because of XL bully dogs in Wales—two in Caerphilly and one in Wrexham—as well as what has been described as a savage and rampant rampage of 22 pregnant sheep that were killed on a farm in north Wales earlier this year. I note that you welcomed this decision on Twitter, but given the extremely concerning statistics, can I request that a statement be made on what the ban is likely to look like here in Wales, or if you intend to take any steps yourself under devolved responsibilities to protect the people of Wales and livestock? Diolch, Llywydd.

Thank you. It is very welcome news from the UK Government—I certainly did welcome it, but it's better late than never. I'm really pleased the UK Government are at last finally taking action. Over the past probably six years, I've written to eight various Home Secretaries and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretaries of State, urging them to take some action. The last letter I wrote to Suella Braverman I think was in May; she didn't even give me the courtesy of a response. So, I am very pleased that, now, the Prime Minister has made this announcement.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, obviously, is not devolved, it's a reserved matter, and the UK Government have set up a responsible dog ownership group to have a look at this, and my officials are working very closely with UK Government officials. Of course, we can do things here—we do have some powers, obviously, in relation to this. So, again, I've been looking at responsible dog ownership, and I am looking to hold a multi-agency summit, probably next month, to bring together all organisations, because, as you say, we're seeing far too many dog attacks of the like you described. I think the most important thing now is for my officials to work very closely with UK Government officials to make sure that there are no unforeseen consequences of the ban on XL bullies. We certainly don't want to see a significant number of abandonments, for instance. So, we now need to drill down into the detail. So, at the most appropriate time, I'll be very happy to update Members of the Senedd.

Trefnydd, I'd like to ask for an oral statement, please, by the Minister for Finance and Local Government in terms of the financial situation. We've heard many people talk about the £900 million in terms of this current financial year, but I'd like to know when there will be an opportunity for this Senedd to discuss that.

Also, of course, we're seeing the inclement weather restarting. A number of communities will be concerned about winter coming—flooding once again. We had an update, of course, last week from the Minister for Climate Change, in terms of the independent review of flooding. But one of the things that a number of the communities that I represent are asking about is what are the plans in terms of this winter while a lot of the planning in terms of mitigating the impact of flooding is going on? So, is it possible to have a statement from the Minister for Climate Change in terms of the practical support available to communities that are going to be struck by flooding during these next few months—unfortunately, that will be the reality for many—so that we can ensure that the support is available for them, but that they also know how to obtain that support?

Thank you. As you say, the Minister for Climate Change did update us on the inquiry last week. Obviously, Welsh Government have put forward significant funding to help people who unfortunately were flooded, particularly around the storm Dennis floods back in—it's about five years ago now. I will certainly ask her if there is an update she can bring forward, because I know she has been working closely with local authorities particularly in relation to this coming winter.

With regard to your first question, the Minister for Finance and Local Government will be bringing forward an oral statement next month in relation to the in-year savings that we've had to find as a Government.

Minister, I would like to call for a statement on what conversations the Welsh Government have had with the UK Government and chief constables in Wales regarding the report released by the charity Refuge last week on violence against women and girls in police force areas across Wales and England. That freedom of information request revealed that there were 26 police forces in England and Wales, from May 2022 until May 2023, disclosing over 1,000 cases of violence against women and girls and related misconduct recorded by police forces who returned that data. Four of those were in the Dyfed-Powys police force area, and six in the North Wales police force area. And the FOI found that, in police forces across England and Wales, only 24 per cent of police officers and staff accused of this behaviour were suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. While Dyfed-Powys Police did suspend 100 per cent of all their officers, only 83 of those were suspended in north Wales. Unfortunately, I can't give you any figures for South Wales and Gwent police forces, as they didn't return data to that charity. And they're asking that all officers accused of violence against women and girls should not be considered for alternative duty but automatically suspended pending investigations, and I tend to agree with that statement. So, I'm keen to know, Minister, what conversations you have had, what influence you will bring to bear and whether you would urge South Wales and Gwent Police to actually step up and answer some of these questions.

Thank you. I think Joyce Watson raises a very important point, and I would certainly urge both Gwent police force and South Wales police force to release that data, so that we can get that complete picture right across all four police authorities. I know that the Minister for Social Justice is aware of the recent data that was released by Refuge on the number of police officers and staff accused of misconduct or gross misconduct related to violence against women and girls, and is very concerned about this and will continue to have discussions both with the chief constables and with the police and crime commissioners. Unfortunately, we know that perpetrators of domestic abuse come from all walks of life and that many hold positions of power and that, then, creates even more barriers for survivors. 

I'd like a Government statement, please, relating to the ongoing situation at Ffos-y-fran, where coal is still being extracted a year after the company was told to stop mining. It was the Welsh Government that approved this coal mine in 2005. After the council refused permission in 2014, I believe a Government commissioned report flagged the risk of this land being left unrestored. I'd like to know what action was taken in response, please? And the cost, as we know, to the public purse could now be more than £100 million if the site is abandoned, and only £15 million has been put aside by the company that could be used for restoration. That is quite a gaping difference. So, what action will the Government take to ensure the land will be cleaned and made safe? And in the meantime, the Welsh Government has reportedly profited from the transport of this illegal coal using Transport for Wales rail routes. Can the Government commit in a statement to immediately put an end to any transport of coal from Ffos-y-fran using those tracks? And will you commit to putting any revenue that's been raised from the transporting of that coal over the past year into a community fund for Merthyr Tydfil residents?

Well, the Member will be aware that the appeal and legal proceedings are ongoing at the current time, so it wouldn't be appropriate for Welsh Ministers to bring forward an oral statement at this stage. But I know the Minister will consequently, or subsequently, I should say, receive advice. The policy of the Welsh Government is to bring to a managed end the extraction and use of coal, as you know, and the opening of new coal mines or the extension of existing coal mines in operation in Wales would add to the global supply of coal, having a significant effect on both our and the UK's legally binding carbon budgets. So, that's the absolute policy that we have. I'm not aware of the issue you raise around Transport for Wales, but I'll certainly make some enquiries. 

Just to follow up on Sam Kurtz's question, Emma Whitfield lost her son, Jack Lis, to an attack by a very dangerous dog, and in her pinned post on Twitter at the moment, she says, with a picture of her son beneath it:

'People speak of the courage I have. This is the face of who gives me that courage. Jack is my reason. If I can stop another family from grieving and stop them from never being able to see their child's smile again—it will be a success.'

Can I, therefore, ask, before any statement is made in this Chamber and at the summit that you mentioned, that Emma is contacted and it is discussed with her whether she wishes to attend? And can I also ask that Wayne David MP is involved in those discussions too, because he's worked with Emma and with the Daily Mirror and their campaign, to have the voices of those who've been affected by these tragedies heard?

Thank you. I think Hefin David reminds us all of the very personal tragedy that unfortunately we've seen with these dog attacks, and Emma was the first person that came to my mind last week. And I'd be very happy to engage with her and, of course, Wayne David, the Member of Parliament for Caerphilly, who's done so much work around this. We are thinking of bringing this multi-agency summit together, and I think, if Emma would be happy to come along and talk to us, that would be incredibly powerful.

Could I ask for a statement from the Minister for health on eye care, please?

This week is National Eye Health Week. Regular eye tests are vital to detect early signs of treatable conditions, like glaucoma, and can detect other health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure. However, the need for timely referrals into ophthalmology services for assessment and treatment is key to limiting or avoiding sight loss. But, here in Wales, over half of the highest risk eye care patients are left waiting beyond the target time for treatment and, therefore, at risk of irreversible sight loss. The Welsh Government consulted on ophthalmic services in the spring, but, to my knowledge, we've not seen any statement since then. Therefore, can I ask that the Minister brings forward a statement on Government plans for ophthalmic services and an update on what actions are being taken to tackle the waiting lists?

Thank you. I'm aware of the report that you referred to, which was commissioned by the Minister for Health and Social Services, and I'm sure, once she's considered that, a statement will be forthcoming. But, I think you make a really important point—so long as people do timely eye checks. It's really important that they see either their ophthalmologist or their optician to ensure that the eye is as healthy as possible. Of course, the eye is the mirror to the body; it not just brings forward information about eye disease, but, of course, all other diseases too.

Trefnydd, please could we have an oral statement on bus services across Wales? In my region, in Cardiff, the decision by Cardiff Bus to cut the main bus service—the No. 32—serving St Fagans village has caused great concern. This means that we don't have regular public transport to the village, which includes a very important national museum. I've been contacted by members of staff at the museum, who've now lost their route to work, and over the weekend I spoke to a lovely visitor from north Pembrokeshire, a pensioner, who told me he couldn't go and visit St Fagans museum because of the lack of public transport. The fact that we don't have public transport linking the city centre to this important museum is just not right and is bound to impact, Trefnydd, on vulnerable and disabled groups who want to use this museum and learn more about Welsh life. This, as we hear every week in the Senedd, is huge across Wales. We cannot wait for a law that is years away and its implementation even further. Will the Welsh Government bring forward the proposals to reform bus services in Wales urgently? Diolch yn fawr. 

Diolch. Well, bus services are very important to many of our constituents—we know that from our postbags—and, obviously, bus timetables are a matter for local authorities and bus service providers. But, the Deputy Minister for Climate Change has announced £46 million for bus budgets, for the bus emergency scheme and the bus transition fund, to prevent that issue around wholesale cancellation of services. As the Member, I think, alluded to, we will be introducing legislation to reform the bus system in Wales in the very near future.

Could I ask for two statements? It's very good to see both my colleagues Hefin David, and Sam, I think it was as well, raising the issue of the XL bullies. As the Minister will know, I was with Mick Antoniw at Hope Rescue when the announcement came through that XL bullies will be added to the banned list. It raises some significant issues in terms of the animal welfare charities—dog rescue and dog rehoming charities—particularly those that deal with stray and abandoned dogs, because, from the moment this was announced, those dogs are now turning up on the doorsteps of those charities, and it provides real financial, as well as ethical, issues about how they respond to this. But, more than that, Minister, it raises interesting aspects of what we now do with strengthening the regulations around breeding, but also whether we get back into the long-overdue issues of looking at licences to actually promote responsible ownership, whatever the breed is. So, it would be good to have a statement on that.

Secondly, I wonder whether we can have a statement now, as we approach the end of Adult Learners' Week. There have been some great events here in the Senedd. I was at one with national awards in city hall the other day, where a chap called John Gates, a former miner who lost his job in the pit closures back in 1983-84, turned his hand to a skill that he had—a surprising skill, perhaps, for a miner, of embroidery—and then went back into education with the Open University, and now travels the world teaching others about embroidery and skills, and also that you should never accept that you only have one chance in life; you should have many, many chances. He's 80 years of age now, and he's the biggest inspiration I've ever seen, and he received the national award for lifelong adult learning.

Yes, we all liked that. You make a really good point, and I think that's a very good example. We're continually learning, aren't we? And it's been great to celebrate Adult Learners' Week. As you say, there have been events here in the Senedd and all around Wales. But I think the example you gave of John was particularly heartwarming.

