Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon's Plenary meeting. The first item this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Adam Price. 

Thank you very much, and just to say, it strikes me that it's appropriate for me to have this first question on the last time that I answer questions from the Member. 

So, Wales’s industrial heritage has left us with a difficult legacy of pollution from many industries. We work alongside others to understand and manage the consequences. Since 2020, we have funded Natural Resources Wales to deliver a targeted work programme to minimise metal mine pollution and its impacts.

[Inaudible.]—made last week following an investigation by the Financial Times has shown that up to 500 tonnes of metal from the 129 mines where Natural Resources Wales have said it's certain that pollution is occurring currently. And indeed, the study by Natural Resources Wales of eggs and vegetables produced in the vicinity of one of these mines came to the conclusion that a young child regularly eating one to two of the eggs produced there could become cognitively impaired, and sampled vegetables could potentially pose health risks to humans, and particularly children, if consumed. The study went on to say that local residents must be better informed of the potential risks of living near abandoned metalliferous mines and how they can mitigate these risks. So, First Minister, have people living within those 129 most polluting mines and, indeed, the 140 where pollution might be possible, been informed of the possible risks to human health and what they can do to mitigate them?

Well, Llywydd, first of all, can I thank Adam Price for that question? Wales is covered in metal mines. There are, we think, 1,300 of them, some of them very well known, like the Dolaucothi gold mine in the Member's own part of Wales, where Afon Cothi flows into the Tywi Nant y Mwyn lead mine. Others are much less well known. Since 2020, Natural Resources Wales has had a programme of working on the most polluting lead mines and metal mines that we know. 

I think that the way you would expect people living locally to know would be through the searches that are carried out when people buy properties. Those of you who have been involved in it will know that you get maps, you get identification of whether there are disused mines near to where you live. Now, given the significance of the issue and the fact that we know more about it than we did, there may be, I think, more to do to make sure that, when searches are done as part of buying property, people are alerted to the fact that there are potential risks to human health from some of the ways in which these metal mines discharge their pollution. It would have to be done sensitively. You can imagine people would be anxious about impacts on their ability to resell properties if it was done not in a sensitive way. But I do think that this is a public policy issue that is going up the agenda, and where we will need to devote further thought to it in future years, to make sure that we are responding to the difficulties that are being encountered and that people are properly informed about them.

Indeed, the contribution that we can make in Wales to this area, I think, is significant. And, indeed, recently in Newport—last summer—the International Mine Water Association Conference was held there, and this provided a real crucial opportunity to showcase the work that we're doing here in Wales on a global footprint. Indeed, it's building on the legacy—the proud legacy—that we have of great individuals in this area, such as Kathleen E. Carpenter, whose work on Welsh rivers more than a century ago was so critical to understanding the impacts on freshwater ecology and so on. So, considering, as Adam has said, the number of mines—the mineral wealth within this country—and the effects of that on the ecology, what contribution can we make in Wales to build on the legacy of great individuals like that, so that we can not only showcase what we can do, but actually contribute to the international knowledge on this area as well?

Well, I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for that, Llywydd. I was very pleased last year to know that we had attracted that international conference, and there's no doubt that one of the reasons why we had experts from around the world here in Wales was because there were things that we could show that we were doing in this area, because this is not an issue just for Wales; it's an issue for all parts of the United Kingdom and far beyond. Of course, there were things for us to learn as well, Dirprwy Lywydd—that's why you invite experts from elsewhere to come. And there were some very interesting, innovative treatment solutions that were spoken about at that conference, and from which we can learn in the future. The way I think we are trying to use the funding that we have is partly in the way that Adam Price referred to—those two University of Nottingham studies were partly sponsored through NRW. So, we are investing in the research side of this, but we are also investing in those practical solutions that we will need in the future to make sure that, as we learn more about the nature of that pollution, we have practical things that we can do to mitigate those impacts and to make people who live near them confident that they are safe in doing so.

First Minister, disused metal mines can be a danger to public health and our waterways if they're not managed correctly. But, with the correct management and restoration, disused metal mines can also have great potential for a focus for educational and tourism opportunities across Wales. Many of these disused mines are nestled in scenic areas, with current footpaths, cycling paths and other developing tourism infrastructure. So, I'd just be interested to know what the Welsh Government is doing to help clean up and restore our disused metal mines across Wales, and also using them then to promote our rich historical and cultural differences right across Wales.

Thank you to James Evans for that. Dirprwy Lywydd, as I said, Natural Resources Wales are concentrating the efforts that they can make, and the funding that they have from the Welsh Government, on the 50 abandoned metal mines that have the greatest capacity to do damage to the environment, and that has to be our top priority—it has to be to do things to attend to that long industrial heritage that we have here in Wales. And in this case, of course, that heritage goes back far beyond the nineteenth century. When I referred to the Dolaucothi gold mines, of course, they were first excavated by the Romans, and it's probably the fact that the Romans came across them because there were already works that had been carried out before they arrived in that part of west Wales. The Dolaucothi mines have always been a tourist attraction, where people come to learn part of our heritage from 2,000 years ago. So, I agree with the point that the Member has made—our first priority is to do everything we can in relation to safety, but there will be opportunities in that for those communities as well.

I thank Joyce Watson, Dirprwy Lywydd, for that question. Devolution has provided a platform to bring Wales to the attention of the world. Our reputation as an outward-going, engaged nation, confident in our own identity, welcoming to others pays dividends time and time again in economic opportunity, cultural enrichment and a successful future for our young people.

I thank you for that answer, First Minister. As we look back on your many achievements in office, I think that it's important we recognise the way in which your Government has built relationships with countries ranging from France to India, and the United States to Poland. And thanks to that work, the profile of Wales is undoubtedly rising in the world, with all the economic and cultural benefits this brings to our communities. Earlier this month, the Minister for Health and Social Services was in India, signing an agreement with the Kerala Government, which will bring 250 nurses and doctors to Wales, demonstrating that our public services can also benefit from these international relationships. Reflecting on the work of your Government, how do you see those key international relationships developing in the future?

I thank Joyce Watson for that, Dirprwy Lywydd. I think there are a whole range of reasons and opportunities as to why we want to go on investing in promoting Wales abroad. We've lived through some difficult times, reputationally, haven't we? Whatever our views might be about Brexit, there's no doubt that it was regarded in other parts of the world as a turning in on ourselves and a turning away from the world, and COVID had the effect of disrupting many of those international relationships, when people were no longer able to travel and see each other in the way that would normally be our custom. That's why, as a Government, we have put so much energy and effort into making sure that we continue to invest in those relationships we have with so many old friends. A number of us here were in the Wales Millennium Centre last week celebrating St Patrick's Day, and Ireland is our closest and our oldest neighbour and we have excellent relationships with the whole of the island of Ireland. But, with Brittany, our ties of language and culture and history are so strong, and I was privileged to be at the first meeting of the Celtic Forum, hosted by the Government in Brittany, back in August. And then there are all those other things that we try to do.

The year of Wales in India is the latest in a series of 'Wales in'. When you're a small country and you've got, in the end, limited resources, you have to target your effort to try and make the biggest impact that you can. And the Wales in India year comes after our successful experience of a year of Wales in Germany, Wales in Canada, Wales in France, which has just come to an end with a fantastic reception in the national museum here, where we celebrated the fact that we have an exchange of very, very significant artistic objects between our national museum and the museum d'Orsay in Paris. With India, there are very particular reasons beyond the ones of economic links and cultural ties, because through the Government of Kerala, we now have a relationship that will help us to make sure that there are staff who can come to assist us in our health service. But, Dirprwy Lywydd, to make this final point, for us, always, these are reciprocal relationships. For everybody who comes to Wales, we want to give something back. We want to make sure that they have experiences here in Wales that will stand them in good stead in their future careers, whether that be here or whether that be back at home. So, of course, we welcome those people here, but we absolutely want to reinvest ourselves in making sure that our partners benefit, as well as the benefit we derive ourselves.

First Minister, over your five-year tenure, you have raised awareness of Wales and all that we have to offer on an international stage. I know it's frequently acknowledged across the floor of this Chamber that Wales hasn't always been as recognised on an international platform as perhaps it should be, and you have worked very hard to improve this. And I am confident, across all parties, that we are very grateful for the work that you have done in this area and would like to thank you for it. So, with this in mind, First Minister, will you hope to see that your successor continues to strengthen these positive international relations and that Wales's image on the global stage goes forward and thrives? And what advice would you provide to help enable this to happen, going forward? Thank you. 

Well, I thank Natasha Asghar for that very generous question. It's been a privilege for me to be able to recement and deepen some of those relationships with our closest neighbours. I was in Silesia in January, and I went to Silesia because there is such a profound relationship between coal mining here in Wales and coal mining in that part of Poland going back many, many years, and cemented through our trade unions here in Wales. I went there, Dirprwy Lywydd, because the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Wales and Silesia was the first time that a document of that sort had been signed on behalf of Wales for over 600 years. It was a privilege to recommit in 2024 to the work that was done by my predecessor, Rhodri Morgan, and the Marshall of Silesia at the time, Jan Olbrycht, came all the way from Brussels to be there at that signing ceremony as a symbol of his commitment to this ongoing relationship.

My successor has played a very active part indeed in promoting Wales abroad in recent years as part of the economy brief, and, of course, economic relationships are often at the foundation of the reason we invest in all of this. But I'm not going to be giving advice on a grand scale to my successor, but I would say that we've created an important platform where Wales has a good reputation in the rest of the world, and I'm absolutely certain that he will want to build further on that to the benefit of Welsh people.

Prif Weinidog, Wales's relevance to the world isn't only about promotion; it's determined by how we talk to the world, how we are represented internationally. It is surely unsustainable for Westminster to say that Welsh Ministers can only attend trade and co-operation agreement meetings but not speak, or for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials to demand to be present in international meetings the Welsh Government holds. Wales is a proudly international nation. We do not need our hand to be held when we talk to the world, nor for one hand to be held behind our back. International relations may not be a devolved matter, but it matters. What advice would you give to your successor to ensure that Wales is not a nation seen but not heard, in making certain that Wales's voice is heard loudly and clearly in all the rooms where we deserve to be?

I thank Delyth Jewell for that question. I should preface my answer, Dirprwy Lywydd, by saying that we have always enjoyed, on the ground and in practical terms, excellent relationships with the foreign office and its facilities in other parts of the world. Many of our Welsh Government workers in other parts of the world work out of embassies that are embassies of the United Kingdom, and we've been hugely fortunate. I think part of the reason why the year of Wales in France was such a success—it had the Rugby World Cup, of course, at its fulcrum—is that we were so lucky to have Dame Menna Rawlings from the Rhondda as the ambassador for the United Kingdom in France during that year. She absolutely went above and beyond what you would expect to make sure that Wales was promoted and our name was known.

But I must be clear with the UK Government that, when Welsh Government Ministers go abroad, we do so on our terms, not theirs. If they have a difficulty with that, then we will solve that difficulty, again, in a way that is right for us, rather than any sense of being instructed by them. Dirprwy Lywydd, I turned up at Brussels once to be told that a Government Minister in the United Kingdom Government had decided that I was not to be allowed to travel in a UK Government car because they were afraid that I might say something that they wouldn't like. Well, I got on the metro; it really wasn't a difficult problem at all to solve. As I say, when Welsh Ministers are abroad, we are there to advance the things that are important to this Chamber and to the policies we debate here. In practice, it's almost always been a very supportive relationship. I hope it will go on being so. If there are difficulties, we resolve them in our favour, of course.

I would also like to say thank you for building relationships with other countries over the years and for your recent visits to India and Ireland, and also to Belgium for St David's Day. The question is timely as I attended a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK event in Westminster last week. I was actually known as 'Carolyn Wales' for a few days, which was wonderful. I made many friends with delegates from across the world, which was really wonderful, and really great experience. Some 28 members came to our Senedd last week and they were extremely positive about our institution and the way that we conduct ourselves and function here, which was fantastic to hear. They really enjoyed going to your constituency, Jenny, so I wanted to say thank you to everybody that was involved with that. It was really positive. One actually said at the feedback session that the best part of the week was coming to Wales, to our Parliament, which is wonderful, and I wanted everybody to know that. First Minister, what do you hope your legacy has been in building Wales? Do you think that these relationships with the Senedd are really important, as well as those with the Government? This morning, I was talking to a cohort of students from France, trying to remember my schoolgirl French, which was really difficult, but when I spoke slowly it was fine. So, just to ask about your legacy going forward. Thank you.

Can I thank Carolyn Thomas for that? She's absolutely right to point to the fact that there are colleagues in every part of this Chamber who themselves take part in international work through their membership of inter-parliamentary bodies or some other forums in which Wales has a voice. This is not simply a Government responsibility; it's discharged in every part of the Chamber.

Just to reflect a moment on what Carolyn Thomas says, I've talked about our bilateral relationships with important regions and nations in the rest of the world, but we're also members of some very important alliances. Our membership of the European network of lesser-used languages is so important to us. We learn such a lot, but Wales has such a strong reputation in other parts of the world for the way in which we value and foster our language. Often, we are called upon to explain some of the ways in which we have been able to continue to make sure that the Welsh language is such a vibrant part of our culture and daily experience.

We're part of the Vanguard Initiative, a very modern initiative looking at economic opportunities in new and emerging industries. We're part of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, which has been to Wales recently—many, many important regions here in Wales, in the Senedd, looking to see what we do. And I have always been very proud myself, Dirprwy Lywydd, of our membership of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. We're one of the founding members of that, alongside Denmark, California and others, demonstrating our determination as a nation to live up to our obligations in an era of climate change not to go on exploiting those finite resources that, in far too short a period, we have used far too much of for our own advantage and to the disadvantage of those who will come after us.

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

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure to address you, First Minister, in this, your last First Minister's questions as First Minister. For our viewers' benefit, who are watching us at home, we will have an opportunity in a later statement this afternoon to address your resignation as First Minister, and that would be the appropriate setting to make the remarks. 

First Minister, yesterday, we heard the news that Tata Steel are shutting the coking ovens at Port Talbot. This is a particularly troubling bit of news emerging from that plant, because the assurance was that these coking ovens were going to stay open until the summer at the very earliest. Ultimately, this has posed a question over the other assets, and whether they will move forward now in the closure of those assets should the coking ovens be shut on Wednesday—i.e. tomorrow. Can you inform the Chamber today whether you have, as a Government, had conversations with Tata to seek assurances around the other assets, that the timeline on which they were agreed to be wound down on that site will not now move forward by three months, and that the timetable for the other assets will stay in place? Will the Welsh Government be contributing financially to retraining opportunities and to the transition board, given that this news from yesterday has potentially moved the closure of assets on the Port Talbot site forward by three months?

I thank the leader of the opposition for those important questions. I look forward to exchanges on other matters with him later in the afternoon. The news from Port Talbot is very serious and very difficult for those people who are already facing such a challenging future. The leader of the opposition asks whether we have spoken with Tata, and, of course, we have. The economy Minister met with the very senior management of the company last week, and spoke yesterday with the chief executive of Tata Steel UK.

In the end, we understand, and the trade unions understand, that if there are critical operational safety issues at stake, they have to take precedence over all of the other things with which we have such a concern. We have an assurance from the company that the closure of the ovens will not impact on the timeline of the closure of the first blast furnace; that's due to close by the end of June. Of course, we remain of the view, alongside our trade union colleagues, that the other blast furnace—blast furnace No. 4—can be preserved beyond the time that was originally identified by the company. We've made all of the efforts that we can to persuade the company of that case, whether that was in Mumbai, when my colleague Eluned Morgan was there, or through the many contacts that we've had with the company itself. 

I was pleased myself to sign off, in the last 24 hours or so, some proposals that the Minister for education has made, which will contribute to new opportunities for retraining for people who are at the plant at the moment, and for other people who live in that wider locality. So, the Welsh Government will be there. There will be money behind the plans that we have and we will be bringing those plans forward in the light of what we've learnt in the last few days.

Thank you for that very full answer, First Minister. I look forward to, hopefully, a statement coming from the education Minister about these proposals that you alluded to there and the money behind those proposals, because I'm sure that many will want to understand how that will benefit the workforce and the communities that are facing this very disappointing news that's come out in the last couple of days. 

The second thing that has dominated your First Ministership is COVID. We can look back at the Port Talbot site and the steelworks and that has run for many years, but COVID, obviously, is specific to your tenure as First Minister and the very difficult decisions that you had to take, along with other Government Ministers. We have had the COVID inquiry here in Wales for the last three weeks and there has been much information put out before the public, but with this one question I'd just like to ask you this: are we in a better position today, given your understanding of the preparedness that the Welsh Government has put in place, should we face a similar event like COVID in the coming years, from the lessons that the Government has been able to learn and hopefully resource accordingly? I appreciate that that is difficult to quantify, but I think what people will take some comfort from is if you, with your experience, can give an assurance that the Government today is better prepared to face a similar event if that were to happen in the near-to-medium future.

I think I can give a very genuine assurance that, if something similar were to happen in the future, we would be better prepared. I think the globe would be better prepared, because some of those things that were so challenging during the earliest months of the COVID experience were to do with global supply chains and how we navigated our way in that way. So, I'm perfectly sure that there are lessons that have already been learnt; there will be more as a result of the inquiry and some of those will be to do with preparedness. But if we were faced with something similar, then I've no doubt at all that the system would be in a better place to respond.

I'll just make this wider point to the leader of the opposition: it's almost inherent, in a pandemic, that it won't be like what we've just experienced. The world has some incredibly sophisticated ways of identifying threats that we are aware of. There are really sophisticated and well-resourced networks to identify threats to public health of which we are aware. It's almost by definition that a pandemic in the future will be something we're not aware of—that's how it eludes all those safety nets that are already in place. So, while I am confident that if it was a similar threat we would be better prepared, we all just need to be alert to the fact that with an event of the sort that we saw in COVID there was no prior warning and none of those safety nets were effective against it, and the next threat of that sort will have some of those characteristics as well.

Finally, First Minister, this will be the last time that I rise to ask my third question of you as First Minister. We've had some interesting exchanges, some colourful exchanges and some passionate exchanges, but those exchanges, hopefully from both sides, have been heartfelt in the passion that we've put on the floor of the Senedd here in our beliefs. And whilst those beliefs might differ, obviously we hold them very close to our hearts and we project that in the way we engage at First Minister's question time. What advice, from the experience that you've had as First Minister during preparation for First Minister's questions and taking part in First Minister's questions, would you give to your successor so that that same passion and that same conviction can come over and that Parliament as a whole benefits from that?

Thank you very much to the leader of the opposition for that question. I feel a lot for my successor in the burden of advice that people would like to come his way. Let me say, in opening, that I absolutely have never doubted the commitment that the leader of the opposition brings to the difficult job he has to do, or the motivation for the questions that he asks me when I'm here to try and provide answers.

In terms of preparation, I'd just say to my successor that it will take up, I'm afraid, hours and hours of his time, because it's unavoidable that if you come here and you can be asked a question, not simply any question on the brief you happen to hold, but any question on any part of the Welsh Government, every single weekend is a bit like preparing for finals, really, for those of you who remember that. You spend the whole weekend swotting in the hope that you've spotted the question that might come up, and very often you haven't spotted it at all.

If I had a more serious point to make for the final point the leader of the opposition made about the quality of discussion in the Parliament, if I had a hope for this forum and these questions, it would be that, just occasionally, we all focus a little bit more on generating light than generating heat. For the surprisingly large number of people who watch us at work and tune into the things that we talk about, I think that, in the end, the reason they do that is because they hope to learn something of the complexity of the debates that we face, and to go away from these discussions feeling that they are better informed about the decisions that are being made here on their behalf. Every now and then, just a bit of thought about the fact that casting a bit of light on those subjects, rather than generating heat around them I think might lead to the Parliament doing its job in the eyes of Welsh people in a way that they would really appreciate.

Leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. We will have an opportunity to reflect on the First Minister's time in office later on, but for now, and I know the First Minister would expect nothing else, it is business as usual.