In relation to the XL bully, as I say, I had a meeting with the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Secretary of State last Wednesday, where I urged them to look at this because we'd had yet, I think, two more attacks last week. So, I very much welcome the Prime Minister's announcement, which came a bit out of the blue, because I do think that the Dangerous Dogs Act—. Every time I've asked over the past few years, they've just refused to look at the new breeds coming forward. But you are right that there could be unintended consequences, and that's what I said in my earlier answer to Sam Kurtz—that we need to look at that. We don't want to see dogs abandoned. We don't want to see our dog rescue centres, which are already coping with increased numbers of abandoned dogs, having more brought in. Also, we need to work with our local authority enforcement teams as well. So, I mentioned that we're having this multi-agency summit, because there are things that we can do in Welsh Government; it's not just relying on UK Government aspects, as well. So, we will be doing that next month, and I want to work very closely with the animal sanctuaries and the rescue centres to see what more we can do. But I think it is really important that we really get to grips with this now, because we are seeing far too many attacks.

On the point of licensing, as you know, I had asked my officials to have a look at that this year, and I haven't received any advice as yet, but I do think that it is a way of ensuring that responsible dog ownership. It won't make everything, all the issues, go away, but I do think that if you are a responsible dog owner—and, of course, there are many of them with XL bully dogs as well, who are very worried, currently—. So, I do think licensing could be one piece of that jigsaw, and certainly, as we progress with the advice, and if I do think it is worth while looking at bringing them in, then I'll certainly be happy to update Members.

The Welsh Government has accepted the Health and Safety Executive's recommendation to refuse an emergency authorisation for the use of Asulox in Wales for bracken control. Now, we can argue the merits or otherwise of that decision, but what we shouldn't have to argue is the openness of Government in the way that it made that decision. So, in the interests of transparency, would the Government be willing to publish the Health and Safety Executive's advice upon which, of course, the decision was made?

Well, I was the Minister who made that decision and I will certainly make sure that that is published, unless, obviously, there is anything that excludes that.FootnoteLink

Thank you, Trefnydd, for that statement.

The next statement will be made by the Minister for Economy on the steel industry. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. A strong economy needs a successful steel industry. The Welsh Government is ambitious about steel and the integral role that it will play in the transition to net zero. That transition will support strong and lasting demand for steel in the goods of the future, as well as the everyday staples that we rely on. From floating offshore wind turbines and electric vehicles to tins of baked beans and new houses, steel will be the thread that will go on running through the economy of today and tomorrow.

The Welsh contribution to the steel industry is totemic and historic. It is a firm part of the foundations of the UK economy. Thousands of skilled workers in the sector know the role that it plays in supporting a secure economy. Those workers see why and how other G7 nations provide stable and strategic support for their own domestic steel industries. They understand the lessons of the energy crisis and the risks posed by the dumping of steel by nations that are not our allies. This backdrop should guarantee the industry a far greater level of priority in the UK Government, which should have a clear vision for the sector and a plan to achieve it. As costs have piled up and new risks emerged, UK Ministers have failed to grasp the issue quickly enough to secure a fairer transition that delivers a first-mover advantage that our industry could exploit.

Llywydd, an earlier decision would have allowed for a fairer transition in a strong industry. We have long been urging the UK Government to provide the significant co-investment needed to support the move to greener methods of steel production. Against this context, it is welcome that the UK Government has progressed negotiations with the company to ensure a long-term future for steel in Wales. The total loss of the operation in Wales would be unconscionable, and it is in the interests of the workforce, industry and communities that the sector has a long-term future here in Wales.

We value our industrial base in Wales immensely. I am determined that we transition to net zero in a way that maintains and builds on our industrial strengths and is in line with our commitment to a just transition. That is why we created Net Zero Industry Wales, a body that I was proud to launch in Port Talbot. Llywydd, it is however the case that the proposed agreement now reached between Tata Steel and the UK Government provides too little detail and raises too many questions. The UK Government has decades of experience in dealing with commercially sensitive information in a managed way with the Welsh Government to support sound decision making. The decision, the choice, to communicate via leaks and media briefings to share the announcement on the proposed deal reached is disrespectful to the workforce and harmful to a sector that needs to recruit people who will, of course, be looking for a level of security, and, as we know, they are crucial to the future of steel in the UK. As I've mentioned, it is frustrating that this deal was not reached at an earlier stage in negotiations. An earlier deal could have led to a longer and fairer transition.

Much remains unknown about the agreement, its time frame for implementation and the potential impact not only on the workforce and the company but on the wider supply chain and the local economy. Therefore, as I stated last week, whilst the announcement contains significant investment for the longer term, it is inevitable that Tata employees and their families, rightly, are focused on the impact it will have on the thousands of jobs in Port Talbot and Tata’s downstream facilities in Wales.

It is essential that Tata now conducts a meaningful consultation with its employees and the trade unions about this proposed plan. The proven commitment of the workforce is an enduring strength for the sector that means that the uncertainty that those workers now face is harmful to the sector and to our economy as a whole, as well as, of course, to those individuals and their families. I had an early meeting with steel trade unions last week and held further meetings with representatives both yesterday and today. I visited Port Talbot yesterday and will return once more later this week. I will continue to engage with the unions, the company and the UK Government as the situation develops.

Turning to the wider supply chain in Wales and beyond, the decision that Tata Steel takes about the nature and timescale of its decarbonisation journey will have a profound impact on its full supply chain and the wider steel-making region. For this reason, I have always seen the future of Tata not in isolation, but sitting within a much broader effort to support industry and develop our manufacturing base across Wales in the vital transition to net zero. While making the case for early and meaningful negotiations, we have set out how that longer transition could provide more certainty for options for wider technologies, including a role for hydrogen at scale.

It is a matter of great frustration that UK Ministers chose to exclude the Welsh Government from discussions, when both Governments will need to take decisions that impact upon the industry and the communities that it supports. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade offered to meet with me in May, some months after her appointment, but she has subsequently refused to agree a suitable date to discuss these matters in the months that followed. In fact, I don't believe a single date has been offered by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to meet with me. I have, since May, written on multiple occasions to try to set up a meeting and to engage on the important overlapping issues that fall across our responsibilities. However, in a letter received from the Secretary of State earlier today, no offer to meet has been made. I have shared this letter with the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, so they’re sighted on its contents.

Llywydd, I recognise that the industry’s transition is complex and far-reaching, requiring hundreds of millions of pounds of investment. It is not just about what happens within the company’s site boundaries. It will require a transformation of our infrastructure on a scale that we have not seen in our lifetimes. There are many questions that need to be answered. For instance, what impact will it have on wider infrastructure requirements, such as the grid network? What impact will it have on the value and availability of scrap metal within the UK, and how will this affect our other major steel producer, Celsa? I should declare an interest, of course, as Celsa's main operations are within my constituency. I've been clear that the free-port programme in Wales presented an incredible opportunity to link steel production with accelerated economic potential in the Celtic sea. UK Ministers are fully aware of the importance we attach to these matters and I will be writing to the levelling-up Secretary to share my serious concerns about the lack of clear co-ordination across these areas.

I know that Tata Steel have been looking closely at the opportunities that could come from the enormous economic benefits from floating offshore wind. It is not clear what impact the proposal would have on its capability to do this, or indeed to support its current markets. The UK Government has announced in its press release the creation of a transition board to oversee the proposed deal that it has agreed. We currently know very little about how this board will operate and how the announced funding of up to £100 million would be spent.

The Welsh Government is firmly committed to proper partnership working arrangements with the UK Government and indeed other devolved nations. However, this relationship must be genuine, and this new board must operate in a meaningful and transparent way. Many of the powers that have a significant influence in industrial net zero transition, including energy prices, the regulation of energy networks, hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage business models, are reserved to the UK Government. However, the Welsh Government also has levers and knowledge that will be critical in turning a deal into a reality. The Welsh Government will continue to work closely with the trade unions and the company to do everything that we can to minimise job losses and ensure a sustainable future for steel making here in Wales.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'll be happy to take Members' comments and questions now.

Can I thank the Minister for his statement this afternoon and the copy of the letter that he has sent me in my capacity as Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee? The announcement that the UK Government has provided £500 million to help ensure Tata Steel can continue to operate and to produce steel in a greener way is very welcome. Quite simply, without that investment, the reality is that Tata may have had to cease operating in the UK completely. Nevertheless, as Tata moves into a transition period that includes restructuring, it’s also a very anxious and worrying time for workers who may now be facing job losses, and it’s vital that there is sufficient support for the workforce at this time.

Today’s statement acknowledges that the Welsh Government also has levers and knowledge that will be critical in turning this deal into a reality, though the statement doesn’t say anything about how the Welsh Government is using those levers, so perhaps the Minister can tell us in his response what the Welsh Government is doing with the levers it has.

Now, we know that the UK Government has provided £500 million to help ensure Tata Steel can continue to operate, but perhaps the Minister can tell us if the Welsh Government has any intention of also providing financial assistance to help the plant produce steel in a greener way, given the Welsh Government’s commitment to decarbonising the sector. The chairman of Tata group said that the agreement presents an opportunity for the development of a green technology based industrial ecosystem in south Wales, and I’m very interested to learn more about what new opportunities may be on the horizon. Therefore, perhaps the Minister could update us on any discussions the Welsh Government has had with Tata about building that ecosystem in south Wales, and what that looks like. Has Tata asked for support from the Welsh Government to deliver this vision, and does the Welsh Government intend to provide any funding to help the sector with this agenda, and, if so, how much?

Now today’s statement refers to the importance of developing our domestic manufacturing sector and strong supply chains, and, as I’ve said before, it’s crucial that the Welsh Government is using its levers to maximise any procurement opportunities for the Welsh steel industry. Therefore, I’d be grateful if the Minister could tell us how the Welsh Government’s procurement strategy identifies opportunities for Welsh steel, as well as what other steps are being taken to maximise any procurement opportunities in Wales and, indeed, further afield.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, there will be Tata employees and their families who will be anxiously waiting to hear how the announcement will affect them, and it's crucial that Governments at all levels are providing the workforce with the support that it needs. Today's statement says that it's essential that Tata now conducts a meaningful consultation with its employees and the trade unions about its proposed restructuring plan, and I completely agree with the Minister. Of course, the Welsh Government has plenty of levers at its disposal to support the sector and its workforce, going forward, and it's crucial that they are used. And whilst I appreciate that it's still early days, perhaps he can tell us a bit more about the discussions he has had with Tata and the workforce. 

I know that the Minister recognises that the industry continues to change and that jobs in the industry 20 years ago were very different to the jobs of today, and probably will be very different from the jobs being done in 20 years' time. Therefore, can the Minister tell us how that has affected the way in which the Welsh Government has invested in the sector and in its workers to date? Perhaps he could tell us exactly how much has been invested in skills for the sector and how that investment has responded to the changing nature of the industry over the years. 

The Tata site in Port Talbot is currently the UK's largest single carbon emitter, and it's thought that replacing the existing coal blast furnaces could reduce the UK's carbon emissions by 1.5 per cent. As today's statement recognises, the biggest challenge facing the sector is its move to decarbonise. The new, less labour-intensive furnaces could lead to more and more job losses, and it's vital that a balance is found between modernising the industry and protecting its workforce. The time to have honest, meaningful discussions about how we address that challenge and balance those two competing objectives is now, and I'm pleased that today's statement confirms that the Welsh Government is committed to proper partnership working arrangements with the UK Government.