On Friday, before the Labour leadership result, he posted the first of what I'm sure will be several goodbyes. He claimed on his Twitter post that it is the Labour Party alone—the Labour Party alone—that has a special bond with the people of Wales. Now, I'm sure it wasn't his intention, but would he advise his successor to be careful about using that kind of language for fear of sounding like Labour is taking the electorate for granted? And isn't Jeremy Miles right that trust has to be continually earned?

I've spoken on many platforms within my own party, Llywydd, and it's been a repeated mantra of mine to people who devote their leisure hours to working for the Labour Party that we have to earn every vote that comes our way. We never take a single vote for granted. We always have to be in a continuous conversation with the Welsh electorate about what we propose to do and why, I believe, our values and the things that motivate us on this side of the Chamber are the things that chime most readily with people in Wales.

But surely, Dirprwy Lywydd, the history of politics in this Chamber is of a party that has always had, by a significant margin, the largest number of seats in the Assembly and then the Senedd, but has never governed alone. It has always been able, in different forms and with different parties, to form progressive alliances in which we are able to work together in those common causes. That's a great surprise to people beyond Wales, for whom working with another party is regarded as a failure of the system. I think we have demonstrated here that mature progressive politics puts you in a place where you do want to work with others, and I think that's been the 25-year history of devolution.

There's one thing that the First Minister and I will look at similarly, and that's the demise of the Conservative Party on the UK level. That long demise has made it pretty clear, I think, that there will be a UK Labour Government later this year. We just need to make sure that it's held to account by a strong cohort of Plaid Cymru Members of Parliament. But what next for Wales then? The First Minister has admitted to me several times that he can't influence Keir Starmer to make a pledge on fair funding, and, no, I don't apologise for raising that issue again in this last scrutiny session. I was told by the First Minister last week that a phone call from him to Keir Starmer would be of no consequence. But we are told that his successor is closer to the Labour leader. Now, given that, does the First Minister share my deep concern that his successor hasn't been able to get that fundamental pledge over fair funding for our communities either? It makes you wonder if Starmer has any interest in continually earning support in Wales at all.

Just to be clear, for the record, that a contact from a Labour First Minister of Wales to the leader of the UK Labour Party will always be influential and will always be consequential. What you don't want to do is to devalue the currency of those calls by doing what the leader of Plaid Cymru suggested to me last week, that barely a day would go by when I wasn't on the phone asking Keir Starmer for something. I've always been very careful to make sure that in the many conversations I have had with the leader of the UK party, it's always been about something that is essential to the future interests of Wales, and I've always had—as I have had over this last weekend, and I know that both Jeremy Miles and Vaughan Gething will have had—very warm and engaged conversations with the leader of the UK party. Of course, funding is always part of some of those conversations. We know what the incoming Labour Government, if that is what it is to be, will inherit, but I think Gordon Brown, who has taken such a close interest in Wales in recent years, and where his report provides such an important blueprint for an incoming Labour Government, had some very interesting things to say about how financial flows through the United Kingdom might best be navigated in the future. This is a very live debate, and I'm quite sure that the Welsh Government will go on being a very positive and constructive contributor to it.

There's a saying in Welsh:

'persistent blows will shatter the stone'.

The reason I ask the question time and time again is because I want the First Minister to persevere, and it's because I hold the office of First Minister in such high esteem that I want our First Minister to be using his influence as much as possible.

Finally, in my last scrutiny question to the First Minister, I will ask about scrutiny, and he knows that I've been a constant critic of what I see as Welsh Government's apparent aversion to scrutiny at times. Now, scrutiny means welcoming tough questions, and it means accepting responsibility for actions. Now, for him—and I know the scourge of alcohol and the problems it causes for the NHS—it's not about blaming drunks for the unsustainability of our accident and emergency services, and for his successor, it's certainly not about accusing journalists of not being serious when they question the propriety of donations to his leadership campaign. Now, I think I'm safe in saying that several Members of his own back benches think that that money should be paid back; it's about putting your hands up to mistakes, as I say, and earning that trust. I ask the First Minister again today: does he think that that money should be paid back? And I know he said that he's not in the business of giving grand advice, but given that trust has become such a major issue in the handover of power from him to his successor, what advice would he give him on how to earn that trust?

Let me simply say this: I was elected to the Senedd on the same day as the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, and we've always represented parts of this great city. We were placed on the health committee together in those very early days. We have worked together when I was the health Minister and Vaughan Gething was the Deputy Minister for health. We worked together as closely as you can imagine during those difficult days of the pandemic. I have seen him at work; I know what a careful and considered person he is when it comes to making decisions. He doesn't need advice from me on all of that, and I look forward very much to supporting him and the Welsh Government from the back benches.

Speed limits are set by councils for local roads and Welsh Government for trunk roads. A default 20 mph speed limit on roads in built-up areas agreed by this Senedd has seen drivers complying and speeds reducing. This will save lives.

I thank very much the First Minister for his answer and wish him well personally on whatever comes next, and thank him for all his efforts whilst he's been in office. I know the First Minister has said publicly he doesn't tend to enjoy First Minister's question sessions, but I have to say, I've at least enjoyed, and I hope that it's been reciprocal on the back of our exchanges over the last three years. And none of those exchanges have I enjoyed more than the ones on 20 mph. We know that, last week, the Senedd's record-breaking petition against the changes closed at just shy of 470,000 signatures. And it's no surprise the policy proved deeply unpopular with the public, and the Government's own figures say that the damage to our economy could be up to £9 billion. So, in the last few hours that you have in the job of First Minister, will you make your last decision your best one and scrap these 20 mph speed limits?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I sometimes worry for Mr Giffard. [Laughter.] I think he deserved some better guidance from his colleagues than this question would suggest is available to him. Llywydd, I am hugely proud of the fact that, here in Wales, we are at the leading edge of a policy change that will happen far beyond Wales. We know it's going to happen in Scotland, we know it happens in Ireland, we know that there are thousands and thousands of roads in England that are 20 mph. And the reason for that, and the reason that his predecessor David Melding initiated the debate on this matter here on the floor of the Senedd, is that reducing, just by a small amount, the speed at which we drive in built-up residential areas will save people's lives. It will save thousands and thousands of people from the trauma of being seriously injured on our roads. It gives back those roads to the people who live on them.

And I've said in a series of interviews, which I have had to give in the last few days, that if you're in the very fortunate position that I've been in, then your responsibility is to use the political capital you have, to use the opportunity that comes your way—not to do the easy things, not to do the things that pander to populist headlines, but to do the things that can be difficult, because change is always a challenge. Here, in this Government, we are always determined that we will do the right thing, rather than the thing that is convenient and popular at the time. I think 20 mph speed limits are already changing people's minds; I think they'll go on doing that. And before very long, we will all look back and ask ourselves what the fuss was all about, because we're now doing something together that will make such a difference in the lives of people who otherwise would not be here at all to tell us about it. 

I thank the Member for that, Dirprwy Lywydd. Creative Wales works with the commercial music sector providing support for grass-roots venues, rehearsal spaces, recording studios and others. This has included sponsoring events at Welsh venues and direct funding totalling over £9 million since launching in 2020.

Diolch, Brif Weinidog. Live music and entertainment venues are important cultural establishments in our towns and cities, with none more important than west Wales's finest Queens Hall in Narberth. Now, while it's no secret that you'll soon have a little more free time on your hands, Prif Weinidog, what colleagues in this Siambr may not be aware of is that you've actually been in the audience at the Queens Hall in Narberth, watching—and correct me if I'm wrong—Calendar Girls. [Laughter.] Now, Narberth's Queens Hall has welcomed a number of big names in its 65-year history, from Elton John to Wales's finest Goldie Lookin Chain. And according to the Music Venue Trust, live entertainment venues annually contribute just over £24 million to the Welsh economy, but with the average profit margin in the sector at only 0.5 per cent, many venues reported a financial loss in 2023. So, along with enjoying performances from the audience, what further support is the Welsh Government providing to venues such as the Queens Hall to guarantee their survival? Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

Well, I thank Sam Kurtz for that important question. I think I need to be clear that it was a live performance of Calendar Girls, featuring some very brave artists, I felt. [Laughter.] Anyway, it was not my only visit to the hall, and I hope to be there again, of course. Look, I share much of what Sam Kurtz said in that follow-up question, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's really important that we have live music venues here in Wales. The industry is under pressure; we know that. Some of the ways in which we will look to go on supporting it is through the Music Venue Trust's campaign asking for an industry-led approach to a small sum being added to the price of a ticket at successful venues to be redistributed to support grass-roots music venues. The MVT is very clear that it wants it to be industry-led, rather than a Government initiative, and we've seen a recent example of this in Wales, with a Swansea Arena event in February that raised £10,000 that is then being distributed to support those grass-roots venues. While the industry is under pressure, it is important to say that more new live music venues opened in Wales last year than were closed, and we must take some confidence from the fact that we do have such a vibrant and committed sector here in Wales.

Firstly, I want to highlight the success of the Bunkhouse in Swansea in providing live music. The rent for music venues has gone up by 37.5 per cent on average. A rate cut will only lead to a further large increase in rents. This is where the pressure on music venues is coming from—it's coming from the rents that are being charged. I'm glad the First Minister supports the idea of a sector levy and I hope that he'll do everything to get his successor to also add to the pressure on having that levy, because it's incredibly important. A small amount on a ticket can mean an awful lot when so many tens of thousands are sold in order to help smaller venues. Will the First Minister join me in congratulating the Swansea Arena on adding a levy, and will he say he'd like all the other venues that are run by local authorities and other public sectors to do the same?

Well, I thank Mike Hedges very much for that. Personally, I agree quite strongly with his first point that, sometimes in this area, you can think you are doing something that benefits the venue itself only to find out that all you've actually done is put money in the pockets of landlords who charge those rents to the venues in the first place. One of the things that has happened in Wales recently is that the Welsh Government has established a new set of music stakeholder groups, and one of the issues on the agenda for discussion at those groups is this idea of an industry-wide levy. Now, at the moment, I think there are some just very early signs of that idea beginning to take hold. What we need, though, is a more planned and comprehensive approach to it that doesn't rely on the motivation of individual venues to do the right thing. We need a more comprehensive approach to it so that the industry is better able to use the resources that are generated in very large measure in this industry, that a small part of those resources is recycled to support live music in community venues and develops the artists who will be the prominent and successful artists of the future.

Llywydd, to date, the Welsh Government has provided to Rhondda Cynon Taf over £16 million through coal tip safety grant schemes, including over £10 million of funding for the remediation of the Tylorstown tip. We remain committed to ensuring our coal communities are safe in Rhondda and across Wales.

Thank you, First Minister. The scenes across Rhondda during storm Dennis in 2020 were horrifying. Videos of the land slip in Tylorstown sent shock waves of concern across all of our communities in Rhondda. I remember visiting the site in Tylorstown and the site in Wattstown with you in the wind and rain prior to being elected to this place. I'd like to put on record, on behalf of residents in the Rhondda, a heartfelt 'thank you' for prioritising coal tip safety during your time as First Minister, for the millions and millions in Welsh Government funding to identify, review, and, where necessary, remediate coal tips to ensure the safety of our residents. If it were left to the UK Government, we'd still be waiting for that funding, so thank you.

We're in a much better position now, but, as ever, there's still work to do. So, I'd like to ask the First Minister one final time just how important it is that coal tip safety remains a priority in the future.

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I thank Buffy Williams very much for that supplementary question. Anyone brought up in the Labour movement and anyone brought up in the Rhondda will be shaped by the history of coal mining in Wales. Dirprwy Lywydd, I vividly remember I had just gone to secondary school in Carmarthen and returned home on an October afternoon and, as I came into the house, I knew something was wrong, because the television was on, and the television was never on at that time of the day in my house. The reason the television was on was because scenes from Aberfan were already being shown on it. And when that tip moved in Tylorstown in February 2020, for anybody who saw it and certainly for anybody who lived nearby, those hundreds of thousands of tonnes of spoil that moved down the mountainside simply brought to the surface, again, all those memories and that folk history of the damage that has been done to Wales and to Welsh communities by that industrial heritage.

Before the end of that month in February, we had set up a jointly chaired group between myself and the Secretary of State for Wales at the time, Simon Hart. And although we've gone on to have differences of view, I always thought he was very genuine in his immediate response to those events and his wish to be part of a solution, because, here in Wales, we don't have all the tools at our disposal. The Coal Authority, an essential partner at that table, is a non-devolved authority. As a result of all of that, we have a programme of inspection—350 inspections—of the most highly rated risk tips in Wales over this winter alone. We have a programme of investment. And there I do agree, of course, with what Buffy Williams said. It is an ongoing disappointment that, despite the huge efforts that Rebecca Evans has made with successive Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, we've been unable to persuade the UK Government to offer its contribution to the remediation of a history that predates devolution by decades. And now, of course, we will have a programme of legislative action. I'm sometimes asked what regrets I have during the time I've been First Minister, and it is a regret of mine that the COVID experience has meant that we are yet to have that coal tip safety Bill in front of the Senedd. But it will come. It will happen during this Senedd term. And it will provide a modern legislative framework to make sure that regulation and inspection of disused coal mines and other tips in Wales are carried out in a way that will give confidence to those local populations. And I have been, and the Welsh Government will continue to be, absolutely committed to that task.

First Minister, ensuring the safety of disused coal tips is paramount in protecting communities, not only in the Rhondda but across all of Wales, and I believe that the Welsh Government must be commended on the steps it has taken. As you will be aware, many of these disused coal tips have become sanctuaries for wildlife, not only for the likes of the Maerdy monster and the Beddau beast—or the beast of Beddau, I should say—but for many other plants and animals and fungi. Sadly, as you all know, Wales is losing its biodiversity at an unprecedented rate, with one in six species now threatened with extinction, and concerns have been raised with me about the environmental impact that any tip remediation work might have. With this in mind, what steps are the Welsh Government taking to minimise the environmental impact whilst also maintaining the safety of the tips? Thank you.

Well, I thank Joel James for what he said, Dirprwy Lywydd, but actually I think coal tip remediation is an opportunity as far as biodiversity is concerned, in much the same way as James Evans asked me about opportunities that come from metal mine restoration, so I believe that the work that has gone on at Tylorstown, for example, is a really heartening example of how you can have coal tip restoration in a way that doesn't just preserve biodiversity but enhances it for the future. When I was there with the leader of the council, Andrew Morgan—and we should be paying a tribute to his leadership in this area this afternoon—what we saw was a whole new wildflower meadow being created, being really carefully created by moving turf from one part of the site to the other, and a determination that the millions of pounds that were being spent, for safety reasons primarily, would have many other benefits for that local community. And as people see that maturing and establishing itself above Tylorstown in future, I think people will see that not only will they be safer, but that their environmental future has been right at the heart of the thinking that has gone into the way in which that investment has been made.

Thank you, First Minister, just for outlining there the opportunities as well as the threats outlined by the remaining coal tips here in Wales. I think it is important to reflect on the comments you've continuously made regarding the hugely disappointing fact that the UK Government simply won't take responsibility over this. It has been a legacy that we've inherited, and it is an absolute disgrace that they are not standing up, shoulder to shoulder, with us here in Wales to ensure that this threat is no longer there for our communities.

In November you wrote to all Senedd Members and MPs in what should have been a joint letter with the Secretary of State for Wales on this matter. Can I ask, since then, has there been any shift from the UK Government? We can, of course, hope against hope in that regard. But also, looking to those that are hoping to form the next UK Government, your Labour colleagues, has there been any movement or commitment so that we can right this wrong once and for all, and ensure that our communities no longer suffer because the UK Government refuses to face up to their responsibilities?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I was disappointed that the current Secretary of State for Wales didn't sign that letter. He'd agreed to sign it jointly, in a meeting we'd had only a few days before the letter was issued, and I think his predecessor would have done. Now, time and time and time again, I know that the finance Minister and the Welsh Government have made this case to a long parade of UK Ministers. Dirprwy Lywydd, the statement of funding principles is absolutely clear on this matter. Liabilities that were incurred because of actions that happened before devolution fall to the UK Government to fund. And what we are seeing in an era of climate change is that the work that was done in previous years to make coal tips safe is no longer sufficient to withstand the extreme weather events that we saw, as Buffy Williams said, in that February of 2020.

We have pitched our ask of the UK Government, I think, at a very collegiate and collaborative end. We're not asking them to simply pay for everything that goes on in Wales; we're asking them to match the contribution that we are making, because that means we can do more and do it more quickly. It's an enduring matter of disappointment to me that, given an opportunity to demonstrate why membership of the United Kingdom provides dividends to people who live in Wales, the current UK Government has been unwilling to do so.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I did think of referring this question to Liz Truss—[Laughter.]—but, not having had a reply, I'll say that my advice to my successor is to be bold, to use his time as First Minister, as I know he will, to do those ambitious, energetic and determined things, and to lead a Government in the great Welsh Labour radical tradition.

Diolch, First Minister. While I hope that your successor will approach the role of First Minister in the same calm and steady way that you have, there is no denying that the new First Minister has quite the mountain to climb tackling the huge waiting lists in our NHS, ensuring small businesses stay afloat, and work to renew the relationship between our rural and urban communities. Now, we have always been constructive in our opposition, and my residents in Aberconwy want to see the Welsh Government taken in a direction that will now encourage growth and sustainability by stopping these cuts to business rate relief, delivering 12,000 new homes here, extending the days for pop-up campsites to 60 days, working with farmers to establish a farming scheme that does not endanger Welsh food security, and committing to a referendum on the Senedd reform Bill. There's a real chance for change here.

So, I ask the First Minister: in all honesty, are there any suggestions that we have put forward during your tenure, as the Welsh Conservatives, that you would encourage your successor to adopt and implement? [Laughter.] Congratulations, and good luck going forward, First Minister. 

Well, Llywydd, in the spirit of the afternoon, I remember that the first event that I attended as a Senedd Member following my election was to share a platform with Janet Finch-Saunders. We must have been the last two people out of the lift, because we were both sent to appear on a stage at a social services conference at very short notice, and with very little chance to think about what we might say when we got there.

I want to be constructive in answering Members' questions, so I'll give her an example from the list that she read out, because we have previously debated pop-up campsites, and the need to make sure that we modernise the law, as my colleague Julie James is considering doing in terms of permitted development rights. So, there is an issue on which I think we could say we have listened carefully to what others have said, heard the advocacy of that change from the Member for Aberconwy. And while we will do it carefully—because, as we've rehearsed before, there are people who live locally who also have interests that we must take into account—there's an example of something that we have been able to work on together.

I thank Sarah Murphy, Llywydd. Amongst the many ways in which the Welsh Government supports children and young people in Bridgend is through participation in the democratic process. Sixteen and 17-year-olds, thanks to this Senedd, are able to vote in elections in Wales, creating the confident, informed, committed Welsh citizens of the future. 

Thank you very much, First Minister. Like many of my colleagues have done today, I'd like to take a couple of steps back to bring into focus what the Welsh Government has done over the last five years, particularly for young people and children across Wales. You've already mentioned, under your leadership, that we introduced the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, which granted 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote for the first time, both at a local level and in the Senedd. A huge step forward by allowing those who will be affected by our decisions to contribute to our system. And I know that many young people in Bridgend and Porthcawl took part, and I'm sure, First Minister, you'll join me in saying that I hope many more will vote again in 2026.

I'd also like to note the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Act 2020 as well, which made all forms of physical punishment towards children illegal. No more grey areas for people to hide behind, no more defence of reasonable punishment, and no more physical harm to those who do not have the power to protect themselves. Wales is the first country within the UK to do so—a truly remarkable change, and, hopefully, something that the rest of the UK adopts as well.

And then, finally, I'd like to touch on the basic income pilot, established by the Welsh Government—

No, you need to ask your question now, please.

—to support those who leave care after their eighteenth birthday. All of these things—we've done so much in five years. So, what steps do you believe that the Welsh Government should be taking to support those who need us in the future as well? Diolch. 

Well, can I thank Sarah Murphy for that question, Llywydd? I thank her for drawing attention to the actions we took as a Government to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement. When I look back over the time I've spent in this Chamber, I think it's one of the proudest moments for those of us who are on the progressive end of politics to have united around. How much do I remember what we were told at the time? This was to be the end of civilisation as we knew it, parents' rights would be undermined, we'd lose an election. Whenever you do progressive things, you never do them without a struggle. And there are always vested interests that try to hold you back. It took 20 years, from the time that Christine Chapman, a former colleague of ours here, and Julie Morgan, in her time at the Westminster Parliament—20 years from when that idea was advanced to it happening here in Wales. Wales is a better place as a result of that piece of legislation, and children are better protected as a result.

I look forward to the social care legislation coming forward to the floor of this Senedd soon after Easter, where, on this side of the Chamber, and I know others too, are determined to eliminate the pursuit of private profit in services for looked-after children. That will be another important step forward on the journey that many of us here have been on together.

And finally, question 8, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I take this opportunity to thank the First Minister for his long service to public life in Wales, by the way, too?

I thank Mabon ap Gwynfor. Llywydd, where the Welsh Government helps to provide emergency relief, we do so through the work of the Disasters Emergency Committee. Should the committee launch an appeal for assistance for Gaza, I would expect a future Welsh Government to participate in it.

Thank you very much for that response. The First Minister will be aware of the huge crisis in Gaza. Not only are there over 30,000 people who have been killed, 70 per cent of them children and girls, and that as a result of the war between Israel and Hamas, but, now, there is a humanitarian crisis of the kind that we haven't seen for decades facing the people of Gaza. Some 1.7 million people are facing appalling famine. We haven't seen this kind of event for decades, and the only way to meet the needs of those people is to take goods in on the ground. But unfortunately, because of the war, many of the humanitarian organisations can't reach those people. The most influential humanitarian organisation in the area is the DEC, as you've mentioned, but, unfortunately, the DEC cannot state the need for an appeal because of the war. We must, therefore, have a ceasefire in order to ensure that the DEC can launch an appeal and take goods in. So, as your final act—or one of your final acts—as First Minister, will you join with the calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, and ensure that the Government here will therefore support any appeal by the DEC to support the people affected there?

Llywydd, I thank Mabon ap Gwynfor. We come to the end with a very important question for people across the world, and for also the people of Wales with family members in Gaza and who are concerned every day about the events going on there. Of course, we want to see a ceasefire, in terms of everything that's going on there. And that's the reason, as Mabon ap Gwynfor said, why the committee can't be there on the land, and without being on the land, we can't provide that assistance that is most needed by the people there. So, we are looking forward as a Government—. As we've contributed to an appeal when it started in the context of Ukraine, or Afghanistan, or Turkey, or Pakistan, we have provided money from the people of Wales to help people on the ground. We are looking forward to doing the same thing in Gaza, and to do so as quickly as possible.

I thank the First Minister.

And can I say thank you for your contributions in First Minister's questions since—? I was elected as well on the same day as you, First Minister, and your successor, so I've been sitting on the back benches with you, I've sat in the Chair questioning you as Minister, and I've had the privilege now to sit in this Chair and listen to your answers in First Minister's questions. So, diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr. [Applause.]

Item 2 is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Trefnydd, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There are several changes to this week's business. Later this afternoon, the First Minister will make a resignation statement. The statements on the flood investment programme and rebalancing care and support will issue as written statements. Finally, a debate on the legislative consent motion on the Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill has been added to the agenda, subject to a suspension of Standing Orders. 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.

Deputy Presiding Officer, last week, during questions to the Trefnydd, I used some inaccurate statistics in relation to the number of prevention of future deaths reports published in respect of the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. I apologise for that error and accept full responsibility for the figures that I used. But the substance of the issue that I, and indeed Llyr Gruffydd, raised in the Senedd last week still stands, and that is that the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board is still an outlier in terms of the proportion of prevention of future deaths reports that are published in respect of its services. In 2023 the health board accounted for 64.7 per cent of Wales's prevention of future deaths reports and 16.2 per cent of emergency services-related prevention of future deaths reports across the whole of England and Wales. I know that other north Wales Members are concerned about these reports and their contents, and I was grateful to the Trefnydd last week for suggesting that the Minister for Health and Social Services will write to me regarding those matters.

Now, if I can turn to this week's business, one of the issues that has been raised with me recently by constituents are concerns about the significant increases in the costs of NHS dental services, which will come into effect on 1 April. I know that the British Dental Association in Wales has called them 'unprecedented' and it looks as though the increases range right up to 27.7 per cent for a band 2 treatment. Now, clearly, that is a significant amount. We know that inflation has been running at significant levels in recent years, but it's never reached 27.7 per cent. Can I ask the Welsh Government for a statement from the health Minister on why they consider that sort of increase to be appropriate, particularly given the cost-of-living challenges that people have been dealing with in recent years? Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate the Member's comments around the question he raised with me last week, and I will certainly ensure that the Minister for Health and Social Services does write to you, because I think the substantive point you made was still very pertinent.

In relation to dental activity, you'll be aware that we have now 92 per cent of commissioned dental activity in north Wales operating under the new reform arrangements that the Minister has brought forward, enabling over 55,000 new patients to gain access to NHS dental care since April 2022. I am aware that when the costs of dental treatment were looked at, it was intended to try to keep them as low as possible. Obviously, dental charges haven't risen in the way that you refer to, but I'm not aware that there is anything further, really, to be said ahead of the implementation of the dental charges on 1 April.

Trefnydd, a written statement was issued last week on the 'Learner travel in Wales analysis and evaluation: recommendations report December 2023'—long awaited. You will be aware of how many questions have been asked on this issue, and yet a written statement, not an opportunity to ask questions of the Minister, especially given that there won't be changes. We understand the financial situation of Welsh Government, but, surely, the Children's Commissioner for Wales's words just said it all, about children being let down by the decision not to change school transport laws. There is a huge amount of concern at every level, from parents to pupils themselves. We know that school absences are high and one of the issues that has been cited has been the barriers of the cost of school transport. So, can I ask, where is this now going? And will there be an opportunity for us to adequately discuss that report here in the Siambr, given that it affects everyone that we represent here in Wales?

Thank you. I appreciate your comments around the number of constituents, obviously, for all of us that this does affect. There just was not time before the Easter recess, unfortunately, to bring this forward in Government business, but I'm sure it can be considered following the Easter recess. 

I would welcome an oral or a written update from the Minister for Climate Change with regard to the incoming changes to commercial recycling regulations. Now that the date of implementation of 6 April is rapidly approaching, charities, in particular, are contacting my office to ask what support—financial or otherwise—will be provided to help them adapt, including the cost of multiple new bins and creating the space to store recycling waste. Aber Valley YMCA in Abertridwr, for example, which is entirely a social enterprise, and Tŷ Hafan, who have a shop in Caerphilly, have both contacted me about this, and I visited both premises. Caerphilly County Borough Council have also expressed their concerns about the possibly inadvertent effects these changes may have on small businesses and volunteer-led organisations. Therefore, can I ask for that update on what support might be provided for those kinds of organisations? 

Thank you. You're quite right—the workplace recycling regulations will come into force on 6 April. The Minister has, obviously, worked very closely with local authorities ahead of the implementation of this. What the regulations will do is require all workplaces—and that includes businesses, public sector and third sector organisations—to separate out their key recyclable materials for recycling. We've introduced this legislation to improve the quality and quantity of recycling that we can collect here in Wales. As you know, we have an ambition to be at the top of the tree in the world in relation to our recycling rates. We know this will absolutely reduce waste going to landfill and incineration. It will also reduce our carbon emissions, going forward, and it, I think, really represents a key step forward in Wales's commitment to reach zero waste and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Minister, I'd like to request a statement from the Minister for health about what discussions she's had with the Aneurin Bevan health board in light of a second incident where the wrong body of a deceased person was released to a family. I tried desperately to seek answers from the health Minister last week, Minister, by tabling an emergency question and a topical question, but unfortunately they were rejected. Both of these incidents are extremely serious and distressing and my thoughts are with all of those that are involved. Once is unacceptable, Minister. However, for this to happen twice, in my view, is sheer incompetence. And there are more important questions that certainly need answering on how on earth this even happened not just once, but twice. No family should ever have to go through something like this. Minister, I have written to the health board CEO demanding answers and an update—I've even received an answer—but it's clear that more needs to be done to ensure that this is never repeated. I firmly believe that the best way to get to the bottom of these devastating incidents is, indeed, to go through an independent inquiry. An urgent statement from the health Minister outlining what discussions she's had with the health board over this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you. I certainly accept it is a very distressing situation. I know the Minister for Health and Social Services has spoken, or her officials have, with the health board, who've already taken steps to address the cause, to prevent future occurrences. They've also conducted an audit, which I'm sure you are aware of, and I hope they've addressed that in their correspondence with you. I know that the Minister's officials will continue to meet, and the Minister will update Members in due course.

I'd like to ask for a statement, please, by the economy Minister to provide an update on the situation at Tata Steel Port Talbot. Tens of thousands of people in the region I represent are facing such anxiety. As the workers employed at Tata Steel, their families and those in the town and its neighbouring communities look ahead, the picture is one of terrible uncertainty. The news we heard yesterday that the coke ovens at the plant will close tomorrow—months before that was expected—over concerns about what Tata have termed as their operational stability, has been called by the Community union a 'massive blow', and Unite have said it was the result of years of betrayal. About 200 workers in Port Talbot are likely to be affected by this. While, of course, workers' safety is paramount, this is causing huge concern for all workers while the consultation is ongoing. I've received heartbreaking messages from my constituents who want to know how the Welsh Government is trying to save their jobs, save our steel and save the future of Port Talbot. We've had some information from the First Minister earlier, but I'd like a dedicated statement that describes exactly what the Welsh Government is doing to put the case to save those jobs and, more importantly, how it is ensuring that those developments are communicated promptly, directly and clearly to those affected.

Thank you. I absolutely understand the distress the announcement will have caused. You will have heard the First Minister say earlier that the Minister for Economy spoke with the chief executive of Tata Steel UK regarding the matter, and he was only made aware yesterday that the closure of the ovens will not impact on the timeline of the closure of the first blast furnace—that's blast furnace 5—which is, obviously, due to close at the end of June. Again, you will have heard the First Minister say that he'd signed off some funding, alongside the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language, in relation to skills and training, and I know the Minister for Economy will continue to have discussions with Tata.

Trefnydd, I've raised concerns about the conduct of energy suppliers and the way that their behaviour is harming residents across Cymru on a number of occasions in this Senedd. One constituent of mine was recently in touch to say that they were overcharged by more than £10,000, and were struggling to get it back. In fact, the supplier was downright refusing to refund. This person was under serious financial strain, struggling to pay other bills, including their mortgage. The financial and health consequences of these acts are profound. This is yet another example on a long list of examples across Wales and the United Kingdom. Thankfully, for my constituent, with the help of my office, the energy supplier has now agreed to refund the moneys owed, but can we have a statement from the Welsh Government about the services the Welsh Government funds and how they can assist residents who find themselves in similar positions? Diolch.

Thank you. Well, Ofgem do set out very clear expectations of the way they expect energy suppliers to treat their customers, and that includes steps on how the need to resolve any dispute of bills may take place, and if you look at the Ofgem website, that does contain many practical steps that households are able to take. What I will do is ask the Minister for Social Justice to raise the example that you've given with Ofgem and seek assurances that their regulatory regime is holding energy suppliers to account.

Trefnydd, could I please request a statement from you as Minister for rural affairs, or any future Minister for rural affairs? I've visited many farms in the constituency over many months, and many of those have diversified to be able to maintain their business through challenging situations, and I'm sure you'll agree that it's important that diversification in the farming sector is encouraged. But we know that the last round of the agricultural diversification scheme ended a couple of months ago, and I'm requesting a statement on whether this funding is going to be continued or a similar scheme will replace it in the near future. Thank you.

Thank you. I do agree about diversification, and I think the agricultural sector have been very good at showing a variety of ways in which their businesses have been able to diversify, and, as you say, the Welsh Government has supported some of this through a variety of schemes that have been opened and closed, and unfortunately there isn't one open at the moment, but, obviously, we can look at the rural investment scheme and if it's possible to seek funding from within that scheme in the future.

As we've already heard, the announcement by Tata in relation to the coke ovens means 200 jobs being lost, so I'd also like to call for a statement, either from the economy Minister or the education Minister, based on the information we've received today, to get a better understanding of those conversations that happened with Tata in the run-up to this decision, as well as the preparations that have been made, because it deserves, I think, scrutiny. Our Senedd has been united in the need to save our steel, and long may that continue.

I'd also like to echo my colleague Heledd Fychan's call for a statement on the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008. Now, I've been raising concerns around the learner travel Measure since 2021, and what that's meant in the meantime is that kids of all ages are walking over an hour, in all weathers, along dangerous routes, to receive their education. Now, if we're going to be honest about it, it's a failure of Government for those kids that they have to travel so far to get their education. It deserves more than a written statement, and I hope to see one after Easter.

Well, as I say, we have brought forward a written statement, but it is something that can be considered. In relation to the funding that the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language has brought forward, which the First Minister referred to, perhaps you could write to the Minister, or maybe the Minister could write to you and put a copy of the letter in the library.

Two issues: I hope we've all—or at least most of us—been shocked by the remarks of Frank Hester against the long-standing Member of Parliament, Diane Abbott. As we prepare for our first black First Minister, it is Diane Abbott who has done the heavy lifting to normalise the presence of a diversity of elected Members in our Parliaments. The money that Frank Hester has made has mainly been out of the health service, and I believe most of these contracts are in the English health service, but I wondered if we could have a statement from either the health Minister or from the Government to clarify whether the NHS in Wales has any contracts with the Phoenix Partnership.

Secondly, given the concerning reports about the standard of cleanliness at the Kepak factory in Merthyr—I appreciate that the Welsh Retail Consortium is investigating—is there anything that the Welsh Government needs to do, to ensure that those who are responsible for cleaning the equipment are given sufficient time to do so, so that people who are buying food from a range of supermarkets can be confident that the meat that's packed there is not contaminated?

Thank you. Well, I certainly agree with the Member around the appalling comments from Frank Hester. I think it would do everyone good to remember that, over the very previous few years, two Members of Parliament have been murdered, and I think everybody should absolutely remember that in the light of those comments. My understanding is TPP are not a supplier of any of the GP systems here in Wales; it does only affect England.

With regard to your question around Kepak, the Food Standards Agency is aware of the issues that have been raised in the Merthyr plant. They are investigating further. They do not hesitate, I can assure the Member—FSA do not hesitate—to take urgent action to ensure consumers are protected if they do receive any concerns or any complaints or allegations about an approved food processing establishment.

Business Minister, I'd like to request a statement from the education Minister on why he has decided to quietly pull the £1 million grant that helps subsidise the Education Workforce Council registration for teaching assistants. Pulling subsidy on the EWC registration for support staff is concerning. It saves support staff £20 to £30 on registration, depending on the number of people registering. The Minister didn't even tell the Education Workforce Council that he was definitely cutting the funding, and, to top it off, he didn't even tell the unions. Having spoken to them, no-one seems to be happy with the announcement that this has quietly snuck out. I find that it's even more incredulous that, when sneaking out the announcement on the Government website, it claimed that the Government only subsidises this from time to time, when, in fact, the Government has done so every year since 2000. The Minister forced the EWC into a corner to cover the shortfall of the £1 million from the reserves this year, but if the funding isn't reinstated, support staff will see their registration rising from £15 to £46. These are minimum-wage, part-time workers, Minister. They deserve the education Minister to come to the Chamber to explain this cut. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, obviously, the Member will be aware of the very difficult budget position the Welsh Government is in. And I'd just like to correct you, that both the workforce and the unions were very well aware of this reduction coming.

Trefnydd, I'd like a Government statement on the future of Ffos-y-fran opencast site in Merthyr. It has been some time since we heard anything about this site. Residents have been left with an ugly eyesore that requires remediation to return it to the beautiful and wildlife-friendly habitat this vast tract of common land once was. It would be unacceptable for the mine operators to renege on their contractual obligations to restore the land after making vast amounts of profits over the life of this opencast mine. Residents have had to put up with too much already, but, to add insult to injury, the site had numerous 4x4 vehicles and scrambler bikes using the land for rallying over the weekend. Residents have been in touch with my office and provided photographic evidence of it. I hope you agree with me that, after more than a decade and a half, people in this area have had to put up with too much noise and pollution, without the area being turned into a 4x4 rallying destination.

Thank you. Well, it is very important that a managed end to coal means ensuring our mines are closed safely and restored sympathetically, and I absolutely agree with you that anti-social behaviour in the way you describe is unacceptable. I know the Minister for Climate Change's officials are working with the local authority, and I will certainly ask her to ensure her officials bring this to the attention of the local authority.

And finally, Gareth Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd dros dro. I'd like to call for a Government statement regarding Denbighshire County Council's planned rise in residential and nursing home care fees for 2024-25, which amounts to an 8.8 per cent cut after inflation has been factored in. This follows a series of back-room decisions on care-home fees by Denbighshire council being set too low, leaving vulnerable residents struggling to plug the gap and financially pushing care homes to the brink. Denbighshire, incidentally, has a higher than average elderly population, yet the neighbouring authority, Conwy, are increasing their fees by 20 per cent. This means that there'll be a funding gap of more than £9,000 between an elderly person at a care home in Rhyl compared to a resident of a care home in neighbouring Kinmel Bay. Conwy council also received a smaller increase in funding from the Welsh Government than Denbighshire County Council, yet Denbighshire council have decreed that an elderly resident with dementia in Rhyl is worth £9,000 less than they are worth in neighbouring Kinmel Bay. The chair of Care Forum Wales, Mario Kreft, has condemned the decision, saying that

'Denbighshire are starting from the lowest possible base because they pay the lowest care home fees in Wales'

and that

'This proposed increase is not going to come close to solving the chronic underfunding of social care in the county'.

I would like the Minister to make a statement regarding what the Welsh Government is doing to ensure that local authorities like Denbighshire council are not making unaccountable financial decisions that will place the most vulnerable people at a relative disadvantage to those living under other authorities.

You'll be aware that the Welsh Government is currently out to consultation around a social care cap, and the Deputy Minister for Social Services works very closely with all local authorities around this issue. But, obviously, it is a matter for each local authority to set their own fees.  

Thank you, Trefnydd. 

We'll move on now to item 3 on the agenda, namely a debate on the final report of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. I call on the First Minister to move the motion and to lead his final debate as First Minister. Mark Drakeford. 

Thank you very much, acting Dirprwy Lywydd. A quarter of a century ago to this month, some of us in this Chamber were part of the electoral campaign for the first National Assembly for Wales. Election of the first Assembly noted a new period for Wales. For the first time, decisions about Wales were being made in Wales by Members of the Assembly elected by the people of Wales, and, 25 years later, the greatest achievement of those that came before us is that devolution is a stable part of the constitutional landscape of the UK. A generation has grown up in Wales knowing only devolution. Now, you have to be well into your forties to have voted in elections before the Assembly came into being. The work of this Senedd is an unambiguous part of the broader world.  

Our devolution journey has progressed markedly over the course of those 25 years. This is now a law-making, tax-raising Parliament, as successive Welsh Acts have expanded the devolution settlement. What was once an Assembly is now a Senedd. We are currently debating—and, I believe, are on the verge of passing—the first substantial reforms to our membership and electoral system since our inception. Reform will make this Parliament truly representative of modern Wales, and able properly to respond to all the changes in our devolution settlement. A clear and strengthening majority of people in Wales support devolution and want to see it further developed and entrenched. 

Unfortunately, this respect for devolution is not universal. Since the election of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, the fragilities and shortcomings of our settlement have been exposed. Constitutional norms and conventions have been casually ignored. Powers and funding have been wrestled back to London, and the Sewel convention has been trampled over. This was the background against which the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales was established. 

There are Members in this Siambr who have previously dismissed the report, and no doubt will today, but the commission is a serious attempt to take seriously some of the most serious questions of our time. It carried out its own extensive research based on conversations with and feedback from thousands of people, and those conversations vividly illustrate just how well people have understood the way that Wales and the way it is run has a direct bearing on their own priorities and on the life of communities and individuals in Wales.