It's a fact that, when both Governments work together, Wales benefits, and we've seen evidence of that with the free-port programme and the city and growth deals. The Minister is right to highlight that the free-port programme offers an opportunity to link steel production with accelerated economic potential in the Celtic sea. Therefore, perhaps the Minister can update us on the latest discussions he's had with the Welsh ports about developing new opportunities for Welsh steel through the free-port programme. 

Llywydd, Wales has a proud history of steel making, and I sincerely hope that the agreement between Tata and the UK Government helps to ensure that our steel sector will have a bright future too. Of course, there is an important role for the Welsh Government too in terms of supporting the industry, and it needs to do more with the levers it has to help find the right balance between decarbonising the industry and supporting its workers. Thank you.

Thank you for the comments and questions. I think the main point here is that we recognise in the Welsh Government, as indeed the sector recognises and, indeed, steel trade unions recognise, the need to transition to decarbonise the way that steel is produced. The challenge is how that's done, the pace at which it's done and how co-investment works between different Governments and companies within the steel sector.

Now, the uncertainty is that, at present, the deal looks at a single technology answer, and we have always been clear, as I've indicated in the statement, that we have said both to Tata and to the UK Government that our preference was to invest in hydrogen as an alternative for the heavy end, as well as looking at the potential for further electric arc making. Choosing one technology with one proposed single furnace I think provides some challenges in us understanding how that does that. At present, we don't know that this will mean a just transition. And given the figures that have been briefed on the thousands of job losses available, it doesn't look like a just transition. So, we need to understand much more.

It isn't just us who need to understand. When I've met trade union stewards, they've been very clear that they're already being asked questions by their members that they can't answer, and that is adding to the uncertainty in a sector that needs to keep its workforce, that needs to keep skills within the sector for the opportunity that we recognise exists. It's a very, very difficult message, and that was added to by the way that Government sources briefed the announcement over several days. 

And I think that, on the other point that you make about partnership—. We are serious about partnership. We have taken pragmatic choices throughout this Senedd term on reaching agreements with the UK Government. Free ports is one example. It's why when that doesn't happen it is more frustrating, because actually we were able to have grown-up conversations that meant that we could all reach a deal that we could all sign up to. This is an example of what partnership working doesn't look like. We were excluded from the talks, not even briefed on the day. The announcement we found out from the press releases. And the Secretary of State for the Department for Business and Trade has not been able to find time in her diary to meet me since her appointment earlier this year. She was able to find time to go to Port Talbot to do media interviews, not to find time to talk directly with the Government. And the letter that you will have seen, and other Members of the economy committee will have seen—and, indeed, it is public for Members—contains a choice not to offer a meeting, and it thanks me for my interest in the steel sector. I think I have more than an interest in the steel sector, as the economy Minister in the Welsh Government, and I would want to see partnership working that is genuinely meaningful, and that means trust needs to be invested on both sides, and it means the UK Government need to act as partners and not simply to act in the style of an old-style governor-general.

On the challenges that are still there, I still see more that we can do in our work. On procurement, for example, I'm working with Rebecca Evans on looking into what we can do to further strengthen Welsh procurement so that it is completely in line with the UK steel charter. There will be more opportunities for UK-produced steel. And to be clear, that's UK-produced not sourced steel. You can source steel within the UK that isn't produced here, and the two things are important in terms of their differences. We still see there's more work to do on offshore wind. That's why I mentioned it in the statement. We need to understand what does this look like in terms of both the free port and the wider south Wales cluster. We also need to have conversations with Associated British Ports and Milford Haven as stakeholders who could be affected, and to understand what Tata are now proposing to do, the time period in which they propose to do that, and what that then means for the proposals that have been made with those partners.

On skills, we continue to provide a range of support to Tata, and it's agreed with the company about how we do that, and indeed a conversation with the regional skills bodies around the sorts of skills we'll need to provide. You'll see lots of apprentices within Tata, lots of people upskilling through that workforce as well, and that comes on the back of the work that we do with them and indeed their trade unions. At the recent union learning conference that I went to, I met a group of workers who had come through Tata, fairly young workers, who are looking forward to a future for them and their families. They're exactly the sort of people that will be looking on with concern about what this means for their future as well as other people in the wider supply chain. So, we will carry on being prepared to have conversations about how we can assist practically in decarbonisation and providing the skills that the workforce will need as steel making continues to shift and to move forward. The talks this week that I've held with the trade union—. There will be talks later this week between the company and indeed those trade unions. And that is the start of the consultation, engagement and negotiation process. What we have is a proposed deal, and within that negotiation it's possible that we'll end up with a different shape to the deal when it comes. We'll continue to talk in a trusted manner with all those stakeholders, the company, the UK Government and indeed the steel trade unions themselves representing the workforce.

Firstly, Plaid Cymru stands in solidarity with the workers at the plant in Port Talbot and with our communities, who are no doubt facing anxiety over Friday's announcement, and the potential impact of any job losses will not only be felt in Port Talbot but in communities across my region, from Neath to Swansea to the Gower and to my home county of Bridgend.

Now, steel runs through the veins and arteries of Port Talbot and its people, through the good times and the bad, and I'll say as well that I share the frustration with how long it's taken for us to get to this point and how scandalous it is that Welsh Government and the unions have been locked out of negotiations—workers and unions especially. Surely, one of the key voices that should be around the table when talking about workplace transition is that of the workers—workers who have given and lost so much to the plant through the years.

Now, turning to the announcement, does the Minister accept that this is it, or does he agree with Plaid Cymru and the unions that this isn't it and that there must be room for further negotiation? We all know here how important the sector is strategically on a security basis and a green basis. We know this is one of the biggest challenges facing this sector when it comes to decarbonising, but you can't build wind turbines and you can't build solar panels and you can't build hydroelectric plants without steel. So, it's important we get this right, and that means not solely focusing on electric arc furnaces. We've heard time and time again that electric arc furnaces don't produce the grade of steel needed, so does he agree that we need to invest in diverse ways of making green steel, so, through hydrogen, reduced iron, and investment in carbon-capture technologies? Perhaps this fills into the green ecosystem mentioned by Tata. If so, then we need to know about it. These investments have already been made elsewhere in the world, like in Germany, with KfW, the German development bank, that invested in hydrogen steel. Does he believe that there might be a role for the Development Bank of Wales here at some point?

We have all seen reports about the significant job losses. The ReAct programme is often the go-to, and I appreciate that the Minister has already said a lot about the need for a just transition. There's talk of a transition fund being set up between Tata and UK Government, as well as the new transition board mentioned by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade in her letter to you. Has the Minister been in discussions relating to Welsh Government's involvement in either of these funds and panels? And has the Government managed to see how these funds actually line up with Welsh Government's priorities when it comes to green skills? Or was the letter literally just a 'for your information'?

Finally, I've already mentioned it, but steel is a strategic and massively important sector, and looking to the future, the Minister, of course, is a member of the Co-operative Party and has ambitions for the co-operative sector here in Wales. So, regarding the future of steel, has he given any thought to potentially earmarking steel for the largest co-operatisation project in Wales, or even indeed the UK? Proof of concept exists already in the Basque Country. It will safeguard the sector here in Wales, it will empower the workers within the sector, and it will keep any profits made here in our communities, for the benefit of our communities.

Thank you for the comments and questions, and I agree with the broad thrust of the Member's comments on where we are. You'd expect that Welsh Labour Members, not just Ministers, would stand in solidarity with the communities that we represent, with a sector we have long pointed out is the foundation of the future of the Welsh and UK economy. We should not be the only G7 country that does not have a significant steel-making asset. We could not and should not put ourselves in a position where we are reliant on imports, with everything that would mean. So, the asset itself is of strategic importance. It's why we have invested so much of our time, energy and effort in conversations with the company and, indeed, with the UK Government. It's also why it's so disappointing that we have not had the constructive engagement that we have undertaken responded to in kind, with the sort of trust that should take place, from the UK Government itself.

On your point around turning steel making into a co-operative endeavour, we're not in control and not in a position to do that. We will continue to make a case for greater co-operative enterprise right across our economy, but I don't think it's a practical answer to the challenges that are faced now. We have a company that are determined to maintain their ownership of this steel-making asset, and they're looking to put their own funds into doing so.

And your point around whether there will be meaningful negation now, well, that is exactly what steel trade unions expect to happen. And for any consultation to be meaningful, they have to be prepared to look at the proposed deal that is on the table, as opposed to simply accepting that every single detail that has so far been announced is going to be the end result and, indeed, what that means for the workforce in terms of any future move in the way that steel is produced and the time frame over which that change takes place.

We are talking again about what can happen and some of the constructive work with the UK Government on, for example, the industrial energy transformation fund, that has provided access. We've been part of the phase of consultation, and that should have another round in the spring, and we will look to see that, within that next phase, there will be real and practical support for steel making here within Wales. As I say, you can't have a significant steel-making asset within the UK without significant steel making taking place here in Wales as well.

On your point around technologies, as I said earlier, we have always been clear that our preference is that hydrogen is part of the answer. That would require a UK Government co-investment for that to take place. It's taken place in the Netherlands because they have an arrangement and they have co-investment taking place there, and, as I say, there are different arrangements in place for the steel sector in other competitor EU economies. Germany and France are good examples. We want to see the sector treated fairly here, with the same level of support, the same level of recognition, and the same opportunity to decarbonise without costing the significant number of jobs that has been briefed by UK Government sources to date, and that's why we'll continue to talk meaningfully with our trade unions and the UK Government to understand what this actually means in practice, as opposed to the headlines we've been given to date. I'll be more than happy to update spokespeople, and indeed Members who represent steel communities, as we carry on.

Can I thank the Minister for his statement today, and for his support for the workers and the communities that are going to be devastated by this announcement last week? Because there's no question, there are thousands of steelworkers and their families and other people in the contractor sector and in the supply chain that are worried about their futures, and there are businesses in Port Talbot that will struggle as a consequence of the loss of income from those individuals who spend their money there. So, this announcement is, in a sense, a thorn in people's sides: 'What do we do?', 'Where do we go?', 'What's happening?' The timeline needs to be made clear. So, in your discussions with Tata, please stress upon them the need to make clear the timeline to their workforce, to ensure they do engage with the trade unions and listen to the trade unions, because they're the workers and they're the experts in this area, and they seem to be being ignored in that aspect, and their input would have been critical in any decision making. In fact, the UK Government, I've heard Ministers refer to themselves, 'We've been discussing this for years.' Well, if this is the deal they've come up with after years of discussion, it's time for them to go and get new negotiating skills, because they can't do it.

I'm pleased Plaid Cymru joined the Labour Party on the green steel deal, because it's actually what we want, and that's important. So, what discussions have you had about ensuring that that approach is something we can still move towards? Because this is a proposal; it's not the future yet, it's not in stone, it's still something that can be modified. So, what can we do about that? And, do you agree with me that, in fact, the biggest benefit we can get is a Labour Government coming in to actually enact its green steel deal, to allow us to actually get on with making sure of a sustainable future, with far more jobs, better opportunities for people, because the UK Government, at this moment in time, talk about opportunities—the £100 million fund, opportunities—but where are those opportunities? The week before, they didn't get any bids for floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea; they lost that opportunity. So, I don't see them coming down the line. They seem to be talking, but not actually acting and getting people into work.