Laura McAllister, one of the commission’s co-chairs, has argued that the separation of constitutional reform from public policy delivery is a deliberate one, and it’s certainly one that disguises the significance of the constitutional foundation of the public services on which people rely in Wales. The constitution matters to people in Wales. It is not a distraction from health or housing or education or transport, but the foundations that underpin those services.

The independent commission published its final report after two years of work. The evidence base from which it drew material to inform its conclusions was broad and convincing. We asked the commission to go beyond those who were already part of the debate, and to hold a direct conversation with the wider people of Wales. The evidence gained from those conversations has ensured that the commission’s conclusions are grounded in the knowledge and experience of those by whom our actions here in the Senedd are directly affected. A considerable strength has been the cross-party nature of its work. That includes the support provided by both this Government and Plaid Cymru as part of our co-operation agreement, as well as the commission’s own membership, membership drawn from all parties represented in this Senedd and far more widely still.

I remember that when the National Assembly was created there was a great deal of discussion about the different politics that we were to see here in Wales, that we were to see a more engaged and in many ways a more consensual style of politics in this new institution. I think that the unanimity of the commission’s conclusions is a testament to the skills of its co-chairs, of course, but also to the different style of politics that we have fostered here in Wales.

I want this afternoon to set out the Welsh Government’s response to the commission’s recommendations. The experience of recent years means that we share the commission’s overarching conclusions that our current settlement can no longer simply be taken for granted. We laid our initial response to each of the recommendations of the commission before the Senedd last week, and while not everyone in this Chamber will agree with every aspect, surely those first recommendations, which aim to strengthen Welsh democracy, are ones that we can all support. The commission noted the threats to representative democracy and the declining trust in democratic institutions around the world. Its proposals help us to use the power we have to improve awareness and to educate citizens, enabling them to participate more effectively in those decisions that affect their lives, and thus giving those decisions greater legitimacy and making them more robust.

The next set of recommendations in the report are about protecting and strengthening the devolution settlement. As I said earlier, the Sewel convention was intended to be a cornerstone for a functioning devolved United Kingdom, and as such it was respected by successive UK Governments, both Labour and Conservative. It embodied respect for this Senedd, established following two referendums as a democratically elected body. The Welsh Government derives our mandate from the electorate and then is held accountable by this Senedd.

But 20 years into devolution, after 2019, the story has changed. The UK Government in this period has turned its back on that Sewel convention. Its repeated willingness to override the refusal of Senedd consent and to legislate in areas that are within the direct devolved authority of Welsh people does not simply disrespect our democratic institutions, but it deprives the people who elected us of the mandate that belongs only in their hands. It's no wonder that the commission has made the entrenchment of Sewel one of its key recommendations. These are profoundly serious matters, perhaps especially so for those of us, like me, who believe that Wales's future is best secured in a successful United Kingdom. I do hope that, in this debate, we will hear contributions that demonstrate a willingness and a capacity to grapple with these issues with the seriousness they require and deserve. 

The last four recommendations of the final report aim to strengthen and deepen our constitutional settlement. Our ambition for any extended powers for this Senedd, and for the Welsh Government, must be about having the tools to support our public services, strengthen our economy and improve the well-being of Wales. We make the arguments for the devolution of the Crown Estate because we believe that that will support the development of that vital new renewable energy sector in the Celtic sea, and the supply chains to support it, bringing those new jobs, new skills and prosperity to Wales, while remaining committed to our net-zero targets. We make the case for the devolution of the administration of welfare because we want a more effective system to help, not to harass people back into work. And we must take those first steps towards the devolution of the criminal justice system—not far enough, not fast enough, I know, for many Labour Members in this Chamber, but the essential start to the longer journey to which the report says we must be committed.

I want to close my final debate in this Senedd as First Minister by thanking the co-chairs, Laura McAllister and Rowan Williams, and all the members of the commission, for this comprehensive and authoritative report. This is a vital contribution to our devolution journey in Wales, and I encourage Members to approve the report and the motion before us today. Thank you very much.

The Llywydd has selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on Mark Isherwood to move the amendment tabled in the name of Darren Millar. 

Diolch. I move amendment 1. Whilst the Welsh Conservatives are always happy to note a report, we cannot endorse this report. Although UK Conservative Governments have delivered law-making powers, tax-raising powers and a reserved powers model, turning this place into a fully-fledged Parliament, we recognise that further devolution of powers, now or in the foreseeable future, is both unnecessary and unsafe. Whilst the evolving constitutional settlement within our UK should not be determined by the transient policies and personalities of different Governments at any point in time, it should and must be built on the solid foundations provided by representative democracies with functioning checks and balances.

However, the democratic deficit in Wales is still alive and kicking, with many still not understanding where the decisions are taken, who's responsible and how much power the Welsh Government actually has over their lives. As a constituent put it, 'The activities of the Welsh Government are ignored by a large section of the population, and this concerns me because the Welsh Government could, in this way, get away with anything.' The electorate are not acting as checks and balances. This perpetuates the one-sided nature of Welsh politics, allowing the 'we know best' Labour Welsh Government to dodge accountability.

To be effective, the first requirement of any Government is to know that it could be kicked out, but after 25 years in power, this buck-passing Welsh Government no longer believes that this applies to them. Hopefully, the mass petitions and protests of recent times will change this, but unless and until they do, we cannot risk further concentration of power in their hands. The commission's report confirms that, in the event of independence, Wales would face a fiscal deficit, meaning big cuts for many years, and possibly longer, the extent of which would be dependent upon the terms negotiated, which would include decisions surrounding state pensions, proportion of UK debt allocation, what currency Wales would use, defence and overseas representation.

Weaknesses in the commission's report are exposed by its statement that its justice and policing sub-group took the report of the Thomas commission as its starting point. However, when I visited the north-west regional organised crime unit, a collaboration between North Wales Police and five police forces in north-west England, in early 2020, we heard that evidence given to the Thomas commission by the chief constables and police and crime commissioners in Wales was largely ignored in the commission's report, and that 95 per cent or more of crime in north Wales is local or operates on a cross-border, east-west basis. That was senior police officers; clearly, I can't identify them.

In fact, the Thomas commission only includes one reference to any cross-border criminality, in the context of county lines, and the solution it proposes is joint working across the four Welsh forces, but no reference to forces across the border. In the real world, for example, North Wales Police joined forces with Cheshire and British Transport Police to target cross-border criminals as part of Operation Crossbow last March. Only this month, Project Medusa, funded by the Home Office, saw joint operations between Merseyside, north Wales and Cheshire police forces to tackle county lines drug dealing and the criminal exploitation of young people. 

As yesterday's Welsh Government-commissioned report, 'Preparing for the Devolution of Policing in Wales', quotes,

'the Thomas report talked about the jagged edge between devolved and non-devolved bodies, and I think if you look at some of the work we've done...we've got none'.

It also reports concern that the

'proximity of Welsh Ministers could lead to situations which may threaten the principle of operational independence'.

Further, given that Labour's shadow Welsh Secretary has rejected calls for the Welsh Government to be given control of policing and adult criminal justice, and that the chair of Labour's Commission on the UK's Future, Gordon Brown, fell short of backing calls for Wales's justice system to be run from Cardiff only two days ago, we must ask why the Welsh Government is devoting so much time and resource to devolution of these matters when it is cutting key budgets elsewhere. Perhaps intentionally, the obsessive-like pursuit of future powers is a distraction from the issues that matter to the people of Wales.

While, of course, there are some interesting aspects of this report that will require further consideration, and the First Minister referred to some of those, the work of the commission will not make ambulances arrive any faster, properly staff our schools or support Welsh businesses. Welsh Labour Ministers and their Plaid Cymru partners should instead be focusing on getting to grips with unacceptable waiting lists, on improving educational outcomes and on better pay for people in Wales, the lowest paid in the UK, after that quarter of a century that the First Minister referred to. Diolch yn fawr.

I just want to put on record once again my welcome for the work of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. It has been a turning point, I'm clear on that, in our constitutional journey. I am pleased to be able to repeat that today, and I thank the commission for its work. I also want to thank the First Minister for the collaboration that there has been between us on this. Perhaps we're not entirely agreed on the destination of our constitutional journey—I urge him and Welsh Labour to be more ambitious for Wales. What does the report say about independence? Well, it does provide us with that ability to be more ambitious. But there is a realisation here of the importance of having these conversations about out constitutional future, and that is something that I welcome.

When the commission's final report was published in January, I said that we must work hard and quickly in order to start the process of implementing the recommendations; that's the least we need to do in order to safeguard and protect Welsh democracy. The report was entirely clear about the urgency in taking this forward, and I'm pleased that we now have a formal response from the Government. It tells us where we are a little more clearly, in terms of being prepared to start the work of implementation.

Again, I want to emphasise, as the First Minister did, the cross-party agreement that exists here—the cross-party agreement reached by the commission that the status quo is unsustainable and that we need fundamental change. There's also agreement that the work that has been started by the commission should continue, and we have ensured that a work programme will follow on from the work of the constitutional commission.

But I think we now need to know what structure that will take. I have said already that I would want a standing national commission to be created, but could I ask for more details from the First Minister as to how the relevant structures may look? The Government has also suggested that there will be further details about the work programme published later this year. Can I ask for more clarity in terms of the timetable? When exactly should we expect to see the establishment of the commission's successor?

Now, the Government stressed that securing some specific aspects of the reforms outlined by the commission will require negotiation with the UK Government. Good luck with that with the current Conservative Government. Of course, Mark Isherwood mentioned the democratic deficit; what we've seen is the growing respect deficit over recent years being ramped up by the lack of respect for Welsh democracy. He speaks of bringing more powers to the people of Wales as if it's a bad thing. He's happy enough for the concentration of power in the hands of a croneyism-infested UK Government. He speaks of his lack of understanding about how you could possibly have police working cross-border. Mark Isherwood and others like him will go into meltdown when they hear about Europol and Interpol. 

But there are those elements that we need to move on with that will require negotiation with UK Government: inter-governmental relations themselves; the attack on the Sewel convention, the protection of that; and financial constraints, too. Now, in practical terms, given where we're at in relation to the current Government and the likely timing of a general election, negotiation won't be able to happen until after that election. It's hard to disagree that there's little point opening negotiations now with that decaying Tory Government. But I might suggest that the necessary discussions can and should already have started with what is potentially an incoming UK Labour Government. What guarantees have been secured from Keir Starmer that the necessary reforms will be delivered, and over what timescale?

Now, the commission's recommendations on the devolution of justice and policing go further than what was on offer in the Brown commission reports on probation and youth justice. I note that the new First Minister in waiting has indicated that he, too, regards these as the low-hanging fruit. But I would stress that a piecemeal approach to devolving justice powers has the potential to make the edges of devolution more jagged. And, of course, key members of the Labour front bench at Westminster have ruled out any further devolution in this area at all. Has the current First Minister been able to persuade the current shadow Secretary of State for Wales of the case for devolving justice? And if so, how confident is he that the devolution of justice and policing in full can be delivered? 

Now, across many of the Government's responses to the commission's recommendations, including on the devolution of the Crown Estate, on broadcasting, on rail infrastructure, detail is still rather thin. But on one of his last opportunities to speak as First Minister, I'll ask him to pad that out a little this afternoon, if he would. 

And finally, from what he has learned from the commission's work—and I've certainly learned an awful lot—what timescale would he expect for the delivery of the next stages in strengthening our democracy? The commission's 10 recommendations are the absolute minimum, and we urgently need further clarification as to how and when they will be delivered upon.

Like others this afternoon, I'd like to thank the commission for their work. I'd like to thank the co-chairs and the staff who supported that, and everybody who took part in the work of the commission. I'd also like to thank the First Minister for the way in which he has pursued constitutional policy over his time in office. There are those people, of course, who will sneer at constitutional law and constitutional politics. They'll tell you it's not important, that it's never been discussed down the Dog and Duck and various other hostelries. Well, to those people, let me tell you this: you need to read Aneurin Bevan. It's no accident that the first chapter of In Place of Fear was all about constitutional law. It was all about power. It was all about where political power rests, whether it's in Bedwellty House, the House of Commons, or the boardrooms of the City of London. Because Nye understood that, unless you're able to use political power, then you will never, ever be able to change the condition of the people that you seek to represent. And it's political power that a constitution should describe—where it is held, how it is held and how it is used. And there are three points that I would like to make in this debate this afternoon.

We are approaching a period of change, both in the United Kingdom with the change of Government here, but also with elections taking place on the European mainland for the next European Parliament. The place of Wales and how Wales is represented in the institutions of the EU is going to be up for grabs over the coming years, and I hope that a Welsh Government, in the next two years, will play a full role in the review of the trade and co-operation agreement and ensure that the institutions of Wales are represented in the institutions of Europe.

Now, there are two other areas that I believe we need to debate and discuss. The report and the Government response focuses in on those functional areas of policy that should either be reserved or held in our national Parliament here. I hope that we'll be able to do more than that. The points that were made by the First Minister in opening this debate were absolutely fundamental about the way in which the Sewel convention has been upended by successive Acts of the current United Kingdom Government. The Sewel convention and the way in which our Parliaments and our Governments work together have been completely eroded to virtual extinction by not just the work of Boris Johnson, but the work of successive UK Parliaments over the last few years. We need to go somewhat further. When I look at how we re-establish a democratic structure in the United Kingdom, I look back to December 1931 and the Statute of Westminster, when the Westminster Parliament, voluntarily and collectively with the dominions that existed in the British empire at the time, handed all residual powers from that Parliament to the Parliaments of those dominions. It's a different circumstance, but the principle is important. What section 4 of the Statute of Westminster said was this: 

'No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.'

Very, very clear. A clear statement that the Westminster Parliament will not legislate without the consent of the Parliament, either here or elsewhere. And we need to ensure that we do have a democratic structure, a new statute of Westminster, a new democratic relationship between Westminster and ourselves to ensure that we are able to work together collectively without the sort of conflict that we've seen in recent years.

But we also need financial structures to ensure fairness across the United Kingdom. And this is something that has dogged our relationships since the beginning of devolution. I think we all recognise that Barnett is past its time, but we've also seen decisions that have adversely affected Wales made time and time again, and to whom do we appeal those decisions? The Treasury—the very institution that makes those decisions in the first place. And this isn't simply something that's happened over recent years; we remember what happened with the Olympic funding as well. I look to Australia for my inspiration here. The Commonwealth Grants Commission in Australia ensures what they call 'horizontal fiscal equalisation' across the states of Australia to ensure that every Australian, wherever they live, can expect a similar level of services from the state and federal Government. That is what we should have here. It isn't too much to expect that somebody living in Wales can expect to have the same quality of life and level of services as somebody living in Surrey or elsewhere. That doesn't seem to be ludicrous, too radical and impossible to achieve. That should be the minimum that we want, and we need to create, I would say, acting Presiding Officer, more UK structures—[Interruption.]

No.

—that are shared UK structures, rather than UK structures that are simply under the control of the United Kingdom Government. I'm sorry, I was just finishing.

The first recommendation, which focuses on democratic innovation, is, to me, the most important of all, because it is the central imperative for any democracy to thrive and, indeed, in today's world, to survive, it seems. It must constantly adapt. It must change to remain relevant and representative. Indeed, Sioned Williams, in responding to an earlier statement, quoted Eleanor Roosevelt, I believe—democracy is never final; the struggle for democracy is never ending. And that's the heart, really, of the whole history of democratic and constitutional reform. 

The report puts a particular meaning on that in our current moment, because, even though we are about to embark on some incredibly transformative changes in our democracy in Wales in terms of the voting system, the size of the Senedd and, absolutely crucially, gender balance and representation in the wider sense, in some senses, even with those changes, if you looked at the way we do politics now compared to the early twentieth century and the late nineteenth century, it hasn't changed that much, has it? It's still people, every four or five years, taking a manifesto to an electorate, having a mandate and then taking decisions on people's behalf. And there seems something that is out of kilter with modern culture and society in that, where people want to be directly involved and engaged in the decision making that affects their lives. And there is a challenge there, which the commission sets to us, which is how we can reinvent democracy, whereby we are not just a group providing all the answers, but we are helping society to frame questions and involving citizens themselves in providing some of those answers, and we're listening as much as lecturing, and we're making our decisions informed by a societal conversation, a societal deliberation, and the different ways in which that can be made effective.

I think there's a role for us as a Senedd, and, indeed, the suggestion in the recommendation is that we need now to see ways in which we can introduce this democratic innovation in our work here. And we need to look outside as well—the excellent work of the Democracy Box, the Talking Shops. Why not create, as they suggested, democratic hubs across Wales in every one of these 16 new constituencies—physical places, but also online information sources—using the power of story to actually communicate what democracy is all about for our citizens?

And the First Minister referenced the work of the National Assembly advisory group in 1998. I think we need something like that now. I think, actually, the creation of this new Senedd, if I can put it like that, is a fantastic opportunity for us to say, 'What does the new politics, as we called it then, look like now? What could it mean to us today?' And I don't think we should wait for the seventh Senedd. I've always been a person in a hurry. I think there's some work now, in the remaining two years, even with the First Minister possibly contributing from the backbenches, of getting ourselves ready to maximise this great opportunity that we have, working cross-party, including groups in the Senedd that aren't convinced by Senedd reform but need to be part of the conservation of how we maximise its positive effect. 

And could I just say in closing, particularly on this day of all: I think that there's something about democratic reform, isn't there, there's a kind of wonderful contradiction, because, in some ways, it's trying to do something new all the time, but giving new form to enduring values? And when we think about our own democracy here, it's that sense of the truth that dare not speak its name, but should be spoken more often, that, actually, what unites us is often far more important, far more enduring, than what divides us. As somebody once said to Saunders Lewis, First Minister, it's been a pleasure disagreeing with you, in the right sense. We haven't agreed on—. We've had disagreements, but the disagreements will often be forgotten. What endures is what you build together. And I'd like to commend you on the way that you've conducted your politics—always the search for the common ground for the common good. 

And I'd like to end, because both you and I share a love for what used to be called Anglo-Welsh poetry—Welsh writing in English—by quoting one of your favourite poets, which captures, possibly—. Sometimes, politics is capricious, isn't it, buffeted by the winds, focused on the daily worries et cetera, but, actually, at its heart, it's about leaving a legacy. And you leave a powerful legacy, First Minister. So, I'd like to end with these words of Vernon Watkins:

'Life changes, breaks, scatters. There is no sheet-anchor. / Time reigns; yet the kingdom of love is every moment, / Whose citizens do not age in each other’s eyes. / In a time of darkness the pattern of life is restored / By men who make all transience seem an illusion.'

Thank you very much, First Minister.

I'd like to begin my contribution to this debate by expressing my thanks to the commission, and also by noting how important its work has been in terms of examining how the structures of our governance, our democracy and our society do offer the best possible future for our citizens. For me, the real importance of this work stems from the fact that it is rooted in over 15,000 engagements with people across Wales, including those people who are often excluded from constitutional debates. And what these engagements with Welsh people of all kinds show is that people do care about constitutional questions, they do understand their connection to the bread-and-butter issues that affect their daily lives, and they do know that there is an urgent need for change.

Because I'm sorry, Andrew R.T. Davies, but the constitution is not just for the anoraks, actually, it's for all of us. And there can be nothing more important for Government, for this Senedd, than listening to those we represent, to the voices of our citizens who took part in this true national conversation about how they see the future of our nation. And 'urgency', as Rhun pointed out, is the critical word here; we don't have the luxury of dawdling any longer than we already have done over the implementation of the commission’s recommendations.

I'm Plaid Cymru's spokesperson on social justice, and it doesn't get much more bread and butter than that. The issues that I speak on are the ones that directly affect people, the most vulnerable people, from day to day in our country. But when I question the Government on anti-poverty measures, on its ability to incorporate human rights legislation, on how it can ensure equity and equality, how often do we hear that the levers, the powers, the potential for change is out of reach? And that's frustrating policy and practice, depriving our citizens of opportunities and stifling momentum for change. We on these benches are absolutely clear that the commission’s recommendations are the absolute minimum required to underpin any ambition we may have to build a more socially just society and to protect and strengthen our democracy in Wales, the structure by which those voices can be heard loud and clear.