I recognise the Member's long-term commitment not just for the sector in his constituency, but the broader points that he makes about the importance of steel in the future of the economy. I also recognise the points he makes powerfully about the worry for the future, and that's very real. As I said, when I met trade union stewards yesterday and today, they were very clear that those worries are real, the questions are real, and, at the moment, the trade union stewards cannot tell them what is happening. The start of the conversations that is now taking place after the announcement's been made puts everyone in a difficult position, and, actually, it's the sort of thing that does not help with the trade union side and its relationships with Tata, which have been broadly constructive over a long period of time, and that in itself is really unhelpful.

There have been years of discussion around this. If you remember someone from the history books called Kwasi Kwarteng, when he was the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, he was already talking about the fact that there was a discussion on co-investment, and the terms of that discussion, if they'd been reached earlier, could have allowed for a longer and fairer transition, with more technological answers that could have been brought into a deal. So, not being able to do a deal earlier actually provides more of a problem.

Conversely, David Rees is right that, actually, given the time that we're in, and the end of the road that is coming for this Government, because there must be a general election within a time frame, the fact that there is a negotiation that has to take place now, and there is an alternative approach from an alternative Government that may be across the United Kingdom over the next year, there are conversations around one of the few funding commitments that have been made and stuck to, and I actually understand why my UK colleagues are not making a whole series of funding commitments a long time in advance of an election. But, actually, the green steel, the £3 billion figure that's been given, is one of the commitments that is being continually referred to, and that does mean that there are alternative means to discuss about what the scale of co-investment might look like, and what the return for that investment might look like.

I think the Member makes a fair point around floating offshore wind: there wasn't a single bid for any part of the UK in the last contracts for difference round for any floating offshore wind—any offshore wind project. There is an opportunity to put that right within the coming months. There should be another round coming up before the end of this calendar year. If the UK Government are serious about the UK being world leaders in practice and not simply in rhetoric, they will need to do something to make sure those demonstrator projects get off the ground and have the opportunity to come forward. If that doesn't happen, other countries will not sit still; they will move up and recognise the inaction taking place here. If that does not happen, then the opportunities that the free ports could produce for the Celtic free-port bid, going right across from Port Talbot, all the way to the port of Milford Haven, could be reduced, if not lost. Now, I want to see that maximised. I want to see the jobs and the quality of jobs take place. And I want to see Tata part of that conversation, with their partners, about what steel they will produce, how much of that can be made here, how much can go into those turbines, to maximise the economic benefit to us, as well, of course, as a point made powerfully by trade union stewards, that they understand that if you import steel, you're not cutting your emissions, you're offshoring them. And actually, that provides a real risk not just for what this might do for decarbonising, but actually the opportunity to sell that steel into European and US markets too.

I, for one, welcome the UK Government's massive £500 million investment in Port Talbot, which safeguards 5,000 direct jobs and 17,500 indirect jobs, and the future of the steel industry here in south Wales.

I do share the Minister's concern at the loss of jobs in the area. That's why the £100 million towards a transition board to manage the change is very welcome and stands as one of the biggest amounts of money ever committed to a project of this nature. And I've heard the Minister in this Chamber, numerous times, calling on the UK Government to resolve the future of steel making in Port Talbot. Now that's happened, I thought he would have welcomed it. But instead, listening to the Minister's statement today, it sounded like someone scrambling around looking for someone or something to criticise. It's a bit rich for the Minister to be talking about a lack of clarity and detail when, at the same time, seemingly, the only thing Welsh Government might have got behind that was any different is an uncosted, untested hydrogen scheme, at some point in the future, which wouldn't do anything to safeguard jobs in the here and now; it's completely detached from the reality of the situation. And the business Secretary and the Welsh Secretary pointed out that that would mean spending six times as much as the Government's offer, just to kick the can further down the road. But his opposition to this issue risks damaging the stability of the future of the deal and the steel industry in Port Talbot. If he's as opposed to the deal as he makes out, and the UK Labour Party, on social media, makes out too, can he confirm whether he has had discussions with the UK Labour Party to ensure that any future UK Labour Government would honour the terms of this deal, so that Tata and the town of Port Talbot can proceed with clarity?

Well, with respect, the Member has tried to provide views for me that I don't have and haven't set out. I think he should listen a deal more carefully and recognise the seriousness of the matter. The tone of his comments I find deeply disappointing. This is a mixed announcement. There is longer term certainty for the sector, which we have recognised. We recognised it at the time, and I've recognised it today in my statement. There is a strong future for the steel sector, and it's important to be positive about that. We have skills, we have production capability, we should be able to transition to a future where significant steel making still takes place, and we want to do that on a basis where a just transition is delivered, not simply discussed and then put to one side. I would have thought that's an ambition that should go right across this Chamber, and yet the Member trashes what we are trying to do in asking serious questions about what the proposed deal means and what it will mean for all of those workers facing an anxious future. We want the certainty that David Rees has referred to, that Luke Fletcher has referred to, that even Paul Davies referred to, and I think the Member's comments really do jar, not just in tone, but in content as well.

When it comes to hydrogen, I make no apologies for making clear that we have always said that our preferred option was to have hydrogen as part of the mix for the future. If you allow that future to be created somewhere else, then it's entirely possible that that technology will not find its way to these shores. Now, who would want that? Because you'd be reliant on new steel making, as opposed to recycled steel making that electric arcs represent, taking place somewhere else, and the grades of metal that are currently only produced in that way will have to come from somewhere else. You'll be reliant, for at least a significant portion of steel making, on importing it from other parts of the world.

I would rather the UK took a strategic choice in wanting to see that development take place within the UK. We have institutions here in Wales, actually, who could take part in that research and the development of both the electric arc steel making, what that can provide, as well as hydrogen as an alternative for the heavy end. And I make no apology for setting out that's always been our position. The company will not be surprised to hear me say that, the UK Government won't be surprised to hear me say that. And as we have said, this is a proposed deal. We don't know enough about the deal and what it contains to say we'll sign up fully to every aspect of it. So, I look forward to having more clarity on the proposals in the deal, and the consultation and negotiation that must take place between the company and the trade union side for it to be meaningful, and I would not put any time frame on the length of that negotiation. The important point is that you get the right answer for the workers in the sector, and for the importance of the sector to not just the Welsh economy, but the UK economy as well. 

Tata steelworks in Port Talbot employs people from across the region I represent. It employs many of my friends and their children. The town of Port Talbot has been shaken by the news of these enormous job losses, but also Neath, Swansea, Bridgend and their valley communities. These workers have families to support, mortgages to pay, they buy in local shops, go to local pubs and restaurants, as do those who work for the local companies that supply the plant with all the materials, products and services needed over decades to make Port Talbot steel. There are apprentices who I know feel their future is in doubt. None of these people had a say in this huge and far-reaching decision that will change their futures, and this is keeping them awake at night. 

You refer in your statement, Minister, to the transition board funding, but, as we've heard, there's not a lot of detail. So, I'd like to know, Minister, how will the wider region's communities be supported economically in the future? What conversations has the Government had with Neath Port Talbot, Swansea and Bridgend councils regarding the impact of these job losses and the changes to the nature of the Port Talbot plant? Because 'just transition' is not just words. 

I think there are two points to make in response. As I've said on a number of occasions already, I recognise that the concern that people have is very real, and isn't going to go away quickly, because, actually, the negotiations with the trade union side are only just about to start, and I wouldn't want to see those rushed to get, potentially, to the wrong answer being delivered. If there's a better way to deliver the transition, including looking at technology, whether it's one furnace or more, all those things have to be part of a conversation that takes place. This Government certainly won't try to short-circuit that negotiation that must now take place to provide a long-term answer for steel making in Port Talbot. 

On your point around the conversations that we have with all those interested local authorities, we actually need to have more certainty about what this means, because, on the number of job losses that have been briefed, it's not certain that's going to be the end figure. And there's the balance between direct jobs and, indeed, the point that David Rees made about all the indirect jobs, and the point you made about the spend in the local economy, and, if there's a reduction in Tata Steel's footprint, what that means on a whole range of other fronts as well. So, we need more certainty on that, and, indeed, on the partnership board. 

I'd like to have a meaningful conversation with the UK Government about what the £100 million really means, the time period over which it will be spent, how it works with, not over or between, our devolved responsibilities for economic development, and to do it in a way where we can add real value. Otherwise, potentially, this blows a very big hole in any kind of levelling-up agenda that has any kind of meaning. So, we recognise there's a lot to talk about—really practical questions—and I'll continue to engage meaningfully and constructively with the UK Government. I'll also, of course, make sure that Members are updated when there are significant updates we can provide to Members, either in committee, or, indeed, in public, which would be my preference. 

Minister, one of the downstream operations affected by the Port Talbot announcement is the Llanwern steelworks in Newport East. We still have several hundred direct jobs there, as well as lots of contractors, the supply chain serving the plant, and, of course, local businesses that feed off the spend from employees at Llanwern and in those other jobs. And, of course, we mustn't overlook the downstream operations in the overall picture, because it's very significant locally, Minister. And one of the key questions is the quality of steel that an electric arc furnace—which obviously is the favoured approach of the UK Government and Tata Steel at the moment—would produce. 

We've heard various views, and I'm just wondering what the Welsh Government's take is on the quality of steel that an electric arc furnace would produce, and its suitability for the Zodiac plant at Llanwern, which obviously produces steel for the automotive industry. The plea, really, from the workforce at Llanwern and the unions is, as you have said, for them to be involved, for the Welsh Government to be involved, meaningfully, as we proceed from this point. As you said, Minister, there's an awful lot yet to be addressed about the transition, about retraining opportunities, alternative jobs for those who will lose employment, but a host of other matters as well. So from here on, Minister, and I know you will be asking the UK Government for this, obviously that's what the unions and the workforce want—meaningful involvement for them, for the Welsh Government, and a different approach in that regard as we go forward and deal with all of the detail involved.

Thank you. It's an important point around some of the specifics of the wider supply chain. For both Llanwern, and indeed for Trostre, with steel currently provided from Port Talbot, it's not clear that you can make that in the way that it would need to be through the electric arc process at present. So, understanding what that looks like, and understanding whether the company are going to invest in a long-term future for both Llanwern and Trostre, is really important to us. The trade union side have been talking about it publicly already, since the proposed deal was announced.

But there's also our understanding of the point that's been made around carbon emissions; you can't simply offshore your emissions. So, if you're going to have steel produced somewhere else, which is imported, how long term is the commitment to do that, if you don't make that steel any more in Port Talbot? Where does that steel come from? When the European Union, as is almost certain, does have a carbon border adjustment mechanism, that broadly means you understand the carbon content of the steel that's coming to you, both in its production method, and indeed in its transport method. So, if you have steel produced in a different part of the world in what still is a carbon-intensive method, and add it to the carbon cost for transport, that will have an impact on how that steel is treated within the European Union. I would like to see UK steel, not just Welsh steel, produced in a way that is recognised as being equivalent to the steel that is produced within the European Union. It will reduce the friction that might otherwise be in place for the way that steel is used, and then the preparedness of anybody to invest in the future of that steel making here within the UK.