I would use the opportunity of this debate to emphasise that independence is ultimately the only way to guard against those who would look to wipe out Welsh democracy completely, deliver the full suite of powers we need to transform Wales's economic fortunes and deliver real fairness for its people. I would also remind the Government today that they have already committed to going further than is outlined in their response to the commission’s report. We've had prior commitments from the Government, for example, around the devolution of welfare. Can I take it that the work around this will continue? And can I stress again the urgent need—as outlined by the Bevan Foundation and others—for the creation of a made-in-Wales benefits system, one that is responsive to the particular social and economic challenges we face and values we hold?

Fuel poverty remains, inexcusably, a critical and chronic issue in Wales. Locally produced renewable energy holds part of the solution, but, as the commission has noted, this is being held back by the terms of the current devolution settlement. The commission has recommended the creation of an expert group to oversee relevant reforms that would allow Wales to maximise the local generation of renewable energy. So, could I ask, please, for a timeline on the establishment of this group? Also key to the reform of energy in Wales is the devolution of the Crown Estate, and this is something that the incoming First Minister has stressed is a personal priority for him. So can I ask, then, what guarantees have been secured from the UK Labour frontbench around this? When will an incoming Labour Government devolve the Crown Estate to Wales, what will that devolution look like, and how will the Government ensure that it delivers greater fairness for Wales?

There are other areas on which we hope to see far greater detail very, very soon—fair funding, devolution of justice and policing and rail infrastructure. So, while I welcome the Government’s response to the commission’s recommendations today, I would end by reminding the First Minister and the next First Minister that this is not the end of the matter, rather, it is the beginning. We must remember the prophetic words of the great civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph:

'Justice is never given; it is exacted'. 

And I would also like to echo the words of the writer and activist Audre Lorde,

'the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.'

I call on the First Minister to reply to the debate. 

Well, thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the debate. 

It's been a very interesting debate to listen to. I thank everybody who's taken part in it. We heard only one contribution from the Conservative benches. You won't be surprised that I was disappointed at it. I was sorry that Mark Isherwood and his colleagues weren't able to welcome the report. It's a report where a Conservative representative sat on the commission and played such a lively and committed contribution to it. I was astonished to hear the word 'unsafe' being attached to the report's conclusions.

The status quo is indefensible, no matter how hard the Conservatives attempt to defend it. Look at the constitutional settlement we have. In this Senedd term, the UK Government has taken back into its own hands the future of the Welsh tennis court. Now, there's a matter of great public debate, but, in their determination to undermine the settlement, the future of the Welsh tennis court is now decided in Whitehall, rather than in Wales. The 2017 Act means that we are, in this Chamber, responsible for road, for rail, for cycling, but we're explicitly prevented from taking control of the Welsh hovercraft. Now—[Interruption.] Well, I see marches up and down Wales. [Laughter.] But the absurdity of the current settlement simply means that it cannot be defended in the way that Mark Isherwood attempted. 

I was sorry to hear that old chestnut being trotted out about the one-sided nature of Welsh politics. There is a very easy answer to that, isn't there? And it's just for the Welsh Conservative Party to get better at winning elections, because the reason why Labour has been in power for the last 25 years, as I say so, is not because we won it in a raffle, but because we persuaded people in Wales to vote for it. Of course, I'll take—. 

Do you recognise that even in your Cabinet you've got Members who were elected with less than 40 per cent turnout in the last Welsh general election? That is a direct deficit. [Interruption.] People across Wales—[Interruption.]—people across Wales, after 25 years still— 

Please allow Mark Isherwood to speak. 

—feel disengaged from the process and ill-informed about how accountability should really be operating here.  

Well, if the Member were to come forward with a proposition to exclude any councillor in Wales who was elected on a plurality below a certain percentage, we would be able to listen to it, but, of course, he won't, because he makes a simply mistaken argument about the nature of our democracy. Of course, the report, as many other colleagues have said, is all about strengthening democracy in Wales, and we certainly want to see that. But one of the ways in which Welsh politics and Welsh debate could be strengthened would be by having an opposition party that genuinely offered the Welsh public a credible opposition, and they quite certainly do not do that. 

Can I turn for a moment to the points that Rhun ap Iorwerth raised? I completely agree with him. Too often, debates on these matters in Wales have been evidence thin. That's why this report is so important, because it assembles that credible and depth of evidence behind the arguments that it puts forward. It says, as he said, that the status quo is unsustainable. There is money in the budget in the next financial year for us to take forward those recommendations at the start of the report that are about strengthening the way in which democracy can operate here in Wales, a deliberative form of democracy in which we engage people in debate, not a dipstick form of democracy, in which you ask people on a particular day what they think, but in which we engage them in the complexity of debate. That's what the commission did. They went out, they didn't simply hand people a piece of paper and say, 'Tell us the answer', they had a discussion with them and the more the discussion deepened, the more useful and interesting those ideas became.

We're not in favour of a piecemeal approach to criminal justice, we're in favour of a journey to the devolution of the criminal justice system, but one which allows the Senedd to absorb those responsibilities in an orderly way, which allows the people who work in that service to see that there is a pathway there, but doesn't mean that we take on everything in one big bang all on the first day.

I really enjoyed Alun Davies's contribution, as ever, Llywydd. I can't respond to everything that he said, but he reminded us of one of the towering figures of Welsh politics of the twentieth and twenty-first century, because it was Elystan Morgan who constantly argued that dominion status was an option for devolution in Wales that hadn't been properly explored, that ought to be put back on the table. I thought it was really useful of Alun to have reminded us of that debate this afternoon.

The Gordon Brown report, Dirprwy Lywydd, has a lot of useful things to say on the equalisation principle and the way in which resources across the United Kingdom ought to be dispensed in a way that gives every citizen a guarantee that certain basic citizenship rights will come their way as a result of their membership of the United Kingdom. 

I wanted to thank Adam Price, Dirprwy Lywydd, for the contribution he has made to the wider debate about the nature of our democracy. He's right, of course, Senedd reform, it's a step that has eluded the Senedd for 20 years, but it's not the end of the debate about how we reinvigorate democracy here in Wales, reinventing it through innovation, to make it relevant, representative and fit for the sort of place we want Wales to be. I wish that I had had some better quotations available to me, as Members on benches have offered this afternoon, but it was wonderful to hear Vernon Watkins quoted once again on the floor of this Senedd. 

Apologies to those Members whose contributions I haven't been able to refer to, but just to sum up, the constitutional commission in Wales has done us an enormous service. It has done us a service in the seriousness of the work that it has done, the depth of the engagement that it has had with Welsh citizens, and the fact that it has left us with just 10 recommendations to take into the future. How often my heart has sunk here to see yet another committee report bristling with 70 or 80 recommendations, almost all of them guaranteed never to be pursued because of the number of them. Here, there are only 10. That means the Welsh Government can be held to account, and we've made a start on that journey. As I say, there is money set aside for next year, there are practical actions that we will want to take, particularly in those early recommendations, and then we can use the rest of the report as the basis for the next step on a journey that many of us here have been involved in for the last 25 years. Dirprwy Lywydd, diolch yn fawr.

The proposal is to agree the amendment. Does any Member object?

Object.

I'm asking about the amendment that the Conservative Party put forward. [Laughter.]

I just was checking to make sure you knew what I said. [Laughter.]

So, does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection.

I will, therefore, defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 4 this afternoon is a statement by the First Minister: resignation statement. I call on the First Minister, Mark Drakeford. [Applause.]

Dirprwy Lywydd, thank you very much. Later this evening, I will submit my resignation as First Minister of Wales to the King. As I make this final statement to the Senedd, I will have been speaking almost continuously this afternoon since this session started at 1.30 p.m.. I will have answered my last First Minister's questions, and opened and closed my final debate as First Minister.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the advice to any performer is always to leave them wanting more. [Laughter.] After this afternoon, everybody here will be looking forward to hearing quite a bit less from me, I'm sure of that.

It was just before Christmas in 2018, though, I first spoke in this Siambr as the First Minister. At that time, we were still very much in the grip of austerity, but it was certainly impossible to predict the state of permacrisis that we were about to enter. In 2019, we were dealing with the prospect of a no-deal Brexit, to be followed by the reality of a very bad-deal Brexit. As 2020 dawned, Wales was devastated, as we've heard this afternoon, by storms Ciara and Dennis, to be followed so quickly by the pandemic, which cost so many people their lives. By 2022, we were facing a war in Ukraine, a war on our borders here in Europe, and by 2023, we've been wrestling with the cost-of-living crisis and a conflict in the middle east that continues to dominate our thoughts into 2024.

The turbulence that we've seen abroad has been matched by political turbulence closer to home. In the five years that I've been First Minister, I've worked with four Prime Ministers, five Chancellors of the Exchequer, six Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster and I’ve lost count of the different Ministers further down the pecking order that we have had to deal with as a ministerial team. 

There have been changes here too. I’ve answered questions from six different party leaders over the last five years, and my term has spanned both a Senedd election and the development of a co-operation agreement unique to our circumstances here in Wales.

My aim throughout, as First Minister, has been to use the mandate that my party and my Government secured to keep the promises we made to people across Wales, and to do so with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 always as our guiding principle. That has meant being prepared to do the things that are difficult today, because we know that the benefits will lie in the lives of the generations to come.

If you set out to be that radical, reforming Government, then you have to be prepared for opposition, as we've heard this afternoon. No ground was ever gained without a struggle for a progressive cause, even when the case for change is so clear or the object of that change so apparently innocuous, because in politics you will always face vested interests, some of them benign, others determined not to surrender their own positions of power and of privilege.

That has been a feature of the whole of my time as First Minister. The first major decision that I faced was whether or not to proceed with an M4 relief road. The easy decision would have been to say, 'Go ahead.' The powerful voices in Wales were lined up in support of it. My decision, having spent many, many days reading and thinking about it, was that that was not in the long-term interests of Wales. Even in this last couple of weeks, the debates that we have been having about reforming council tax, reforming the school year and eliminating profit from the care of looked-after children, every one of those will be opposed. We know that. But if you're in the business of progressive politics and if you're in the business of using the opportunity that comes your way, your job is to stick to the things that you believe will make the greatest difference today, of course, but especially for the generations ahead of us.

Llywydd, as my time as First Minister comes to an end, I'm looking forward to continuing to play my part from the backbenches, to supporting the new First Minister and the Welsh Government, and to work with others to see how the beliefs and values of the great Welsh radical tradition—I’m a socialist myself, I always have been, I always will be. But the work is to see how we can continue to make relevant that tradition to the nature of Wales today.

In this, my last statement as First Minister, Dirprwy Lywydd, of course there are thanks that need to be offered to so many people. Thanks to all of those who work to help keep Ministers on their feet and in their place, the civil servants that we have the privilege to work with every day, the team of special advisers who do so much to help us to make sure that the mandate we have is translated into executive action. And thanks to all of you in the Chamber as well.

For me, personally, the last 12 months have been the hardest and the saddest of my life, and people will not see beyond the Chamber those small acts of kindness that happen every day, from people in every part of this Chamber, that help someone to get through those very, very difficult times. We debate, as the leader of the opposition said, vigorously and with the conviction of our own beliefs, but as human beings, in this Chamber, we are always, I believe, amongst friends, amongst people who understand the demands of the jobs that we do and the small things that make such a difference to you.

Thanks most of all, though, to the people across Wales. I’ve been asked many times recently for my most enduring memories of my time as First Minister in those many, many thousands of encounters, and what sometimes seem like hundreds of thousands of photographs that are taken these days wherever you go. This afternoon, and to end, I wanted to offer just one of those very many memories.

In 2021, at the depths of the pandemic, I attended an event at Aberfan to remember again the events of nearly 60 years ago. We stood outside in the pouring rain, while Bishop June of Llandaff prayed for the lives of those children and adults who had been lost. I sat afterwards in the hall next door to Sir Mansel Aylward, one of the great public servants produced by Wales. He told me how, as a young medical student from Merthyr, he had gone to Aberfan that afternoon to help in the rescue effort. An experience so traumatic that, for decades, he wasn’t able to tell even his closest family members that he had been there on that day.

And I remember the most being introduced to two ladies, both now well on in life, and being told that, as young people in their 20s, both had been teachers, present in the school on that dreadful day when over 100 primary school children lost their lives. And in that moment, that extraordinary moment, as I was speaking directly to them, I really did feel our history, our Welsh history echoing down those years. That sense of solidarity and of suffering, a determination never to forget what has made us what we are today, that sense, as so many people did on that day in 1966, of a duty of care, not simply to our friends and our neighbours, but to people who we will never know and will never meet, but where deep in the Welsh experience, we understand that their fates are bound up in our fates, and that the future of any one of us is bound up in the future of us all.

There that day, there was that determination never to forget what has made us what we are today, but equally determined to live in today’s world, caring about the people who need the collective effort of Government the most, knowing that together we will always do more than we can ever do apart. These are the great strengths of the nation that we are. They have sustained me in the most difficult times that we faced over that period. I'm grateful to all those people who help, I'm grateful to all the colleagues here, and I'm most grateful of all to the people who we are lucky enough to serve. [Applause.]

First Minister, you encapsulated there why you are so successful at elections, in fairness. You encapsulated your ability to empathise with communities the length and breadth of Wales, and one of the iconic tragedies that has afflicted this country in the last 50 years or so, Aberfan. The sentiment that you expressed in your resignation statement there has identified the strong traits of public service that you have brought not just to the role of First Minister, which your statement addressed, but also the key roles that you have played in the devolution journey over the last 25 years: as a senior adviser to the late First Minister Rhodri Morgan, in your role as an MS—I believe you used to sit in Peter Fox's chair when you first came here; I'm not sure whether there might be some swapping around going on in the coming days, but that might become evident—and then, obviously, as a Minister in a series of portfolios, and then, ultimately, to the role of First Minister.

You touched on the point about when you took the role of First Minister in 2018 when this Parliament had just been hit by its biggest tragedy and the fallout of that tragedy—the loss of our very dear friend Carl Sargeant. It is wonderful to see his son taking his seat here and doing such a marvellous job. You managed to knit together not just the Labour Party and the Labour group here, but the Senedd as a whole—or the Assembly as it was at that time. That was an important point of leadership that we should all be very, very grateful for. Because those of us who were here then really felt the pain that that tragedy brought amongst us all and afflicted us all, but also the magnitude that it afflicted the Sargeant family and the loss that they felt.

And then, obviously, we had the COVID pandemic, which touched every corner of Wales and every citizen across this whole nation of ours, and, indeed, the world. Obviously, on policy areas, we disagreed—that is the nature of politics and standing in this debating Chamber; it would be wrong to be agreeing on everything—but you showed that stern leadership in a positive way, which gave direction and function to Government and to civil society to get us through that crisis, and, ultimately come out the other end. I'm sure your Cabinet colleagues will recall, and others, that there might have been days where you thought, 'Will we ever come out the other end of this?', because there were things happening to society and to our country that none of us ever thought that we would have seen in our lifetime. I thank you for that leadership. As I said, that's not saying I agree with everything you did, but the leadership that you showed benefited this country in coming through some of its darkest hours.

And then we had the crisis in Ukraine, which you touched on, and the new Senedd after the election that you won. As you said in the previous debate that we just had on constitutional change, we do need to start winning elections, the Welsh Conservatives do; it's just a simple fact. One of the things that I can recall in the 2021 election was when you, Adam Price and I were doing the leaders' debate at the ITV studio across the way. We were each in our own little plastic cubicle—I was in the middle, you were to my left and Adam was to my right—and we were having to knock on the sides of the panels to give effect to the debate that was going on. That was the world we were living in at that time. It is a world that those who lost their lives will never forget, but those who came through it will want to rebuild and regroup and re-energise this great country of ours, of Wales, which is such an important part of all our lives.

It is a tribute to the fact of your public service that you have brought such dedication and professionalism to the role of First Minister, which has earned that respect from leaders across the United Kingdom and beyond. When I go home on a Tuesday night and I say to the family, 'Did you see FMQs today—how did it go?', well, nine times out of 10 we're knocked out by the snooker or crown green bowls or sometimes the darts, and I get the response, 'Didn't see it', but the other times when they have seen it, they do make the point about the passion, the conviction and the dedication that they can see coming from you as First Minister, but indeed other public servants and other politicians in this building. And one of the things that I find so disturbing in modern politics is—. People recall that point where you and I had that heated exchange, and they say, 'You must really hate each other.' 'Hate' is a terrible word. It is a really poisonous, infectious word in a negative way. That's not hate. That is passion, that is conviction. That is what politics should be about, and that is what you have brought to the role of First Minister.

I also thank you for the kindness you showed me when you personally wrote to me during my illness. That kindness was greatly appreciated and meant a lot to me at the time. I thank you sincerely for what you've done as First Minister. I wish you well in your retirement, and in particular, you will not be leaving the stage in the next two years so I'm sure we will continue to have many an exchange across this Chamber. Your predecessor, Rhodri Morgan, took to the backbenches and was echoing his sentiments right to the very end, and I'm sure we will see that with your good self. But thank you on behalf of the Welsh Conservatives for what you have done, for me personally but also for the country of Wales and for this institution and Parliament. Thank you, First Minister. [Applause.]

When any important political era comes to an end, it's always worth while looking back to where we started. I was reminded this week of what was said during the contest for the Labour leadership in 2018. In an interview with the BBC, the then candidate, Mark Drakeford, said:

'I did grow up in the Assembly, in Rhodri Morgan's office when he was First Minister. In that sense, I wanted to say to people that I know what it's like to be First Minister, from the inside.' Now, as he looks back, and knowing first-hand, I hope it was all he wanted it to be. There's no question that moving from adviser to chief decision maker will have brought many unexpected challenges and a far greater burden of responsibility, and, of course, exposure and public scrutiny.

We know the metaphors: we have exchanged blows, we have crossed swords. But I've been fortunate also to get to know the First Minister through—at times, difficult, but always constructive—co-operation too. In that time I've seen for myself what I am absolutely sure we all have come to appreciate: that he has been, without doubt, a dedicated public servant, a serious First Minister for serious times. The world when he took over was very different, and no doubt his direction of travel was derailed somewhat by the COVID pandemic. The many challenges facing Wales pre pandemic still remain.

His successor will take on significant challenges on health, on the economy, on education—challenges I hope he will commit to without distractions. I remain concerned that the lessons of COVID have not been able to be learnt fully. But in those tough days, even when there were decisions that we can question, Mark guided Wales with empathy, concern and kindness, in stark contrast to UK Governments, demonstrating the personal qualities we demand of those who seek the highest office. In 2021, he won a mandate to govern, but not a majority, another reminder that the need for cross-party working has been a hallmark of devolution from its outset, not just of his time in office.

I am very proud of what my party and his Government have achieved together—a stronger Senedd, bold policies that will change the lives of those who elected us to this place for the better. And to that end, I am certain that we are agreed that that is the foundation of politics. There have been some difficult conversations between us—me shaking my head here, him flicking his file over there—but doing so entirely sincerely. I would like to thank him for the respect shown, not only during his time as First Minister, but throughout the time that we have been in this Chamber together. 

As I said, the First Minister and I had pretty robust exchanges in this Chamber. As a cheese lover myself, I hope those exchanges have been less salty than his beloved Caerphilly cheese, but they have been honest exchanges, reflective of our differing priorities, policy platforms and vision for Wales. At a time of political challenges and the deepest personal adversity, Mark brought thoughtfulness and good grace to public life, at a time when such qualities were needed the most. I know that he will continue to make a valuable and insightful contribution, in this Chamber and beyond. And you never know, if Ken Skates is up for it, there might even be some spare time for another James Bond film. But if I could end by putting a positive spin on your own words, Mark, I sincerely wish you all the best as you feel the wind on your face and in the air around you, and for the sun to shine on your Sophia Gardens summer.

From all in the Plaid Cymru group, best wishes. [Applause.]

I haven't known you and haven't worked with you as long as other leaders in the Senedd, but it's a great privilege and an honour for me to be able to say a few words here this afternoon on behalf of the Welsh Liberal Democrats. We first met when you kindly gave me half an hour of your time in Cathays Park when I became the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, and I did enter that office with a great deal of trepidation and anxiety. I guess I was thinking, 'What on earth do we talk about?' We started off talking about our backgrounds—me as a social worker, you as a probation officer—and then we got on to universal basic income, which we are both passionate about and committed to. We see its transformational qualities, not just here in Wales, but further afield.