It also goes into what we think we want to hear from Tata around future metals research. Swansea University have a particular specialism in this, and Tata are used to working with them; are they prepared to invest in that research to make sure we can still produce different grades of steel using electric arc? We need to have an answer on that, and, indeed, the broader question of scrap metal. The UK currently produces around about 11.5 million tonnes upwards of scrap metal each year. Two and a bit million tonnes of that is used in electric arc steel making, so there's a big gap. The challenge is, though, that that excess is currently exported. So, we're exporting our scrap metal. Now, are there going to be incentives or challenges around exporting that scrap? If you're going to interrupt the business model of exporters, how are you going to do that and how are you going to get not just the volume but the quality of scrap that will be required to feed another significant electric arc production here that doesn't undermine the steel-making production capability in Celsa, which, as I say, is in my constituency?

All those questions we need to understand and the trade union side need to understand. We'll definitely be looking for answers on those, and how, if at all, the partnership board and the £100 million goes to that, or the steps that the company themselves will be taking. So, there are lots of questions that need to be answered in the negotiation process, and I can guarantee you that the Welsh Government will not lose sight of the interests of workers in Llanwern, Trostre, Shotton or elsewhere when it comes to these negotiations and what it means for the future of the sector.

Thank you for your statement, Minister. You mentioned Shotton there in your final sentence. I just wanted to say that I stand in solidarity, of course, with Tata workers wherever they are, but particularly in my region in North Wales and Shotton. This dark shadow has been cast across all sites that we represent, in all parts of Wales. I would like just to ask what your understanding is of any potential impacts for Shotton, particularly, but also, importantly, for you to confirm that, as a Welsh Government, you will stand ready to step in and provide the necessary support for workers wherever they are in Wales, particularly, from my point of view, those in Shotton, in terms of retraining and support in finding alternative employment if the need arises.

I've had the opportunity to visit Shotton with Unite the Union, and Jack Sargeant as the constituency Member, previously. Our initial understanding is that there's less concern about Shotton than other steel-making facilities, but we need certainty on that. Having certainty through the negotiations taking place will be really helpful for us, and, again, to make sure that any future production will continue to feed the Shotton plant. If there is an impact in the head count, then we will continue to provide the support that we already do—the ReAct+ programme, and others—to work with the company, the workers and the trade unions themselves. It's why the time frame of a transition really matters, because if you move to rapidly removing a workforce, it creates a much bigger problem for almost everybody. The challenge of having a longer time frame is whether you can keep people in the sector, if they think the longer term future doesn't exist for them. So, there are different challenges that exist. We'll continue to provide practical support, as you mentioned. And it's very much in my mind, as a former health Minister, that when you have large and rapid redundancy events there is almost always a mental health impact that comes from it. So, we all need to understand what that means directly and then to understand if there is an extra demand that will be going into our health service, if there is a rapid large-scale redundancy event. So, there are many good reasons to want to avoid that. I'm very well aware of each of them, and, as I say, I'll continue to keep Members updated on the progress we make. 

I worked as a research officer at what was the BSC research centre in Port Talbot, specialising in iron and steel making, including with the blast furnace computer model. I have heard the statement and read the press releases. Moving to electric arc furnaces removes the need for iron making and for basic oxygen steel making. It also makes it very difficult to make any specialist steels. The problem is not just the huge losses and direct and indirect jobs; it puts the whole future of steel production at risk. We are now, if we go to an electric arc system, totally dependent on the price of electricity and the price of scrapped steel. As the Minister I am sure is aware, both of those are extremely volatile. And we've had people who have used electric arc furnaces recently mothball them from time to time, because the price of electricity has gone up. Will the Minister ask for a consideration of using hydrogen instead of carbon in the creation of iron, thus continuing the iron making? 

It's a key ask, and, as I said, our position and our preferred end point has always been this. And, actually, from the trade union side, they have engaged meaningfully in what a just transition could look like to decarbonise the sector. They've worked with consultants Syndex to look at what that transition might look like with the whole sector, in fact, not just with Tata. The point is well made and, I think, well recognised that different grades of steel can be made through different production methods. If you can have a different answer for electric arc technology, then you need to invest in the research to get there. I'm interested in that in any event to maximise what we can do with electric arc production, but there is a challenge and an opportunity with scrap production to see more of that retained here within the UK, to see value added from that. But the Member is quite right to point to electricity price volatility, which is a real concern for the sector. It is raised with me every time I meet steel workers and every time I meet the steel company. They always point to the fact that a better deal is available in European countries where a different level of support is provided. It's why I highlighted in my statement that our steelworkers see why and how other G7 countries make different choices about how to support this strategic sector of the economy. I would want that to happen with this Government, and I would certainly carry on having a conversation with any future Government on how they might support the sector for a longer term sustainable future. 

Good afternoon, Minister. Thank you so much for all of the work that you've been doing to date, and I wish you well with continued negotiations. I stand here, as the Welsh party leader of the Liberal Democrats, ensuring that we stand in support with those workers in Port Talbot. Port Talbot is an iconic plant not just here in Wales, but even further, even across the world, I would say, and we owe those workers a duty to support them. I cover the upper Swansea valley. There are workers who live there who work in Port Talbot. So, it's really important to all of us across Wales that we make sure that we give a fair deal to those workers and ensure that they are supported and protected.

I wonder if I could just link two of the issues I've raised with the First Minister, one this week and one last week. The one this week was around mental health. There are massive economic issues, but there are also massive mental health concerns. If you are a family facing potential redundancy, it must be incredibly stressful not just for you as a worker, but for your family. So, we need to ensure that there is cross-governmental support. The second one I raised last week, about universal basic income and the transition universal basic income for workers from carbon-heavy industries, such as Port Talbot, to green industries. The First Minister talked about the fact that we needed to protect all of the current redundancy payments et cetera, and I would absolutely support that, but universal basic income comes on top of that. So, I would ask you to consider what support you're giving to those workers across Government in terms of mental health support, but also how we can ensure those workers have a real consistent message around the income, going forward. We cannot let those workers down in Port Talbot. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

I recognise the points the Member is making and, indeed, I referenced the potential mental health impact of a large-scale and immediate redundancy event, and what that would inevitably do across the population of people who might lose their jobs, if that happened rapidly and at scale. That's why I've kept on talking about the time frame for the transition and whatever the transition is itself. That is still part of the negotiation on the proposed deal. 

On your point around practical resources for workers who may either choose to leave their job if they're uncertain about their future or, indeed, those people that might be made redundant, it is part of the reason why that negotiation is so important—to understand what practical support is going to be provided, either within or outside and above terms and conditions, as we have seen on a number of occasions. So, Ford workers, for example—the trade union Unite at that time were able to negotiate a significant enhanced package that gave them the space to look for other opportunities. Welsh Government support has still been available on top of that, and it's important not just to find work but to think about the quality of work that those current workers have and their earning power, and the commitments they already have, and whether we can find them work that is in some way commensurate. So, there's a different challenge depending on the types of—[Inaudible.]—that needs to take place, and what we're able to do then. We are continually, within our budget challenges, looking at what we can continue to do and will continue to do, and I'm very clear that we continue to have a support and retraining package available for workers across the sector and that will be directly relevant to what happens at the end of the negotiation that is still taking place around Port Talbot. 

There are many, many hundreds of steelworkers in the Ogmore and, indeed, the Bridgend area and, in fact, we've spoken to many of them over this last weekend. They say we shouldn't turn our backs on any investment, but there should have been proper engagement between the workforce and the unions and the owners, and proper engagement between the UK Government and Welsh Government, and that this has not happened, as we've heard, is of truly deep concern. They agree electric arc is part of the solutions for the future, but the Minister will know that the unions and others have argued consistently for support from the UK Government far beyond what is currently on offer, more akin, indeed, to other nations within Europe, and where alternatives to electric arc are also being explored—the move to hydrogen, carbon capture, direct reduced iron models, which have the benefits of not only retaining a broader steel-making capacity, including primary-making steel capacity, but also retaining more jobs and developing that green steel, giving us the leadership in Wales and the UK that we want, instead of offshoring climate change, carbon, and also offshoring jobs as well. So, could you assure us, could you assure the Senedd, that you will continue to work with the unions, push hard on the UK Government and work with Tata, and keep all options on the table, and then keep this Senedd and the workforce fully updated?

I'm more than happy to give that commitment, because in the conversation I had with the trade union side, the meeting I had when I was overseas on the Friday—we had an early meeting then—and the meetings I've had yesterday and today, we're very clear that we have aligned interests in the future of the sector, what it can do for the economy, and the fact that the trade union stewards understand how their steel can be used in the future. They know that a green revolution is coming in the way that power is generated. They know that there are significant economic opportunities that come with that. They also know that that doesn't have to take place here within Wales or the wider UK, and that is reliant on choices that are made by companies and the support provided by the UK Government. It's why David Rees was right to point out that there is a reason why not a single developer bid in the last contracts for difference round to generate offshore wind. It's a missed economic opportunity, and it provides real concern for the workforce.

I also agree with your point, and I just want to make this clear: the trade union side and the Welsh Government always recognised that electric arc furnaces are part of the answer, and the challenge comes in how technology-neutral the decarbonisation journey can be and what will come from the negotiation. So, we look forward to being constructive in what happens with that negotiation, and to work alongside the company, the UK Government and the trade union side. And as I've said, and I'm happy to repeat, I am more than happy to keep Members updated formally through the Senedd on what is happening in those negotiations when I'm able to do so, respecting, of course, the fact there will confidentiality around some of those processes, and, unlike what has happened in the last week, the workers need to hear first what is taking place with their jobs and their livelihoods.

And finally, Cefin Campbell.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can I thank the Minister for his statement? I share his concern and others' regarding the current situation, and I too feel deeply frustrated by the UK Government's approach to the matter. Particularly disappointing is the fact that you as a Government have been bypassed in the negotiations, and again it's an example of undermining the devolution settlement. However, in your statement you make several references to the Tata Steel plant in Port Talbot, and rightly so, and you refer to your visit yesterday to the town. Now, you will also be aware, of course, of the Tata Steel site at Trostre in Llanelli in my region. Again, this has been a long-standing, crucial, local employer for over 70 years, currently employing about 600 people, and in an area with stubbornly high deprivation levels. So, in light of your statement and the continued uncertainty, could I therefore ask you what discussions you've had about the future of steel making in Trostre at these worrying times?

It's a point that I think I mentioned earlier in response to John Griffiths, but I'm happy to restate the point. Near the start of my statement I referred to where steel is made, how it's produced and what it is, and of course the reference to baked beans was deliberate, because Trostre produces lots and lots of cans that are used in everyday goods, including baked beans. Now, the challenge is that, if you have a gap in production, those customers will move, and there's absolutely no guarantee they'll come back. And the trade union side have said, 'We want certainty', and the Welsh Government wants certainty on what this means for Trostre and the supply of steel that they will need to carry on their production. So, that is part of what we're looking for. It's certainly part of what the trade union side are looking for. So, that is definitely on our list of issues we have already raised and will continue to raise where we want long-term certainty, and that's why the types of steel making are so important, it's why I'm so disappointed at Tom Giffard's tone and the conduct of his commentary, because, actually, that ignores the fact that downstream production in Llanwern and in Trostre are reliant on the type of steel that is currently produced within Port Talbot.

So, there many questions still to be answered, but I should finish on this point, Llywydd: for all the challenges that exist—and they're very real—we have a significant asset of UK significance here in Wales. It is a strength to build on, and if the UK Government are prepared to see it in that way, there can still be a strong and positive future for steel making here within Wales, within the United Kingdom, where we are not reliant on other parts of the world to make our steel for us and all of the vulnerabilities that that would provide. We will engage in that constructive manner, recognising the significance of this foundational sector of our economy. I look forward to updating Members and I hope we can have more certainty and more positivity about the future of the steel sector in the future. 

I thank the Minister. 

The next item is item 4, the statement by the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution on the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill. The Counsel General, therefore, to make his statement—Mick Antoniw.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. The eighteenth of September 1997 was an historic and momentous day in the history of Wales, in the history of the Welsh people and the Welsh nation. For it was on that day we voted for a new voice for the people of Wales and to bring our democracy closer to the people. We voted to establish the National Assembly for Wales. And over the past quarter century our democracy has matured and it has become a permanent part of the parliamentary structure of the United Kingdom, taking its place alongside Scotland and Northern Ireland. And over that quarter century it has grown, it's taken on new responsibilities, it has become a legislature in its own right, and it has become a true Parliament—a Senedd.

In Wales we value our democracy, the rule of law and our accountability to the people of Wales who elect us. It's therefore vital that we continually seek to refresh, improve and modernise our democracy to make it fit for the many challenges we face as a nation, as a United Kingdom, over the coming decades.

In Wales we value our democracy, the rule of law and our accountability to the people of Wales, who elect us. It is therefore vital that we continually seek to refresh, improve and modernise our democracy to make it fit for the many challenges we face as a nation, as a United Kingdom, over the coming decades.

Yesterday the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill was laid before the Senedd. It presents us and the people of Wales with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make the changes necessary to modernise the Senedd, reflecting our twenty-first century Wales. A more effective Senedd, with the ability and capacity to hold the Welsh Government to account; a more representative Senedd to better serve the people of Wales.

When first established, the Assembly had no primary law-making powers and was not formally separated from the Welsh Government. Today the Senedd makes laws, sets taxes and holds the Welsh Government to account in some of the areas that have the greatest impact on people’s lives. Yet despite these increased powers and responsibilities, despite a compelling case for Senedd reform being made through a succession of expert reports over the last two decades, its size and its capacity to properly fulfil its responsibilities have not been addressed until now, and that is why I say this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for change—an opportunity I believe we must seize.

This is, of course, an unusual Bill. Although it is brought forward by the Government, its genesis was in the deliberations of the Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform. The committee’s report, published less than 16 months ago and endorsed by the Senedd on 8 June 2022, reflects the clear and compelling case for Senedd reform. I’m pleased to say that the Bill will deliver most recommendations made by the committee and it represents a shared priority in the co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru. I thank the committee’s members for their work, and their predecessors on the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform and the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform.

The Bill provides for the Senedd to have 96 Members, with six Members elected per constituency. The Bill will also simplify the Senedd voting system. Voters will be able to see all of the names of each party’s listed candidates. They will have one vote and one ballot paper, as opposed to the current two. Voters will simply have to mark the box of the party or independent candidate of their choice, with the seats calculated fairly using the D’Hondt method. Rather than most Members being elected through a first-past-the-post system, all Members of the Senedd will be elected using closed proportional lists.

It provides for the creation of 16 Senedd constituencies for the 2026 election through the pairing of the 32 new UK parliamentary constituencies in Wales in an independent review. It also provides for a full boundary review to be undertaken ahead of the subsequent Senedd elections to create 16 new Welsh constituencies from the 2030 election onwards, and periodic reviews thereafter. To achieve this, the Bill provides the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales with the functions necessary to undertake the pairing of the new UK Parliament constituencies in Wales, and to independently undertake regular reviews of the new Senedd constituency boundaries thereafter, and it renames it as the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru. This will mark the first time for us to have a body in Wales with the powers to review our Senedd’s constituency boundaries.

In association with the overall increase in the Senedd’s size, and on the recommendation of the Senedd’s Business Committee, the Bill enables the Senedd to elect an additional Deputy Presiding Officer. It also increases the legislative limit upon the number of Welsh Ministers who may be appointed from 12 to 17.

The special purpose committee also recommends that further consideration should be given, on a cross-party basis, to exploring the feasibility and legislative challenges associated with enabling election on the basis of job sharing. In response, the Bill provides a pathway—a pathway for further consideration of the practical and legislative implications of job sharing by the next Senedd. The Bill does not address a limited number of the special purpose committee’s recommendations. We will address its recommendations on candidate gender quotas and the publication of information about the diversity of candidates through forthcoming legislation.

Whilst developing and preparing this legislation, we've also considered several related policy areas. For example, the Bill provides for returning Senedd elections to a four-year cycle from 2026. As Members will know, four-year terms were the norm in Welsh democracy at the point of devolution and only changed in response to the UK Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011. That Act has since been repealed, and I believe that a return to four-year terms would more appropriately balance considerations of democratic renewal and accountability to the people of Wales. The Bill also makes provision to disqualify any person who is not registered in the register of local government electors at an address within Wales from standing as a candidate for election to the Senedd and from being a Member of the Senedd.

Finally, the Bill provides for a review mechanism to consider its operation and effect. Now, I bring this legislation forward on behalf of the Senedd and, if passed, it is appropriate that such a review will be undertaken by the Senedd. This provides the impetus for a Senedd committee to consider issues such as the impacts of the new voting system on proportionality, the introduction of multi-member constituencies, the experience of closed lists and any other Senedd reform issue it considers relevant.

Of course, change is never easy; there is never a good time to make change. Investing in our democracy has a cost attached to it, but the long-term cost will be greater if we fail to seize this opportunity now.

The Welsh Government has worked with partners to develop detailed cost estimates that set out the projected financial implications of this legislation over an eight-year period. From 2031 onwards, the Bill will entail an estimated annual cost of between £14.5 million and £17.5 million in a typical year. 

The value and importance that we place on our democratic institutions and their importance to Wales, now and in the future, is the challenge. This is about the value we place on the ability to represent all the people of Wales in making decisions on their behalf, decisions that affect their lives.

The Senedd has responsibility for scrutinising the expenditure of more than £24 billion each year. It will take an improvement in value of around 0.07 per cent of this budget to offset the cost of investing in the Senedd’s capacity—that is less than one tenth of a per cent of the Senedd's budget. Better scrutiny delivers better governance, and better governance pays for itself. Since Wales voted in favour of devolution 26 years ago, devolution has not stood still. As powers and responsibilities have grown, almost the only things that have remained the same are the Senedd’s size and the way Members are elected. It has taken many reports over many years to get us to this point, but now we have a Bill before us that will deliver a national Parliament that reflects modern Wales and has the capacity it needs to represent the people of Wales. 

We must grasp this opportunity.

I firmly believe that this is an opportunity that we must grasp. I look forward to scrutiny of the Bill by Members and to hearing the views of stakeholders, delivery partners and the public during the legislative process. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

It'll come as no surprise to anybody in this Chamber that the Welsh Conservatives are opposed to the progress of this Bill. While there are some elements of the Bill that we can welcome, such as four-year terms—we appreciate that—and a requirement for candidates for election to the Senedd to live in Wales, we cannot countenance supporting proposals to increase the size of this Senedd and make significant changes to the voting system at Senedd elections without the express consent of the people of Wales.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Wales needs more doctors, dentists, nurses and teachers, not more politicians. And we need a Welsh Government that is focused on addressing the people's priorities, not the priorities of the political establishment. We need you to get to grips, frankly, with the mess in our national health service, the state of our schools and the fact that our pay packets are lighter in Wales than they are elsewhere in the UK.

The reality is there is no mandate whatsoever to deliver this set of proposals before you, and the overwhelming majority of people in Wales do not support an increase in the size of the Senedd. Now, I know that Labour and Plaid MSs have claimed that there's a public mandate for the proposed changes. They say that because they referred to Senedd reform in their manifestos that means they can take this agenda forward. But I've checked both of your manifestos. There was nothing in there about 36 extra Members of the Senedd. There was nothing in there about scrapping the first-past-the-post system and replacing it with a closed list system—nothing at all in either of your manifestos, and, let me tell you, I read them thoroughly. They put me to sleep very easily, but I read them. So, the fact that you keep claiming that there is a public mandate is a load, frankly, of hogwash. What we need to do is ensure that we deliver on people's priorities, not this mess.

And it is a power grab, everybody, by political parties. You're taking power out of the hands of individual people, the voters around this country, who, at the moment, can express a view as to an individual named candidate on a ballot paper, and you're giving that power instead to political party leadership, and that is the wrong way to go. It is bad for democracy, and it will sever the direct accountability of Members of this institution to the public that we serve. That's a retrograde step.

I heard what you said, Counsel General, about this being some sort of great march forward for scrutiny in this Senedd, and this is coming from a Government that rode roughshod over this Senedd in introducing this Bill in the first place. There was a Senedd reform committee established to look at and consider this matter in detail, and you, basically, as a Welsh Government, or rather, should I say, the First Minister and the former leader of Plaid Cymru, issued it with instructions and told it what the report should conclude. That is the state of the party that preaches a moral high ground about the need for better scrutiny and yet ditches the committees that want to do the scrutiny and make recommendations to you. So, we won't take any of that hypocrisy.

So, there isn't a mandate. I hope that you will accept that, Counsel General. This is a power grab by political parties. It will not deliver a more representative Senedd, as you claim in your statement, because, as you know, the threshold for getting elected into this Senedd is going to increase. It's going to increase from the roughly 6.5 per cent for regional list candidates at the moment to around 12 per cent in the future. So, how is that chiming with your claims that this is going to make a more representative Senedd? The reality is it won't make a more representative Senedd, and I hope that you will accept that fact.

It's also, of course, a very expensive programme. I know you keep bleating on about £120 million over eight years being a small fraction of the expenditure of this institution here in Wales, and it might well be a small fraction. But 120 million quid's enough to build a couple of hospitals, or a couple of schools that people are crying out for in their communities and that are currently being denied in spite of the fact that you've made promises to deliver them in some places, especially in north Wales. That is where the public want to see this money spent. They want to see it spent on our public services. And it adds insult to injury, frankly, that over the summer we've seen the First Minister, we've seen the finance Minister, we've seen the health Minister threatening to cut public service budgets, threatening to cut the budgets for our hospitals and our schools, saying that there's no more money, and yet they find £120 million behind the back of the sofa to fund this sort of ridiculous proposal for a job-creation scheme for Members of the Senedd. Well, it's not good enough, we won't be supporting it, and I urge you to reconsider the situation in the future.