And do you know what? I virtually skipped out of Cathays Park. I was so chuffed to find somebody who not only knew about universal basic income, but actually wanted it to happen. And that's what you've done. You have made it happen for our care-experienced young people. You have changed their lives for the better. Along with your colleague Jane Hutt you've been so committed to seeing one of the most vulnerable groups of people that we are responsible for having things change in their lives. Your passion and commitment to our young people, particularly our care-experienced young people, has been so evident, and I do thank you for that. I know many of us have had the opportunity to speak to those young people on the pilot, to learn how their lives have changed so dramatically. You have carried that through, and that has been a real quality that I have seen. I thank you for that.

I know things have not been easy in the last couple of years, and COVID, I'm sure, took a terrible toll, and was so stressful, not just for you, but I know for your colleagues as well. Although we may disagree on certain elements and issues within that, I know that you led this country to a place that I think was better than maybe some other countries, and in fact, I spoke to some people in my community at the time, and surprisingly, some of them, who I would have thought were not of your political party, said to me, 'I'm so pleased I live in Wales. I'm so pleased I have Mark Drakeford'—that they probably hadn't recognised as First Minister before—'as our leader.' That was such a quality. And I know, during COVID, you had with you, as the education Minister, Kirsty Williams, and I have a few words from her from this morning:

'Mark was a tough opponent, but the very best of colleagues, both in and out of Government.'

Kirsty wanted me to pass on her thanks and regards and respect to you. 

I just want to finish by telling you a short tale from when I was elected. I'd got lots of phone calls from journalists who had worked out the maths, and they said, 'Have you had a phone call from Mark Drakeford yet?', and I got so fed up of these requests that I actually coined a phrase that I think became a strapline, which was, 'No, I haven't had a friend request from Mark Drakeford on Facebook', but, actually, I didn't need a friend request, because just how you've been with me, how you've been with me personally, so respectful, so kind, so generous, so friendly, reaching out to me, telling me things when there were developments and clear need to communicate with me—you have phoned me, you have met with me, and I have valued that so much. I feel proud to have been in this Senedd with you as leader. You have raised the bar in terms of your arguments, in terms of intellect, in terms of challenge, and I do wish you all the best for the future. 

I wish you well for the future. Thank you very much. [Applause.] 

Finally, Vikki Howells. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. It is a real privilege to make this contribution on behalf of the Welsh Labour group to mark the last day of Mark Drakeford's term as First Minister of Wales. 

For the most part, Mark will forever be remembered for the calm and honest way that he guided us and Wales through that darkest of times during the pandemic, for the cool-headed decisions that he made to steer Wales through those terrible two years, for his steady hand and reassuring manner as he updated us about the state of the virus, and carefully explained the latest guidance and restrictions to keep Wales safe.

The pandemic may have been the defining moment of his five years as First Minister, and certainly made Mark the most popular leader in the UK, but it wasn't the only moment that stands out. Mark led our party to a historic win in the 2021 Senedd election, returning 30 seats for Welsh Labour in this Siambr, a majority of them for women Members. A year later, he led us to a fantastic result in the local government elections, results we hope that we can build on in this year's general election.

Under Mark's leadership, and against the backdrop of turmoil in the UK and further afield, he has delivered on the promises that we made to people across Wales. That includes extending childcare to two-year-olds and parents in training and education, finding new and innovative ways of working differently to deliver change. I enjoyed our visit just a few weeks ago with Dawn Bowden to see progress on dualling the A465, a project that offers substantial economic safety and environmental benefits to the region, and that was only made possible thanks, First Minister, to a funding model that you personally devised. We've also passed 21 Acts, including ending the defence of reasonable punishment, banning the use of cruel and unnecessary snares, and much-needed reform for people who rent.

Thank you, First Minister, for your service, and for all that you have achieved for the people of Wales. [Applause.]

The First Minister to respond.

Dirprwy Lywydd, diolch yn fawr. Well, what can I say, really? Just 'thank you' to everybody for the generosity of what you've said, and for the touching nature of it. Thank you for reminding us of some other friends. I was hugely privileged to have that experience of 10 years working alongside Rhodri Morgan, and I think so much of what I've learnt, if I've learnt anything, about statecraft comes from sitting there and watching him at work. I think of him a lot on Tuesdays because, unlike me, who has to spend long hours at weekends making sure I'm as prepared as I can be for these encounters, Rhodri would essentially start on a Tuesday morning. And we would gather in his office, and he would go through the questions and he would say to me, 'Now, I need more on this and I need more on that', and my job was then to go out into the outer office and phone people at Cathays to find, of course, that there was nobody ever in Cathays: they were on holiday, they were on leave, they were on a course, they had left the country—they were never there when you needed them to answer the question. So, I would drag myself back in there later in the morning to try to offer him what information I could. And I've told some of you this story before, about how, even when you are the best prepared you can be, the nature of questions is that you can always be taken by surprise. And I'm probably still scarred by the moment that I was sent in to tell Rhodri, at 1.10 p.m. on a Tuesday afternoon, that the BBC were just reporting a story of a group of civil servants who'd been found in a sauna in Llandovery, on what the BBC were calling a 'bonding exercise'. [Laughter.] I'm walking to the lift with him, trying to work out what he might say to, as he was, the then leader of the Welsh Conservatives, about what the Welsh Government was doing spending money on exercises of that sort. So, thank you for reminding me and reminding us all of that giant of Welsh politics.

I sat in the back there, as Andrew R.T. has said; I sat next door to Gwyn Price, a wonderful colleague. I was thinking of Gwyn only last week during Cheltenham Festival week, because Gwyn's dedicated interest in who had won the 3.45 at Market Rasen kept us going on many a long Wednesday afternoon, sitting there together. And, Andrew, thank you for remembering Carl Sargeant, who was such a big part of our lives. I can hear him now, as you would get to your feet, when the Llywydd had called the leader of the opposition, and, 'Paul Davies'—I can hear him saying it, I can hear him saying it now. He was an enormous part of our lives, those of us who knew him, and you're right, it had a profound effect on those of us who were here at that time.

We've heard a lot about COVID and, of course, the five years I've spent doing this job will always be remembered as the COVID period. I hope that we did, as I think Jane said, led a way through COVID that made people in Wales feel that they were being kept safe, that they had a Government that was determined to look after them, that even in those really dark times, it was their interests that were always in the minds of people here. For the COVID inquiry, Dirprwy Lywydd, I've had to reread quite a lot of the debates we held on the floor of the Senedd here, and it's not an easy experience, in some ways. I read the debate of 24 March, the day after we went into lockdown—there were very few people in the Chamber because of the nature of the times, and the feeling of fear is absolutely palpable. You can feel it in the contributions that people made and, in some ways, we have forgotten a bit just how fearful people were, just how much that sense of being safe in Wales really did matter to people.

Can I end with a couple of thoughts that people have offered about kindness and the nature of politics? I would occasionally phone my mother after First Minister's questions, and she would say to me on the phone, 'Oh, saw you on the tv today', and I would say to her, 'Was it any good?', and she'd say, 'Oh, I wasn't listening.' [Laughter.] As though it had never occurred to her that she might stop to listen. In some ways, we need to be reminded of that, don't we? We get very bound up in the debates that we have, and you step outside the building and people are going about their ordinary lives. They may see us but they're not always listening, that is for sure.

And, Andrew, you talked about kindness and the fact that people don't know that beyond the nature of politics, we know each other in different sorts of ways. I have not forgotten the sight of you careering across four lanes of traffic on Cowbridge Road about 11 o'clock on a hot election morning, when you were driving, I guess, out somewhere to the Vale, and you came across the traffic to say to me, 'Good luck with the election here today.' And I thought at the time that that sums up something about the nature of our politics, that while we are fiercely attached to our own values and our beliefs and are prepared to argue them out here passionately, on that personal level we do live out a bit that sense of a kinder, gentler politics that we would like to see being more characteristic of the world that we live in.

I look forward very much to being a nuisance to you all from the back benches, other than the First Minister, of course, who I will only ever treat with the deepest of respect. [Laughter.] But I'm going to be here and I'm looking forward to being with you all and using the freedom of the back benches for some of those more imaginative contributions, which, when you're doing this job, you're a bit constrained from offering.

Thank you very much to you all. [Applause.] 

I was going to thank him for his diligence and his commitment. I was also going to ask him not to be a trouble for Chairs when he's on the back benches as well, but there we are.

We will know take a five-minute break before Stage 3 proceedings. 

Welcome back. Item 5 today is the Stage 3 consideration of the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill.

The first group of amendments relates to Part 1—significant infrastructure projects: energy. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 34. I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to the amendment and other amendments in that group—Delyth Jewell.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I say at the outset that I realise that this debate isn't happening in a vacuum? This may be the last piece of legislation where I'll be addressing the current make-up of the Cabinet. If that is the case, I'd like to commend the Minister for her efforts not just with this Bill, but how she has always worked with me in this role. Her collaborative approach has been instrumental in shaping this legislation. Her dedication to working with us on crucial amendments underscores our shared commitment to tackling the pressing issues of our time. I hope that this is not the last time and that she will still be in this post to see this legislation through.

At the heart of this Bill there lies a dual imperative: facilitating the timely and effective delivery of major infrastructure projects and ensuring that we meet our net-zero emissions goals. Whilst we champion this progress towards a sustainable future, it is imperative that we do so with an unwavering commitment to balance the needs of our climate with the preservation of our natural world. We must remain vigilant against actions that prioritise expedience at the expense of biodiversity and ecological integrity. Expediting the construction of large-scale developments, be they grid enhancements or solar farms, must not come at the detriment of our precious natural habitats. It is our responsibility to ensure that any development aligns with principles of environmental stewardship and sustainable growth. Those are some of the tensions inherent in this legislation.

Furthermore, it's imperative that this legislation reflects the diverse voices and concerns of our communities. We have tirelessly pursued amendments and advocated for changes to democratise the planning system, making it more accessible and responsive to the needs of our constituents, empowering communities to participate actively in decision-making processes to ensure development initiatives are not only effective, Dirprwy Lywydd, but also reflective of local values and aspirations.

I speak to amendments 34 and 35, tabled in my name in this group, and the consequential amendments to them. The purpose of these amendments is to prompt a debate on strengthening existing policy guidance and the approach relating to community ownership and local ownership. Now, there is a suggestion put forward by the Institute of Welsh Affairs that between 5 per cent and 33 per cent community or local ownership should be attained for these projects. There is currently a target for community ownership, so it has been argued that specifying a percentage of community and local ownership in legislation would strengthen this policy, and this is because, at present, some developers are perhaps cynically trying to game the system by establishing local bases in Wales to meet the requirements.

Now, we have decided against this approach because it would mean that the significant infrastructure project regime would be accommodating a much larger number of smaller scale energy-generating projects. Now, these 5 MW to 49 MW projects may also become unviable for developers to pursue due to the requirements of the SIP process. There may be a number of unintended consequences from this approach that we don't know about. So, Dirprwy Lywydd, we have opted for an amendment on regulation-making powers to specify a percentage of local or community ownership in subordinate legislation. This would, I hope, allow the Government to agree to the principle of the amendments without the risk that the specified percentage is something they cannot agree to. 

The definition of local ownership could also be strengthened. Currently, we are seeing large companies with majority shareholders outside of Wales—outside of the UK—registering a business in Cardiff, as I've said, to meet the requirements currently in place. It could be that a minimum of 51 per cent should be owned by persons residing in Wales or corporate bodies that are established in Wales. This would also apply to persons of significant control, if they exist. The desired effect of the amendment would be to increase community ownership and local ownership of renewable energy schemes in Wales. It supports the retention of wealth within local communities in Wales. It also enables Welsh communities to benefit meaningfully from the transition to net zero. 

I would ask the Minister, when responding, if it is the case that—. Because I know that, when we had discussions on this at Stage 2, the Minister had pointed out that this legislation is meant to be process legislation and not policy legislation. If there are to be other enabling provisions that would be brought forward, I would welcome hearing about that. I commend, as well, Adam Price's work in this area. He will be speaking to some of the other amendments in this group, and I look forward very much to hearing from other Members on the amendments in this group. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who's been involved in the development of this legislation so far: of course, in particular, Minister, you for your co-operation and, indeed, for accepting some of our amendments, your officials and those giving evidence, and from our side of things, Mostyn Jones, Molly Skates and, of course, Katie Wyatt has been very helpful. Their helpful advice has been greatly appreciated and has facilitated what has been a significant effort by the Welsh Conservative group to strengthen this legislation.

Indeed, during Stages 2 and 3, I have tabled 125 amendments. That volume is a consequence of the fact that the Bill does actually fail to deliver the best possible streamlined and unified process and empower communities to better understand and engage. Incredibly, the original Bill had 35 instances where detailed provisions would be included in regulations, and we are set to see more added today, because Delyth's amendment 35 makes it a requirement for developments to demonstrate that they have satisfied the minimum local ownership requirement. It's a fascinating amendment, but the problem is that the definition of local ownership is to be set out in the regulations.

As my colleague Joel James highlighted in Stage 2, I genuinely think that this Bill would be more likely to achieve its aim if all the sections requiring secondary legislation were put out to consultation and then the Bill amended based on those responses. We should consider what would happen if an energy project did not have local ownership. It would likely stay with the local authority to determine, which is a problem because of their own challenges with determining such applications. Of course, there would be an opportunity for local residents to request that Welsh Ministers call in the application, so it would end up with the Welsh Government, ultimately.

Another problem is that, in the absence of a definition of local ownership, we do not know the impact on major companies that are investing in the Welsh energy sector. Would RWE, EDF Renewables or Bute Energy be classified as local? If not, would their investment be deterred and the requirements become a barrier to Wales achieving its energy potential? During Stage 2, Plaid Cymru advised that the amendment was deliberately focused on electricity-generating projects because that's where the policy debate and focus around the question of local ownership is concentrated at this stage. This Bill should be fit, not just for the present, but for the future too. So, I do believe that the limitation of the amendment to energy is a weakness. On the basis that we do not know what 'local' means, we will be voting against 34, 35 and 38 today.

Amendment 4 stems from the concerns raised by the Llanarthne and Area Community Pylon Group. They highlighted the exclusion of certain types of electrical lines both above and below ground from the Bill's definitions. I acknowledge that if we brought the undergrounding of electric cables in their entirety into this regime, we could increase planning cycles where they are currently permitted development. Nonetheless, I do not doubt that there will be instances where the development, which includes undergrounding, should be brought under this new regime. 

Finally, Llanarthne and Area Community Pylon Group also expressed uncertainty surrounding why certain electrical line voltages were included or excluded, and how this might affect the overall objective of simplifying the application process and, consequently, amendment 5 leaves out 132 kW. As you know, the amendment does not take the Bill out of Senedd competence, but would require applicants to refer to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Bearing in mind that so much of this Bill leaves detail to secondary legislation, I do not see why there should be an objection to an amendment that would necessitate understanding of other legislation too. Diolch.

As Delyth Jewell said at the outset, amendments 34, 35 and 38 seek to provide greater clarity and more ability to ensure that the Government's current policy is delivered. Since 2020, the Government have stated that they want to see all electricity-generating projects in Wales having a percentage of local ownership. So, that's the current policy. The problem is, as the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales, NICW, points out in its recent report on renewable energy, that there are no powers at present to ensure that that policy objective is delivered.

There are other nations where what this amendment seeks to achieve is already included in legislation. So, in Denmark, for example, every project that generates electricity must offer a percentage of local ownership to local people. I think, in the case of Denmark, it is 20 per cent, and the same kind of arrangement exists in parts of Belgium too.

The National Infrastructure Commission for Wales, in its recommendations, does suggest that the general minimum level should be set at 20 per cent, reflecting what happens in Denmark, but they suggest that for this kind of project, which is going to go through an accelerated planning process, there should be a higher threshold. That is, in order for you to benefit from an accelerated process, there should be a threshold of 40 per cent, with 20 per cent for local people who live near the relevant project, and then an additional 20 per cent in terms of a broader definition of local ownership, including, for example, local authorities.

I think those details explain why we are suggesting through this amendment that we should further develop the exact minutiae in terms of how the offer is to be made and what the definition of 'local ownership' is, because, clearly, there needs to be a broader discussion on those points.

I think that the Minister, in her remarks in the committee, was very adamant that this was a process Bill not a policy Bill, and I'm sure we'll probably return to that argument shortly. I'm wondering if there is a possible way forward here, because I know that the Minister is very sympathetic towards the goal. And I'm very disappointed to hear the Conservatives not supporting the principle of local ownership here, when I hear people who are Conservative Party members saying that we can't have a situation where externally owned companies are exploiting Wales's natural resources. Well, here is a policy solution to that very problem, and yet you're saying you're not supporting it.

By the way, I should have probably done this at the beginning of my remarks, but I should declare an interest, Deputy Presiding Officer, in that I'm a resident of the Tywi valley and there is a particular project that is exercising our minds being proposed for the Tywi valley at the moment. But here is a solution.

A potential way forward to implement or achieve the policy goal the Government has had now for four years would be to do what the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales is suggesting, which is not to do it here via this amendment, but actually to bring forward a separate Bill on renewable energy that would have within it, then, as in Denmark, as in some of the provinces of Belgium, a mandatory requirement for all electricity-generating developments to have a minimum share of local ownership, offered in the ways that I've described.

Indeed, that Bill could also address other areas, couldn't it, that the community sector within renewable energy have been calling for, to give the power for community-owned projects to actually provide electricity to the grid, to be involved in local supply. So, that would enable us to begin to create smart energy systems, local energy systems, that were locally owned, locally embedded, where the benefit was actually delivered and maintained for those local residents.

So, there may be other ways in which we can achieve the goal, but the current system, Deputy Presiding Officer, the current policy, doesn’t work. The voluntary system isn’t working to the extent that we would want, because there are plenty of examples of existing, or projects in the pipeline, that do not have substantial elements of local ownership. And one of the consequences of that is that it is obviously leading to opposition to renewable energy, because people see history repeating itself: Wales’s fantastic natural resources once again being exploited, not for the benefit of citizens in Wales, but often—as is the case—externally owned companies, with all of that profit leaving Wales. And that means that, actually, we will then face a more uphill struggle in terms of the very necessary task in terms of decarbonisation.

There’s plenty of evidence internationally that community ownership is one of the best means possible of accelerating the path towards decarbonisation, because then citizens are actually involved in the process and they support it. So, I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say, but is the Minister prepared to make a commitment to bring forward a Bill, as suggested by NICW, which would have essentially what we’re trying to achieve in this amendment at the heart of that Bill?

In terms of amendment 4, which is creating a sort of parity in terms of allowing undergrounding of electricity lines to be included as significant infrastructure projects, I heard what the Minister said during committee in terms of permitted development rights, but I think it is right in terms of large-scale underground lines, and I think the view within the Plaid Cymru group is that it would be clearer to have this contained within the Bill. I realise that the Minister, through section 22, can add categories to it, but I think it is the right thing to do to support that.

In terms of amendment 5, and the latest conversation I had with the Llanarthne group, I understand the purpose of the amendment, Janet, but I think maybe the wording might not be the correct one. Because I think there is a case for including within the SIP definition 66 kV—my electrical engineering knowledge is being tested here—and 33 kV, potentially, as SIPS. I think when you get down to the level of 11 kV on wooden poles, then actually you might be making it quite difficult for projects that really don’t need this route. So, I understand what you’re trying to achieve, but on that basis, I think it would possibly be better if the Minister would undertake to consider whether there is a case for including those more medium voltages using the section 22—I think, if I’m correct, Minister—powers. So, maybe, Minister, if you could address that in your comments. Diolch yn fawr.

 I call on the Minister.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I just want to start by welcoming the opportunity to debate these amendments to the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill today, and to start by expressing my thanks to all Members for the scrutiny of this Bill, and particularly those Members who have tabled amendments to the Bill and have worked with us to table amendments to the Bill as well.

I want to place on record my assurance to Members that I’ve considered carefully each and every amendment tabled, and it’s not possible to support all the amendments, but I think there are a number of opportunities where the intention behind the amendments can be reflected within the subordinate legislation going forward. And I’m sure that the Government will be very keen to work with people on that subordinate legislation to make sure that those shared goals are reflected there.

I’m going to speak on amendments 34, 35 and 38 together, as all the amendments are concerned with local ownership requirements for energy generation projects. Amendment 35 would provide that electricity generating stations within 2(1)(a) to (d) of the Bill must demonstrate they meet requirements for local ownership, the definition of which would be contained in regulations. The amendment includes that regulations must set rules by which offers of local ownership must be made, and amendments 34 and 38 are consequential to that.

I’m afraid I don’t support the amendments, but I am happy to support amendment 32, tabled by Delyth Jewell, which although not part of this group, I think achieves much the same objective in a more appropriate way. As predicted by Adam Price there, I don’t support amendments 34 and 35, as local ownership requirements are matters of policy. And I just want to say, Dirprwy Lywydd—I'm going to be saying this a lot through the Bill—that this is a Bill about the procedure and process for infrastructure consenting and is not at all concerned with the content of policies used to make decisions on those infrastructure consents. Policy issues are deliberately excluded from the Bill so that whatever the policy of any future Government, this remains a suitable process. Including policy commitments on the face of this Bill would entirely change that and would mean we would probably face additional primary legislation in order to just change a process, which we have tried to avoid. So, this is very much about futureproofing the process of the Bill regardless of the policy.

I think our policy is clear. We support a lot of work through Ynni Cymru and Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru to encourage local ownership in the community. We do think this is the right approach to balance the requirement to retain value in Wales, but to progress the scale of new renewable development we need. I am more than happy to talk about policy, but the policy should not be in a Bill about process. I think the amendments have positive intentions, but I just don't think this is the appropriate mechanism to bring that intention forward. I've also mentioned I'm supportive of amendment 32, which I believe achieves the same aim as amendments 34, 35 and 38 without the unintended consequences of legislating for policy in this Bill.

I will just briefly touch on amendment 32 here to set out why I think it's a better solution. Because although it's not part of this grouping, it does place a requirement on developers to set out their proposals for community benefit during the pre-application consultation period, and for developers to show how they have taken account of those proposals. The pre-application consultation report will ensure applicants follow the process set out in our local ownership guidance and consider community benefits from the outset. It will also make it clear to the public how that process has been undertaken and what account has been taken of their views. I do think this is the best approach to require applicants to demonstrate that they have explored the option of local ownership in a meaningful way in line with the current guidance. It also applies to all projects and ensures matters of policy are outside of the Bill.

There is an issue about the process anyway, as we did discuss at great length in the committee, but just to repeat it here—and Janet did touch a little bit on it—it would simply mean that projects that didn't meet the local ownership threshold just weren't part of this process; it doesn't stop them coming forward. And I think, actually, exploring a point of policy where we might discourage them coming forward at all would be a better way forward. What would actually happen here—and I think Janet mentioned this specifically—is that the application that didn't contain whatever the local ownership threshold was would simply go to the local authority, the local authority would probably not have the skills to do it properly, and actually they would probably end up being taken to court for non-determination of the application. So, I think you'd possibly set up a negative circle that was unintended. But I do understand the intention of the amendment and I very much favour it. I do think there will be appropriate points in time to bring that forward in a way that doesn't have that unintended loop consequence, which I think this one would have.

On amendment 4, the amendment would mean underground electricity cables are subject to consent under the Bill, and I just don't support this amendment. 'Planning Policy Wales' already states our preferred position is, where possible, that new power lines should be undergrounded to reduce the visual impact. We support that policy as it's often the case that underground electric lines are permitted development. I also note that technology on the construction of underground lines is advancing all the time, meaning it's less disruptive than it once was. As I'm sure everyone in the Chamber is very aware, planning policy is kept under review permanently and is flexible to further changes.

We are currently planning to convene an independent group to look at the evidence on undergrounding and to develop wider principles for new grid infrastructure in Wales. This work will continue to inform our planning policy. Ien fact, as everyone in the Chamber, I think, knows, there's been a recent development on the electricity system operator process, which will mean that this is very much in the forefront of any Government's mind.

I do think that bringing underground cables into the regime in the way proposed would mean the costs of undergrounding might actually increase and might reduce the likelihood of the method being used, somewhat counterproductively. We think it's sufficiently clear on underground electric cables already and amending the Bill to include this could cause unintended consequences. The issue is about the threshold, as Adam Price said. It would be about what length of undergrounding do we think should be included. That's not possible here. And, at the moment, if you wanted to underground electric cable from the pavement to your house, for example, it would be a permitted development; we don't want to inadvertently bring that into the planning regime. So, I'm more than happy to work on the regulations going forward, but I do think we should reject the amendment as it's currently drafted—that's amendment 4.

Amendment 5 removes reference to electricity infrastructure falling under the Bill being required to have a nominal voltage of 132 kV. There's no legal effect to this change, and it makes the drafting less clear. I don't support the amendment. The Senedd only has competence for those lines having a nominal voltage of 132 kV. Removal of the words would make the Bill less clear, as the reader would need to read the Bill and the Government of Wales Act 2006 to understand the projects that fall under the Bill. So, it wouldn't change anything, but it would mean they would have to look up a different Act to see what was covered. We think that reduces access to Welsh law, and therefore we call on Members to reject the amendment. So, just to be clear, Dirprwy Lywydd, I call on Members to reject amendments 34, 4, 5, 35 and 38 in this group. Diolch.

I call on Delyth Jewell to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate.

Thank you, Janet, for saying that one of our amendments is 'fascinating'. As you'll know, I and we tend to prefer that things would be on the face of the Bill. I hope that I have set out already why in this instance we took this particular tack. The amendments in my name in this group are an attempt to start a conversation, as I had said. The principle of local ownership must be safeguarded.

Adam talked about the inspiration behind these amendments, but as NICW has pointed out, there is no way to ensure that the policy that the Government has is delivered. So, this is a challenge or an opportunity, in a way, to deliver on that principle.

Every chance to help and to empower our communities should be exploited. Our landscapes and communities themselves should not be. We cannot allow history to be repeated or the tales of Wales's past to be dragged into her future. I do welcome what the Minister said about trying to cover these principles in subordinate legislation. I would still press, for much of the reasons that Adam had set our as well, for primary legislation here. It's what NICW have said as well. Unless I misunderstood the Minister, I don't think that that is being proposed explicitly in the immediate future, so we will still be pushing these to a vote, but we would of course welcome the opportunity to pursue these principles further with the Government. I'm grateful to Members and the Minister for their remarks. Diolch yn fawr.

The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.]

There is, and therefore we will proceed to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 11, no abstentions, 41 against. 

Therefore, the amendment falls.

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 4, do you move?

I move.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.]

Yes. Let's go to a vote, please. Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against.

And therefore, amendment 4 falls. 

Janet, amendment 5.

I move.

Is there an objection to amendment 5? [Objection.] There is, therefore we move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, 11 abstentions, and 27 against, therefore amendment 5 falls. 

Delyth, amendment 35. 

The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.]

Then we will move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote.  

In favour 11, no abstentions, 41 against.

Therefore, amendment 35 falls, as does amendment 38.

We move now on to group 2, Part 1—significant infrastructure projects, other amendments. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 6, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group. 

Thank you. I move amendment 6 in my name. Amendment 6 makes it so developments relating to the transfer of water resources is a significant infrastructure project if the development does or does not relate to the transfer of drinking water. During Stage 2, you highlighted that any water pipes, including those supplying houses on a new housing estate, would need to be considered in case they fell within the threshold. I'm yet to see any reason as to why pipes carrying drinking water should be excluded. If the new regime is effective, it should not lead to any delays.

Amendment 7 makes provision for the following developments to be a SIP: the construction of a waste water treatment plant; the construction of infrastructure for the transfer or storage of waste water; the alteration of a waste water treatment plant; and the alteration of infrastructure for the transfer or storage of waste water. Building on Stage 2, I've added an additional subsection to provide that infrastructure, including pipeline replacement, will be a SIP if the replaced infrastructure has a storage capacity exceeding 350,000 cu m. That is in line with the volume provided by you in section 14.

Amendment 8 will ensure that the power to add, vary or remove projects should only be used following consultation with stakeholders.

The final amendment, amendment 9, addresses the potential complexity of cross-border projects. For example, RenewableUK Cymru highlighted the challenges for future cross-border projects where concurrent applications to the Welsh and English consent processes might be necessary according to NRW. To navigate these complexities successfully, all involved parties would need to be well informed about the requirements of different regimes. What my amendment would do for such circumstances is set a requirement in law for Welsh Ministers to consult with the United Kingdom Government to seek to agree an approach in respect of cross-border projects. During Stage 2, the Minister highlighted that early engagement with our English counterparts will be essential to striking the right balance and ensuring co-operation between determining authorities. So important is that co-operation that it should be included in Welsh law. Diolch.

I call on the Minister.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to thank Janet Finch-Saunders for tabling the amendments in this group.

I'll speak on amendment 6 first. This amendment would result in infrastructure projects for the transfer of drinking water falling within the remit of the Bill, but the Planning Act 2008 sets a precedent for determining a threshold for this type of project, and the Bill just replicates that precedent. I see no evidence at all that the threshold in the Bill is inappropriate, and there are potential unintended consequences to amending the threshold. So, I see no reason for the threshold to be altered at this time. The amendment would mean that any water pipe, including those going to houses, would need to be considered in case they fell within the threshold. This would mean a change to the Bill that has not been considered, and I would want to consult stakeholders before even considering that change. I just think it's unnecessary, and adds complexity where none is necessary. I would always, of course, be happy to consider evidence on these types of projects and whether they should fall within the new regime, but we have simply not seen such evidence, and I therefore call on Members to reject the amendment.

Amendment 7 would insert the word 'replacement' infrastructure for the transfer of water storage. We do not consider this is needed or necessary. During Stage 2, I did indeed outline that I was not certain what the amendment is intended to capture. Is this the entire replacement of a project, or replacement of part of that project? So, for example, would replacement of 100m of pipe mean the whole system would fall within the Bill? It remains my view that the amendment is not necessary. I consider 'replacement' would just be a construction of new infrastructure to replace the old, or possibly an alteration of the old infrastructure, depending on the extent of the alteration. I would not want to capture 100m of pipe being replaced, as that would be clearly disproportionate, but I would consider where the project was above the threshold replacement would be captured. I just don't think the amendment is therefore required. It would effectively have no legal effect, and I therefore call on Members to reject it.

Amendment 8 seeks to require the Welsh Ministers to consult parties before adding, varying or removing a project from the face of the Bill. I do understand where the amendment is coming from, but we already have a commitment to consult in accordance with general public law principles and in line with our consultation policy. Further, this provision is also subject to the draft affirmative procedure, as set out in section 137(3) and (4). This will mean a further level of scrutiny and Senedd approval of any changes.

In terms of the specific amendment, I feel the wording would need to be reconsidered in the interests of clear law, for example there is uncertainty over who determines what persons are necessarily to be consulted. This could lead to many unintended consequences, and I call on Members to reject the amendment.

Turning to amendment 9, the amendment would require the Welsh Ministers to consult with the UK Government to agree an approach in relation to a cross-border project. I do understand again the intent of the amendment. Early engagement with English counterparts would be essential to strike the right balance and to ensure co-operation between determining authorities, but I don't think it's necessary to place that requirement on the face of the Bill.

In the spirit of the principles set out in the jointly agreed review of inter-governmental relations, officials work closely with their counterparts within the UK Government. For example, officials have been discussing the review of the nationally significant infrastructure project consenting system and the overlap with how our statutory consultees engage with the two processes. Planning and Environment Decisions Wales also have engagement with the Planning Inspectorate in England, to the benefit of both of our systems.

The review of inter-governmental relations also provides a clear mechanism for England to engage with us where needed. I do understand, therefore, the intent, but for me this is not a matter for legislation, but good practice between consenting bodies, supported by the review of inter-governmental relations, which would cover any breakdown that may happen in our positive working relationships on consenting.

Therefore, Dirprwy Lywydd, I call on Members to reject amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9. Diolch.

I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Let's move to the vote, please.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote. Open the vote. 

Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. 

Therefore, amendment 6 is not agreed.

Janet, amendment—

I move amendment 7.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Then we will now move to a vote. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. 

Therefore, amendment 7 is not agreed.

Janet, amendment 8.

I move.

The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.]

There is an objection, therefore we'll move to a vote. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against.

Amendment 8 is not agreed. 

I move amendment 9.

Therefore, the question is: is there an objection to amendment 9? [Objection.] There is, therefore we'll move to a vote on amendment 9.

Open the vote. Close the vote. 

In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 9 is not agreed. 

We will now move on to group 3, and this third group of amendments relates to Part 3, applying for infrastructure consent: assistance for applicants. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 25, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and others in this group.

Thank you. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Amendment 25 relates to pre-application services, and in particular the resource burden for those offering services. At Stage 2, I submitted an amendment to remove local planning authorities from section 27 so that only Welsh Ministers would be required to provide assistance to applicants. Local planning authorities are already hugely stretched, primarily due to a lack of resources. For example, whilst planning permission should typically be determined within eight weeks, Bridgend takes an average of 26 weeks. During Stage 2, our colleague Huw Irranca-Davies MS agreed with the point that our local government planning officers and planning departments are already overstretched. Understandably, there needs to be a wider discussion about that, but it is important, too, that the legislation does not ignore the challenging context as we do create this new regime for Wales. 

As such, I have listened to what the Minister has to say and so changed the amendment to focus on making sure that there is regard for Welsh Ministers to ensure assistance and resources are provided to planning authorities or Natural Resources Wales to assist with the provision of pre-application services. I hope that is a solid central ground that we can all agree on.

Finally, amendment 10 attempts to provide more information on pre-application services. This is an amendment to further our intention for the Welsh Ministers to publish details regarding information about fees on a website owned and maintained by them. During Stage 2, the Minister agreed that making information available is vitally important, including for pre-application services. I hope, then, you can support the amendment today. Diolch.

I call on the Minister. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I would like to thank Janet and other Members for their comments, both during Stage 2, where we had quite a long debate on this point, and Janet today. Amendment 25 would allow regulations relating to the provision of pre-application services to specify what assistance and resources could be provided to local planning authorities and Natural Resources Wales by the Welsh Ministers to help them undertake this duty, where requested by applicants. I do, of course, acknowledge the significant issue of resourcing, but I have ensured the Bill has made provision for the charging of fees, which will allow these bodies to recover their full costs for providing these pre-application services. I am also very committed to working with local authorities, Natural Resources Wales and other relevant stakeholders to determine what the fee levels should be to ensure their costs can be fully recovered. And there will be a consultation paper issued later in the spring, which will seek views and recommendations on appropriate fee levels.

Regarding providing assistance, again I acknowledge both local authorities and Natural Resources Wales do need to have the capability and capacity to provide appropriate and timely advice, particularly on very specialist matters. However, the pre-application services provided by local planning authorities and Natural Resources Wales will ultimately deal with matters based on their local knowledge and expertise of their respective areas and therefore I do not envisage the need for assistance to be required on a regular basis. It's also the case that, if we remove them through the Bill, the only way the Welsh Ministers could actually do what Janet suggests is by asking the local authorities to assist them with local knowledge. So, all it does is put another layer in. I don't really think it achieves what you're attempting to achieve.

Local authorities already provide pre-application services for certain projects consented through the Bill. So, for example, developments of national significance, and they are already familiar with what sort of information and advice they would likely be required to provide to prospective applicants. However, the Government is committed to working closely with local authorities and Natural Resources Wales to discuss how certain specialist knowledge and expertise in specific matters can be potentially shared. That's not a matter for legislation, but it does help towards both resourcing and assistance when providing pre-application services. So, because of the reasons I've set out, Dirprwy Lywydd, I do not support this amendment and I'd encourage Members not to support the amendment either.

Amendment 10 would require the Welsh Ministers to publish the pre-application services offered, along with a list of fees, on a website owned and maintained by them. But it would also remove any requirement for local planning authorities and Natural Resources Wales to undertake such an activity. The fundamental issue here is the removal of local planning authorities and Natural Resources Wales from the pre-application service process. I do completely agree that making information available regarding what pre-application services are offered, along with any relevant fees, is vitally important for clarity and transparency, and in fact, the existing provision at section 27 of the Bill already does just that. However, local planning authorities and Natural Resources Wales must also be required to provide pre-application services if requested, because of their knowledge and expertise in their respective areas. They can offer certain details and information that would be beneficial to developers that the Welsh Ministers simply may not have. I would therefore ask Members not to support this amendment. Diolch.

Janet, do you wish to reply?

Move to the vote, please.

Therefore, the question is that amendment 25 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore we will proceed to a vote. Open the vote.

Close the vote.

In favour 14, 11 abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 25 is not agreed.

Janet, amendment 10.

I move.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore we will proceed to a vote.

Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 14, 11 abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 10 is not agreed.

We will now move on to group 4, and the fourth group of amendments relates to Part 3, applying for infrastructure consent: pre-application and application procedure. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 26, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and others in this group.

Thank you. Amendment 26 aims to amend section 29 of the Bill to require the applicant to provide a statement of proposals to consult with the local community. I submitted a similar amendment at Stage 2 and have listened to the Minister's feedback. As such, the requirement for a form to be published by Welsh Ministers has been removed. The Minister was also critical of the drafting of local community living in the vicinity of the land on which the proposed development is located, at Stage 2, so we proposed amending this at Stage 3. However, it is difficult to precisely define who the local community are, as this will vary from development to development, and will be impacted on by the type of development and the scale of it. As such, I have replicated the drafting style from section 99(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which includes the wording:

'to consult with the persons or representatives of persons who appear to the authority to be persons who will be affected by the application'. 

Now, unlike in group 1 this afternoon, where there was no definition of 'local', I have endeavoured to provide a practical and workable solution. The same is true for amendment 27, which would include more detail on the face of the Bill rather than rely again on regulations. Similarly, amendment 28 places more information on the face of the Bill. At Stage 2, I replaced section 30 of the Bill with Chapter 2 of the Planning Act 2008, as a probing amendment. To address the Minister's comments, I did remove subsection (2) from the prior amendment, the 'have regard' duty. The Minister did seem sympathetic to the idea of published guidance, so a simple power to do so is being proposed. I have no objection to amendments 32 and 33 by Delyth Jewell, nor amendment 1 by Julie James. And I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her kind co-operation, so thank you, Minister.

I've been pleased to work with you and your team on amendment 11. The amendment places a requirement on Welsh Ministers to publish a statement of reasons where a specified deadline for submitting representations on an application for infrastructure consent is extended. The statement of reasons published must be given to those notified under section 33(2) of the Bill. Section 33(8) is also amended so that, if a direction was previously issued, a further direction must be issued. This further direction would require the applicant to issue a further notice to the same persons as the original notice, and undertake further publicity in the same way that was previously required. Diolch.

I rise briefly to speak to and to move amendments 32 and 33. Now, these amendments, though they're tabled in my name, were developed in conjunction with Adam Price—between Adam Price and the Welsh Government, I should say. Now, Adam will be speaking to them in greater depth. Adam's thoughts on this were the catalyst for this work. 

I truly welcome the work that Adam's been doing on this legislation. I look forward to hearing his further comments. But these amendments have been inspired once again by the need to empower communities, which is the major opportunity we have with this legislation. So, I look forward to hearing what other Members have to say, particularly Adam, on these amendments.  

First, I'd like to remind Members of my declared interests in both Siemens and Awel Aman Tawe, both of whom are involved in the business of renewable energy generation. I'd also like to add my tribute to Julie James for her ably leading on this infrastructure Bill, whose intention is to streamline the process for handling of significant infrastructure projects and increase the transparency of how significant applications are to be scrutinised. It's absolutely essential for the well-being of Wales, its prosperity and our obligations to meet our net-zero commitments that we make the transition away from fossil fuels as quickly and as prudently as possible, without undermining rigorous scrutiny of what are normally multimillion-pound proposals. 