Can I thank the Member very much for, certainly, agreeing to some of the proposals, the four-year terms, also the residency requirement that will be introduced by this legislation? Just in response to his comments about scrutiny and so on, the issue of scrutiny and the capacity to properly scrutinise legislation, to properly ensure best value for money and so on in the way in which this Senedd has developed and will operate, can I just take him back to 2014, to the Silk committee recommendations, which had, as far as I can see, cross-party support at that time? This is what that report said in 2014:

‘The National Assembly is small in relation to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and its international comparators. We are clear that this causes problems for effective governance. What may have been appropriate before the National Assembly had a full legislative role…is certainly less appropriate now. There is simply not sufficient strength in depth, given the number of Members on more than one committee. Specialism is difficult and the scrutiny that keeps governments on their toes is less easy. This problem will grow substantially once the National Assembly begins to scrutinise tax legislation, and will grow even further if the important additional responsibilities we are recommending…are given to the National Assembly.'

Can I just say that it is absolutely no surprise to me you’re opposing it—and you’re entitled to oppose it as part of your role within this Senedd—but I do think there is a certain amount of hypocrisy? You’re right, there is hypocrisy, but the hypocrisy is when you talk about the costs of improving and developing our democracy. Over the period of time that devolution has existed, 800 unelected life peers have been created. Boris Johnson created 105 life peers during the three years of his Prime Ministership. Liz Truss is recommending two for each of the six weeks she was in Government. And at the same time, you've reduced—without a referendum, with no referendum when you reduced—the number of Welsh parliamentary Members from 40 to 32. The Scottish Parliament has 129 Members, and the Northern Ireland Assembly has 90 Members. We are the most unrepresented part of the United Kingdom. And if you want to talk about cost, you didn’t bat an eyelid when you spent £120 million across the UK to introduce ID cards, which had the main objective of actually stopping people from voting.

Aneurin Bevan was right. He said many things about the Welsh Conservatives. The one that comes to me immediately is that you know the price of everything but the value of nothing. This really is a test of the value that we place on Welsh democracy and our ability to play a proper part in the parliamentary democracy of the United Kingdom. Our ability to do this comes from the 2017 Wales Act. Any legislation on this to go through will have to have a two thirds majority of this Senedd. And yes, my party, the Liberal Democrats, and indeed Plaid Cymru, do have a mandate for this reform. It’s a debate that’s gone on. We need to get on with it and seize this opportunity.

I thank the Counsel General for this statement, and it is an important statement in terms of the history not only of this Senedd but also the history of our nation. Twenty-six years after Wales voted ‘yes’, a vote that led to the establishment of a National Assembly, which is now known as the Senedd, we’re now embarking on a journey that will create a stronger and more representative Senedd that will be able to serve the people of Wales even better by increasing our capacity to make a difference.

As the Counsel General mentioned, this is part of the co-operation agreement, and it’s important that we also express gratitude for all the work that has been done not only on a cross-party basis, but also independently, which is the basis of all of this, and shows why this is so necessary.

We must also view this in a wider context. This comes at a time when the voice of Wales is being weakened in Westminster, with a 20 per cent cut in the number of Welsh MPs, as well, of course, as the four Members of the European Parliament that have already been lost. And as has already been outlined, this Senedd has evolved over the last quarter of a century, meaning that we now have more responsibilities, and that means that there is more work to be done not only in terms of legislating, but also in terms of scrutiny.

After all, scrutiny is a crucial part of democracy, and better scrutiny will benefit the lives of everyone that we represent, driving better value for public money and, ultimately, better policies. And I must confess, I don’t understand why the Conservatives oppose greater scrutiny. Surely we have a Welsh Government here calling for greater scrutiny, something that we are desperately craving from an UK Government, so I must congratulate the fact that we have a Government calling for better scrutiny because they understand the value of it. [Interruption.] What do you want us to do? Just be grateful for the fact that—that we should just be grateful for just the bare minimum, or do you think that we should just be okay with being second best? That it’s just, 'Wales, we can do okay as we are; we're fine, we'll be the smallest legislature, if you compare us to Scotland and Northern Ireland.' Is that really the level of ambition you have for our country, our people and our democracy? Because I believe in Wales. I believe in the right of this Senedd to scrutinise Welsh Government and I am disappointed to see an opposition party oppose greater scrutiny. [Interruption.] In contrast to the Conservatives, Plaid Cymru is not content with Wales being told that what we have is good enough. We want Wales to have the best in terms of both institutions and services. It's not an either/or.

And of course there are differences between us and Welsh Labour in terms of the constitutional future of Wales, as was highlighted during the questions to the First Minister this afternoon. For Plaid Cymru, these measures represent a further step towards independence because we believe that the failed Westminster system does not work for Wales, regardless of which party is in power. The gulf between this Senedd and Westminster is becoming more apparent every day. And while the Westminster Government is trying to make it harder for people to vote, we here want to expand our democracy and make this Senedd more representative. 

Getting rid of the first-past-the-post system and creating a fully proportional electoral system will also be a big step forward for us as a nation, and will ensure that every vote counts. And while the single transferable vote is the system that we would favour as a party, and the system that we would like to see being introduced, we believe that the system being proposed is better than what we have now.

I was not old enough to vote for the establishment of this Senedd, although I campaigned for a 'yes' vote. In fact, 26 years ago today, after staying up all night to watch the results come in, I was scolded by the school for arriving late because I had slept through my alarm. But it was a scolding worth having to watch Eric Sunderland announce the final result and start the journey of this Senedd. That journey continues today with this important statement, which is undoubtedly a step towards strengthening our democracy. 

Can I thank the Member for those comments? And also, within this context, of course, there's a lot else going on at the moment. We have, of course, our own independent commission that will be producing its report on broader constitutional reform issues and, of course, we are looking forward in the not-too-distant future to further justice devolution, the devolution of policing and, of course, probation. And we will need reforms within Government and within this Senedd in order to assume those responsibilities and to ensure that they are properly delivered. 

Now, the Conservatives oppose—I wonder whether all Conservatives oppose; I suspect there are many Conservatives who actually recognise that there is a need for this reform to take place. There is a sort of populist stream that is running through the Conservatives at the moment in their desperation to hang on to some sort of credibility, but they're right about one thing: investing in this type of reform, there's never a good time to do it, there's never an easy time, and that's why it actually takes, I think, vision and leadership to do it.

The Member did make some important points about the voting system. It will be simpler, it will actually be cheaper and will save money, there will be one ballot paper, but I think the really important point that you made is that, within that system, every vote will count, and that can't be said of the current system.

Minister, I very much welcome the statement you've made this afternoon and I very much welcome the legislation that you're bringing forward. And, Minister, I wouldn't be too disturbed by the Conservatives' opposition to this. They, of course, have fought every step of devolution down the decades. In 1997, the Conservatives voted against devolution three months after the referendum. [Interruption.] They say that they speak on behalf of the people, unfortunately the people neither vote for them nor believe in them. And there is a reason for that, of course. The Conservatives have devalued Welsh democracy down the years. They've undermined Welsh democracy and are doing so at the moment. Ultimately, they can't win with Welsh democracy, because they know the people of Wales do not feel represented by the Conservative Party, and that's why they oppose any move to strengthen our democracy.

I very much welcome the statement this afternoon. I was in primary school when Lord Kilbrandon reported in 1973, calling for a parliament of 100 Members, and it's been a long journey. I've lost count of the commissions and the committees and the panels and the people who've been brought together to study and look at how this place operates, and they've all come back to the same conclusion. It's time that we listened to those and voted this through. I was very pleased to hear the First Minister making that point earlier today.

And what I would say to the Conservatives, in asking the question to the Counsel General, is this: democracy needs to represent everybody, and it's important that everybody feels represented in our democracy. I know it can be very difficult sometimes for the Conservatives to understand that concept. For me, this will always involve compromise. Personally, I am a strong supporter of the single transferable vote, and I would preferred to have seen STV within this package, but I recognise that, in a package that involves compromise on all sides, we all need to make that same compromise, and I know that I'm not alone in doing so. So, Counsel General, will you ensure that you continue to reach out and ensure that in reforming our Senedd, in reforming our democracy, in strengthening the power of Welsh democracy, we reach out and ensure that everybody feels that they're a part of the future of the democracy that we're creating here today?

I thank the Member for those comments. Of course, the whole purpose of devolution is about the decentralisation of power. It is about bringing power closer to people, and it is a process. It's a process that has been ongoing over the past 25 years, and it is about subsidiarity. That is, in many ways, why there have been so many important discussions about the constitutional future, and that's why I mentioned earlier the importance of the report that we will have in the early new year from the independent commission, which will look at these broader issues and may indeed look at some of these issues as well. We do always have to have in mind and to be as close as we can to the people of Wales. This legislation is essentially about governance, how we actually deliver on the promises we make to the people of Wales and how we hold ourselves to account, and how they hold us to account for the work that we do.

I agree with one point that was shouted out from the other side. It's not true that the Tories have opposed devolution at every step, because there was a stage, I remember, with Nick Bourne and with others, that we actually stood together in terms of the campaign for additional powers for the Senedd. What I think is just disappointing is that it seems that the current Welsh Conservative Party have gone backwards, rather than recognising the importance of a process able to move forwards. But I'm sure, maybe, that that will change once we get through the current situation, once we get past the general election and we have a Labour Government, and we can talk, perhaps, with more sense about how we actually reform our constitutional structures and our democratic institutions in the UK. But for us, within Wales, this is an historic and very significant step forward.

Well, ironically, for a Bill intended to improve public scrutiny, it's the claims made about the need for more politicians in Cardiff Bay that haven't stood up to scrutiny. We were initially told that it would improve the ability to scrutinise the Government, only to find that the proportion of Members in the Government will see a larger increase than the number of backbenchers intended to do the scrutiny. We were told that it would improve diversity in public life, only to see that part of the Bill shelved off into a different Bill because the Welsh Government never had the powers that it promised.

Now we're told that Wales is poorly served by having only 60 poor, overworked Members, but the Government's agenda today is set to finish before 6 o'clock. I've heard the arguments in today's statement in favour of more politicians. You called it, Counsel General, 'clear and compelling', but we on these benches have not been convinced by any of them. But I accept, in a democracy, that people can be won over by these arguments, and some may disagree with me. So, it begs the question, Llywydd: if more politicians, at a cost of £120 million, are so popular, why doesn't the Counsel General get the democratic mandate that he needs for it, from the people of Wales, in a referendum?

Listen now, I thank the Member for those particular comments. Can I just comment that the Member may finish at 6 o'clock, but I can assure him that I won't be finishing at 6 o'clock? And I think most of the people here won't be finishing at 6 o'clock. So, enjoy your evening, because some of us will actually be working.

The 2017 Act gave us very specific powers in respect of elections and in respect of the Senedd. We have mandates in terms of our election manifestos. We're carrying out the powers that were given to us. If Westminster had intended for us to be able to use those powers only with a referendum, they would have said so. They didn't say so, and you'll be aware of all the commissions, all the debate, all the discussions that we've had, and I think the argument is completely clear. The mandate that we have is completely clear, and this legislation is going forward to scrutiny.

I have to say, Counsel General, I've yet to meet a Conservative that has persuaded me that they believe in private what they are saying stridently in public on this, like so many other matters.

Look, what we are trying to do here, actually, is to find a local solution to a global problem, the global problem of democracy that is challenged, democracy that is in crisis, democracy that needs to respond to a world that is changing. And if it doesn't, then we will see an inability to deliver effective solutions to our people. I've never actually understood the argument that strengthening a democracy is somehow a distraction from the real work of delivering dignified lives to our people. It is right at the heart of that work, which is why we created this institution, and why we want to create the conditions for this institution to succeed, both opposition and Government Members. It's taken us 20 years to get to this point, hasn't it, Counsel General? But does he agree with me that this should be seen not as an end point, but as a starting point of an era of democratic innovation, constantly seeking ways in which we in this place can deliver better lives for the people that we seek to represent?

Well, I agree with most of the comments of the Member. I think we are all committed to improving governance and democracy, and it isn't something that gets frozen in time, although our numbers and our size have been frozen in time. It is something you always have to review, you also have to assess. And I believe that is what we've been doing for the last decade. It cannot be said that we brought this legislation forward in a rush. We've had three commissions, we've had a special purpose committee, we've had countless debates. I and others have answered consistent and continuous questions on this. We've all attended conferences and discussions, et cetera. There is a very broad recognition that what we want to do is right, that the changes we need to make are right. This is about democracy, it is about us taking steps forward to improve our democracy. That doesn't stand still, just as the relationship and the structure of the United Kingdom doesn't stand still, just as the impact on all our lives and our constitutional and political structures as a result of leaving the European Union haven't stood still and have had to change. This isn't about us having some sort of obsession about the constitution. In fact, if you want to have an obsession about the constitution, you just look at legislation after legislation after legislation in Westminster that is nothing to do with the constitution. This has one sole objective: it is improving our governance, improving our democracy, and giving better voice to the people of Wales. You may disagree with that, but I'm pretty sure that there is an overwhelming majority here that do agree with it.

I hope that the Conservatives can tell Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board where all these doctors are that they can go and employ, because they're having difficulty in finding them.

On numbers, Scotland has 4.6 million voters for 129 Members—35,813 voters per Member; Northern Ireland has 1.36 million voters for 90 Members—15,111 voters per Member; and Wales will have, if this is agreed, 2.3 million voters for 96 Members—29,464 voters per Member, almost midway between the two. My concern is, if we can join constituencies, the geographical size of the new constituencies. Take Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, which is a strange constituency to start with: the options with it will be to go to the outskirts of Wrexham, the sea in Ceredigion or the English border in Monmouthshire, which, I would suggest, are a long way from Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen, or join with Neath and Swansea East or Carmarthenshire, which, again, I would say, is a long way from the English border at Presteigne in Radnorshire. For 96 Members, why did the Welsh Government not support 32 three-Member constituencies, based upon the parliamentary constituencies?

I thank the Member for the comments. Can I just say that you did lose me on the numbers? I'm absolutely certain you were correct in your numbers, and I totally agree with everything that you have actually said. I'm sure the additional points are ones that will certainly arise and emerge during the scrutiny process, Mike. 

We have ambitions. We want more powers. We want Welsh people to be connected to the decisions that affect their everyday lives. And, indeed, pushing this forward is a way of achieving that. It's not about increasing the number of politicians for its own sake. In fact, I'm a little bit confused that the Conservatives expect the Senedd to properly scrutinise Government decisions when, in fact, it is smaller than most local councils. But—and it is a but, of course—you wouldn't expect me to stand here and not say that the proposals don't live up to the expectations that we need in order to have that real transparency. We want the single transferable vote. That is the most effective, open way of making sure that people get their vote, and it equals a seat. Plaid Cymru, in their manifesto, did commit to this, and I'm hoping that we might be able to work together in order to move the agenda on. My question, I guess, to you, Counsel General, is—. I've heard the word 'compromise'—in fact, I've heard it this afternoon. I really don't understand who wants the compromise. Plaid Cymru, I don't think, don't; the Liberal Democrats don't; a lot of Welsh Labour don't. So, please, can you just answer this one question: who wants the compromise that we don't have the STV system? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I thank the Member for the comments and for the question. Can I also commend her? She has consistently raised the issue of the particular type of voting system. I think the reality is that the compromise is what is necessary to get a two-thirds majority to get this through. There are all sorts of different voting systems; they all have positives and negatives about them. That includes first-past-the-post. I think first-past-the-post, incidentally, is the most outdated of the voting systems. Perhaps it wasn't so much a problem after the second world war, when you really only had two parties, but we don't live in that sort of world now. So, all I say is that I think it's a system that everybody has been able to buy into as being a significant improvement on the existing voting system. What I can say, of course, is that built into the legislation will be provisions for review. So, the next Senedd will specifically have that function. The Llywydd will have an obligation to lay a motion that will consider not only the issue of job sharing, which has been raised, and the viability of that, but also the actual outcome of the elections, how the election system has operated. It will be up to the next Senedd to consider the outcome of that review and whether there are any further recommendations that will emerge. It's not for this Senedd, but it will be for the next Senedd, and there will be a statutory responsibility to at least have that discussion within the Senedd.

Eleanor Roosevelt said:

'Democracy cannot be static. Whatever is static is dead.'

I agree with the Minister that to ensure that democracy is alive here in Wales, this Senedd needs to be fit for purpose. It means being elected in a more democratic way; it means that we would have more Members to have that scrutiny work. I sit on the Equality and Social Justice Committee, and we will spend just one day scrutinising the Government's child poverty strategy. Let nobody talk about wasting money on politicians and governance, and don't dare talk about how that relatively small amount of money could be spent on helping people in the cost-of-living crisis. In order to help them, in order to ensure that the Government spends every penny that it has effectively, we need more politicians and more scrutiny to ensure that that can happen.

'Fit for purpose', Minister, also means that this Senedd looks more like the communities it represents. Innovative and practical steps such as giving real consideration to introducing job share are certainly a way of encouraging that. I'm disappointed that the work on job sharing, which has long been promised and discussed, can't happen sooner. So, do you agree that if we want to see more diversity of representation in this place, we have to make this a place that fits with people's lives, in all their diversity?

Thank you. You make some very good points. I was particularly impressed with the quote from Roosevelt, who made so many important contributions to our understanding of democracy, the rule of law and so on. You said that she said that

'Democracy cannot be static. Whatever is static is dead.'

I think that is the problem with the Welsh Conservative position. They have become politically static, they have become moribund, and I think the Welsh Conservatives have become largely irrelevant. I think that will be shown at the next general election.

In terms of the points you validly raised—[Interruption.] In terms of the points—[Interruption.] In terms of the points you validly raised about diversity, as I've said, some of those are going to be addressed in further legislation. But you are absolutely right, and I think one thing the voting system will do is actually increase that diversity. But we do want our Senedd to be much more broadly representative of all factors: gender, ethnic background, disability, class. I think there are many aspects to diversity, and that's why it has featured so significantly in the discussions. It is an incredibly complex area, particularly because of the Equality Act 2010. Work is under way on that, and I'm confident that we will be able to do things that will enable us, in 2026, to ensure that we take further steps towards increasing the representative nature and diversity of this Senedd.

Thank you, Counsel General. I very much welcome your statement about the Bill. I understand why the Bill has been divided, but I hope that no government of any stripe would hold the view that it's a good idea to challenge a Bill that tries to make this place more representative of the people of Wales.

In a letter I wrote to the Prif Weinidog over the summer, I raised some concerns about the international evidence regarding the efficiency of zipping alone as a method of bringing equality of opportunity for candidates, but I'll save that for another debate, hopefully later on this year.

I do have some concerns about parts of the Bill, especially that part on vacant seats. Whilst I understand it may be a very rare occurrence for a seat to be left vacated, it's not unimaginable for a future loose group of anti-Senedd independent candidates, campaigning, possibly, on a single issue such as speed limits, to simultaneously resign and cause a real lack of representation within the Senedd. This could potentially wreak havoc on Welsh democracy, purely by some individuals staging a walk-out. Does the Counsel General agree with me that it's worth relooking at this rather strange exception of potentially leaving a seat vacant for nearly four years?

Welsh democracy has outgrown, as Adam Price said, this small Senedd and needs room to spread its wings as a diverse and fully fledged Parliament. As Sioned Williams highlighted, due to the size of this Senedd, committees are unable to conduct important work, as they meet only once a fortnight. Increasing our Senedd to 96 members must mean that we are willing to take on more work, addressing the real issues that are important to the people of Wales but cannot currently be considered due to the Senedd timetable. The workload of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee is just a perfect example. There are several shadow committees shadowing that committee in other legislatures on these islands.

When can we expect, Counsel General, the anticipated format of committees and the new roles that the Cabinet members will have within the reformed Senedd? I know it can't be definitive, but just so we can have an idea of what we can expect. 

The other important impact of this Bill, and the future gender quota Bill, is providing representation for new and unique perspectives. Part of fixing the democratic deficit in Wales must be fixing the representation in our electoral system. I’ve written to the First Minister about this, and I’m happy to hear that the Welsh Government plans to publish diversity information on candidates standing for election to the next Senedd. We need to identify the potential barriers that prevent people from entering and engaging with politics. Welsh democracy can only benefit from a broad spectrum of ideas and life experience, which comes from diversity of gender, class, ethnicity, disability, among other groups that have been historically under-represented in Welsh politics. So, can the Counsel General give an update on how the Welsh Government aims to implement diversity strategies to ensure that the upgraded Senedd has a wide variety of Members?

It's so important we don’t miss this opportunity. My initial fear when I heard the news about the gender quota Bill being introduced by the end of the year was that it would be stuck as a desire for reform, rather than a tangible action. I have this concern about this legislation, too. If the Welsh Government is challenged in the courts, or subject to a section 114 order, we may find heavy delays or the outright denial of the Bill. My other concern is—

You're going to have to come to a conclusion now, Rhys ab Owen. 

Sorry, Llywydd. I just hope that a Labour Government at Westminster will not cause delays in this. We are keen now on reform because of who's in Westminster at the moment.

Unlike Heledd Fychan, I didn't go to school the day after—I stayed at home after staying up so late for the Carmarthenshire result. But this was the exact argument that was used against establishing the Assembly in the first place. There is never an ideal time to add more politicians, but I presume, Counsel General, that you agree with me that this is the time to take this important step. Thank you very much. 

Thank you. It is the time to take this important step, but can I just remind the Member that this isn't a Government Bill in that sense? The Government has brought this forward, but this is legislation that emanates from the Senedd, and quite rightly so. It is the Senedd that has the ownership, it is the Senedd that has to pass the two-thirds majority—it is the Senedd, and appropriately so. 

In terms of vacant seats, there is a consequence. The difference is, of course, that it is the package as a whole that I think overwhelmingly improves the democracy of the Senedd itself. And in terms of the work that will be needed to be undertaken both by Government and by the Senedd, let me just say in terms of the 96 Members of the Senedd and how the committee system would work, and so on, those are matters for the Senedd to decide. Those aren't matters for me, and I really don't want to go down that, because I think that's a considerable amount of work, which I know that the Llywydd is looking forward to carrying out over the next couple of years. But it is important to recognise that the ethos of this legislation isn't something that Government wants to impose on the Senedd; it has come from a totally different direction. 

And in terms of barriers and participation, of course, I agree with all that, and I suspect we have complete cross-party agreement on that. But can I just say that I don't think it's appropriate for me to go into detail and respond on the issues of diversity at this stage? There will be further legislation. I think that will be the appropriate time to have a more substantive discussion on the content of that particular legislation when it is tabled. 

Finally, Delyth Jewell.