Both in the oral evidence that the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee took, and in the stakeholder events that I attended, one of the most important messages we heard is the importance of using modern communications technology to ensure that any and all documents relating to significant infrastructure development, both on a specific application and any inevitable changes in the planning framework, all need to be held in a single portal for reasons of both efficiency as well as transparency, so that the citizen as well as the experts can consider any and all relevant aspects of a specific proposal. 

I know that the Counsel General, Mick Antoniw, has done a lot of preparatory work to rationalise Welsh law to make it more accessible, and I wish him luck with the continuance of that venture, but it follows that any tidying up of Welsh law will obviously mean changes in Welsh law. And if the laws of our land are so impenetrable that they can only be understood by a bevy of lawyers, then they're obviously not passing the transparency test. The aim of the Bill must be to make the process intelligible to the citizen as well as being cost effective for the applicant. 

So, on the principle as well as the specifics of section 30—and I support amendment 32—I'd like some assurance as to how the regulations that are going to be linked to the process of handling this Bill are going to apply those principles. Many of the clauses that we've already inserted are very specific on, for example, that each Member of the Senedd representing an area potentially affected by a development has to be informed, but not on the how. So, while I accept that any Minister will be keen to achieve cost effectiveness in whatever regulations are laid, I want to probe the Minister as to why it's not been possible to be specific in the Bill to ensure that this single portal for any relevant piece of legislation will be accessible to the citizen when they're thinking about how they might wish to support or object to a specific project in their area. 

I'd like to speak to amendments 32 and 33 in the name of my fellow Member Delyth Jewell. As Delyth has said, these amendments emerged from the discussion that we had in another group relating to local ownership. These amendments at least make a contribution to facilitating that process of encouraging and facilitating more local people to take an element of community ownership.

Amendment 32 takes the model or the template provided by the collaborative benefits report, which already exists in the context of the current, matching process, which is DNS, the developments of national significance. But that is on a voluntary basis at the moment. So, there are some developers who do decide to consolidate what they have in terms of community benefits in a report, and there are some that decide not to do that. What this amendment does very simply is to make it mandatory to produce a report that does summarise those community benefits and, as the Minister said in her previous comments, that can then include local ownership.

So, there’s a benefit in terms of transparency, which is one of the objectives of this Bill, in that this ensures that citizens, local people, everyone in fact, can have easy access to all of the information in order to assess and to judge a project and the intentions of developers in terms of everything that’s included under that heading of community benefits. So, it is a significant step forward. I think Wales would be the first to make it mandatory—perhaps the Minister has further information on that. So, it is a significant step forward, and I am grateful to Government officials and the Minister for working with us to get this amendment right.

Also, as this will be my final contribution to this debate, I want to give my general thanks to the Minister for the way that she has engaged with Members, and her willingness always to meet with Members and to look constructively on all occasions at any new ideas, and to consider them fairly and reasonably, and to see whether co-operation is appropriate in reaching our aims, in other ways on occasion. So, I’m grateful for the Minister’s approach to this issue and other issues within her remit.

Amendment 33 is also pertinent to this theme of how we encourage or facilitate more local ownership, how we empower local communities to become owners, or part-owners at least, of projects. And quite simply—it does sound slightly technical because it is technical, but, quite simply—what it delivers is to ensure that, if there is a change of ownership in the equity of a project during that pre-application process, or as part of the pre-application process, that is, a percentage of ownership has gone into local hands, then you don’t have to start the whole process over again. Because that does create a barrier at the moment, because it leads to additional costs and it creates a disincentive in the minds of developers, because they think that, 'If we do release a percentage of ownership to the local level, we’ll have to go through that whole process again.'

So, this amendment simply removes that barrier. It means that, if the nature of the ownership of the project evolves during that process because there is local ownership, the project can still be driven forward in terms of where it is in the process at that given time. So, these two amendments are certainly a contribution, I think, towards the aim that we share in terms of ensuring that we do reach a greater level of local ownership. So, I am particularly grateful for the Government's assistance to date, and I hope that the Senedd will confirm its support for these amendments too.

I call on the Minister.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I just want to thank all the Members as well. We have actually worked very collaboratively across this, and it's been a real pleasure to be able to do so.

I'll first deal with the Government amendment. Amendment 1 makes a minor amendment to section 33 of the Bill by inserting the word 'and' after 'section' on page 24, line 4. This is clearly a technical drafting amendment only; the amendment ensures clarity, and I'd encourage Members to accept the amendment.

Turning to the non-Government amendments, and amendment 26, the purpose of this amendment is to require applicants to submit a statement of how they intend to carry out pre-application consultation with their notification of an application. I do understand what the proposal is trying to do. It's trying to require applicants to set out what they tend to do, and who they will engage with, as part of their pre-application consultation. However, it raises serious concerns that the easiest way for applicants to do that is to simply state they intend to undertake the statutory minimum requirements and offer nothing further. This completely defeats the purpose of the proposed amendment and, furthermore, as section 29 of the Bill already works as intended, and this proposed amendment could be delivered by subordinate legislation, I propose to retain the existing drafting, which, I think, does the same thing. And as I have mentioned, I do see the merit in the amendment, although I have real concerns that it will just discourage more innovation by developers, because the easiest way to do it would simply be to say, 'We will do the statutory minimum.' However, the Government is committing to consulting on this as part of our proposals for a suite of subordinate legislation, so that industry and community can identify how and where this would be beneficial. So, I'd ask Members not to support the amendment now, but to ensure that we do consult on it as part of the subordinate legislation, which will set out in detail what the pre-application process should look like.

Amendment 27 would set out on the face of the Bill certain parties who must be consulted as part of the pre-application consultation and publicity procedure. Again, I understand the intention behind this, particularly by involving those likely to be affected by an application in the process in an open and transparent manner. There are, however, two issues that it raises. Firstly, specifying who must be consulted as part of a pre-application consultation on the face of the Bill will need to apply to all developments consented by the Bill, both on land and in the Welsh marine area. So, for example, the amendment as proposed specifies consulting Natural Resources Wales in all cases, when this may not be appropriate or proportionate, particularly for developments in the sea, or in an area that doesn't concern NRW. Secondly, the amendment proposes that applicants must consult persons or their representatives

'who appear to the applicant to be persons who will be affected by the application'.

I do thank the Member for seeking to refine the wording. I can see that she has sought to do so following Stage 2. But I'm afraid there are legal issues remaining, because it could easily appear to an applicant—and that's the wording—that a person, group or community would not be likely to be affected by the application, whereas that person, group or community might feel very strongly that they are affected by the application. So, you can see that there's a legal challenge, potentially, there straight away. It might be completely unfair if the applicant was genuine in their assessment, or it might leave a person, group or community out, because the applicant can genuinely feel that, and they genuinely feel that they are affected. So, I think there is, I'm afraid, Janet, still an issue with the wording there, and I can't support the amendment as is, and I ask Members not to support that amendment. Again, we can have a look at the regulations, to make sure that we can get that wording. I understand what you're trying to achieve, so I think the regulations can do it.

Amendment 32 will allow regulations relating to pre-application consultation to specify requirements for the consideration of the benefits a proposed development will have on the local community. I did touch briefly on this amendment when I was speaking in group 1. I believe the amendment as proposed offers the best means for local communities and others to understand the wider benefits of a development. So, for example, the development of a reservoir could provide access to the water for recreational purposes, if appropriate, or, for something like a port development, offering educational opportunities at local schools may offer a positive benefit to the community. I'm therefore happy to support this amendment, and I would encourage other Members to do the same.

Amendment 28 will allow the Welsh Ministers to publish guidance on how applicants can comply with pre-application requirements specified in the Bill. Although I see the merit and completely agree with the idea of publishing guidance and support to provide support to applicants and other stakeholders in relation to the consenting process, I don't believe this amendment actually achieves anything, because there's no duty to provide the guidance. It simply states the Welsh Ministers 'may' publish guidance. As I've previously mentioned, it's always been the Government's intention to publish guidance relating to the consenting process as a whole, and this will, of course, include matters relating to the pre-application process. I think that there's a real issue that, by including this amendment, it might cause confusion about the ability to publish guidance for other areas of the Bill not specifically mentioned. So, there's a statutory interpretation issue there, and I'm afraid, on that basis, I don't support that amendment and I would encourage other Members not to support the amendment.

Amendment 33 is linked to amendment 32. The amendment seeks to address a gap in the Bill relating to potential changes in ownership and therefore, potentially, the identity of the person proposing to apply for infrastructure consent. I see the merits in this amendment, and as it provides legal clarification and does not affect the principles of the Bill, I am very happy to support these amendments and I encourage other Members to do the same.

Amendment 11 will offer greater transparency in the process by requiring the Welsh Ministers to specify their reasons where the period for submitting representations in relation to an application is extended. It also addresses a gap in the process by ensuring that, where the Welsh Ministers have directed another person—for example, the applicant—to undertake certain publicity and notification requirements and subsequently extend the deadline for representations to be made, the Welsh Ministers can direct that person to re-notify those who were originally notified of an application about that extension of time. I do believe that this amendment improves the consenting process, and I am very happy to support it and would therefore encourage other Members to do the same. Diolch.

I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Just to thank the Minister, because, obviously, the co-operation is there, but I still think we should move to the vote this evening.

The question is that amendment 26 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 26. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, 11 abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 26 is not agreed. 

Janet, amendment 27.

Move.

The question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore, we will proceed to a vote. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. 

In favour 14, 11 abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 27 is not agreed. 

Delyth, amendment 32.

The question is that amendment 32 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 32 is agreed.

Janet, amendment 28.

I move.

The question is that amendment 28 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 28. 

Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 14, no abstentions and 38 against. Therefore, amendment 28 is not agreed. 

Delyth, amendment 33.

The question is that amendment 33 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 33 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 1.

I move.

The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

Janet, amendment 11.

I move.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 11 is agreed.

We move on to group 5, and the fifth group of amendments relates to Part 4, examining applications. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 29 and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in this group.

Thank you. Amendment 29 relates to the choice of inquiry—hearing or written procedure—for determining an application. Stage 2 was fascinating, because it highlighted that, whilst I wanted the written procedure to be the default, Delyth wanted the opposite. I will share with you the rationale for my line.

As some here know, I have been directly involved in a number of planning inquiries and hearings. In speaking on behalf of the community, I have previously faced significant barristers, and the applicants have had lawyers, barristers, specialists in the sector, and in one incident, I have to be honest, I was cross-examined for more than an hour, and whilst holding my ground and eventually finding a very old document that meant we won—the hearing went in our favour—nonetheless, it's fair to say I did feel a bit shaken after an hour with a barrister who really knew his stuff. Had that been a member of the community, though—. They were terrified for me, and I was saying, 'No, no, I'm fine.' But they were saying, 'I could not have done what you have done.'

I do believe that, too often, in these hearings and inspections, very well-paid barristers are put forward by developers, and the community have very little expert knowledge other than their elected Members. I just believe that there was all the trouble and the cost of the hearing, and the same positive conclusion reached through writing.

Bearing in mind the passionate views put forward at Stage 2 in favour of hearings, I've tried to find some centre ground by submitting an amendment that would require the examining body to publish reasons why they have chosen the particular method of determination. The same rationale is behind amendment 30. Despite my preference for written determination, we will support amendments 22, 23 and 24 by Delyth.

Amendment 12 is concerned with protecting objectors from the cost of objecting to SIPs. My ambition is to see Welsh Ministers, by regulation, create a fund to enable persons opposed to an application for infrastructure consent to take part in the decision-making process in respect of that application. Provision is made in section 49 for legal assistance to be provided to the examining authority in connection with its examination of an application, but we need to bring some equilibrium into this. We should be establishing a fund to help objectors access professional legal advice, otherwise the process may become dominated by, in some instances, wealthy developers or wealthy organisations who can afford the best possible representation, at any cost, to push forward their clients' application.

Finally, amendment 13 does place a requirement on Welsh Ministers to publish a statement of reason where a direction is made to reopen the examination of an application following the submission of the examining authority's report. Again, I thank the Minister for her co-operation on the latter and sincerely hope that all of you can support the changes we have brought forward in this group. Diolch.

I speak to amendments 22, 23 and 24. Amendment 22 and those consequential to it were amendments that we worked on in collaboration with the Minister, and, again, I'd like to put on record our thanks for this approach. I hope that there will be support for these amendments.

Amendment 22 ensures that a regulation-making power would be placed on the Bill that would allow for open-floor hearings as part of an examination in prescribed circumstances. The amendment would ensure that regulations may set procedures for the handling of open-floor hearings. Open-floor hearings are a fundamentally important way of democratising the planning process, which can be opaque to so many groups of people.

At Stage 2, I argued that it would be inconceivable for a major infrastructure project to be decided by written representations. This would go against all the principles of allowing a fair hearing for those communities and persons affected. It would undermine trust, transparency and public legitimacy for the decision makers concerned. It would mean, perversely, that there would be fewer rights to be heard for people in Wales when compared with England, as there is no mandatory open-floor hearing.

At present, and I said at Stage 2, there are no minimum requirements for allowing participants to respond and to be able to engage. This is hugely detrimental to a fair and objective approach to the evidence. It demonstrates that speed and not quality would be the governing principle behind procedures. Provisions (e) and (f), in particular, would undermine this process. There's no minimum time frame set; decisions can be made if no representations are received in a time frame that could be completely impossible to meet, for example, by interested parties and local communities.

I would draw attention, Dirprwy Lywydd, to the case of the Covanta incinerator application in Merthyr Tydfil between 2010 and 2011, where the community had six weeks to respond once an application was accepted, and the clock immediately started ticking. Thirteen thousand people's names were put on a petition that was submitted to the Welsh Government alongside thousands of representations. Now, some of the community complained about the difficulty of dealing with the paper forms; they would have preferred to register their objections verbally. Around 100 community representatives attended a pre-examination meeting to make their views heard on the important matters to be dealt with by the examination. Dirprwy Lywydd, the open-floor hearing is a crucial part of listening to local voices, just like the opportunity to speak at planning committee. It is important. I think it is vital for democracy that people feel that their voice has been heard, that their voices are heard, and I really hope that the amendment will receive support.

Amendment 24 is again an amendment that we worked on in collaboration with the Minister and her team, so we’re thankful for that approach. The amendment would ensure regulation-making power is included in the Bill at section 42 to allow Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation relating to the venue of any in-person inquiry or hearing. Now, by placing this in subordinate legislation, this would allow time to consult and to define what is meant by the locality of the development, and issues that would need time to consider would include criteria like accessibility, the ability to travel by public transport to that venue, the suitability of the venue to enable live streaming and so on. Again, all of these measures are just aimed at increasing transparency and the democratisation of the process. And I hope that they will receive support. Diolch yn fawr.

 I call on the Minister.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. And I want again to thank the Members for outlining their proposed amendments to Part 4 of the Bill, and I’ll go through each of the amendments in turn.

Amendment 12 is proposed by Janet Finch-Saunders and it proposes to insert a new section in the Bill. The section would provide a regulation-making power, allowing the Welsh Ministers to create a fund for objectors to take part in the decision-making process for infrastructure applications. This amendment does follow a similar one made by the Member at Stage 2, as she said. My views on the principle of making such an amendment to the Bill have not changed, however.

The provisions in the Bill and supporting regulations will allow for individuals and organisations to input into the decision-making process through comprehensive consultations that will be required to be carried out by developers at the pre-application and submission stages. The proposed amendment would weigh in favour of objectors, and I think would not result in a fair and balanced process, allowing comments to be given equal weight on an application. I don’t think cost is a barrier to involvement; Janet herself gave a very good example of her acting on behalf of her constituents at no cost. The system will not impose a cost for those with an interest to make their views heard, as developers will be required to go over and above in their engagement to ensure that local communities and others with an interest can appropriately respond. And indeed, if individuals do need further support in participating, there are tools out there and support will be available. Planning Aid Wales already provides an excellent service that provides communities with invaluable advice and information on how to engage in development proposals.

Further, as always, we encourage individuals to get involved in the policy-making processes, including in any future updates to national development frameworks and 'Planning Policy Wales'. The policy framework determines where infrastructure development can take place, therefore involvement in policy making will allow individuals to shape the type and location of infrastructure development at the earliest possible stage. In other words, we need to have engagement in policy making as well as the public making their views known at the application stages of a specific development. We do carry out extensive engagement on all our draft policy documents. For example, officials undertake extensive engagement with stakeholders on the first national development framework, and the same will occur as part of any future revision. Therefore, for those reasons, I’m afraid I don’t, Janet, support this amendment and call on Members to reject it.

Amendment 13 is again proposed by Janet Finch-Saunders and it inserts a new subsection into section 51, which provides the power to direct further examination. The amendment would require the examining authority to publish a statement of their reasons for reopening the examination of an infrastructure application. This follows on from a similar amendment tabled by the Member at Stage 2, and I fully agree with the principle of making the reasons for the reopening of an examination clear and transparent. This amendment provides a more appropriate form of drafting that meets those objectives. The drafting has been revised since Stage 2, and I’m very happy, Janet, to support your amendment and call on Members to do the same.

Amendment 22, proposed by Delyth Jewell, would add a new regulation-making power to the Bill that would allow for an open-floor hearing to be held as part of the examination of a significant infrastructure project. Amendments 21 and 23 are consequential to the amendment. The proposed amendments follow on from that proposed by Delyth at Stage 2 to make it a requirement for the examining authority to hold an open-floor hearing on an application where at least one interested party requests to do so. I did not accept that amendment due to drafting concerns regarding the administration of the new process, but I've very much taken on board the views of the Member and recognise that, for this new process, there must be sufficient opportunities for interested parties to get involved in the examination of that application. Whilst other mechanisms, such as written representations, will allow for interested parties to have their say on schemes, an open-floor hearing could provide another mechanism for doing so—in this case, in person—and therefore will allow for some degree of flexibility.

The procedure for carrying out an open-floor hearing will, however, warrant detailed consideration to ensure it is compatible with the examination process. For example, matters such as a request by an interested party for an open-floor hearing to take place must be made within a suitable period of time. We can all imagine the issues that it would cause if someone was able to request one day before the application was due to be determined that there was an open-floor hearing. So, the Member's proposal to set out the power in the Bill that will allow clear criteria for open-floor hearings to be prescribed through subordinate legislation is a sensible one as it will allow for those detailed matters to be given appropriate consideration. This should result in public participation in the examination process through this mechanism being carried out in the appropriate way. I do, therefore, support the Member's proposed amendments 21, 22 and 23 to add a regulation-making power for open-floor hearings on the face of the Bill, and I ask Members to do the same, and I thank the Member for her very constructive engagement on the process.

Amendment 24, proposed by Delyth Jewell, would also insert a new subsection into section 42. This section provides for regulations to make provision about the procedure to be followed in connection with the examination of an application. The amendment would enable the Welsh Ministers to make provision in subordinate legislation about the location of any in-person examination event. This amendment follows on from a similar amendment tabled by the Member at Stage 2 that would have required the location of an inquiry to be held as close to the development site as is reasonably practicable. I could not support that amendment due to drafting issues with the wording and some unintended consequences that may have arisen—for example, it did not take into account where events might only be able to be held virtually. Nevertheless, I completely recognise the advantages of hosting in-person examinations in appropriate locations that are close to the proposed development.

I consider the proposed amendment to place this requirement in subordinate legislation alongside other powers for examinations would allow time to consult on what is needed to define suitable locations for examinations, including criteria such as accessibility, ability to travel to the venue by public transport and the suitability of the venue to enable live streaming. I therefore consider the proposed amendment offers the right flexibility to determine how the location of a hearing or inquiry should be defined, and I therefore support it. I commit to involving Members in future work on subordinate legislation regarding this matter and I ask you all to support the amendment.

Amendments 29 and 30 amend section 41 on the choice of inquiry, hearing or written procedure, and section 45 on power of the examining authority to hold a local inquiry. This would make it a requirement for the examining authority to publish their reasons for choosing a particular procedure to examine an application for infrastructure consent. These amendments are not technically required as public law principles covers them generally, where giving reasons for making decisions is as important as making the decision itself. This applies to the examining authority choosing the procedure for examining an application. Current practice for inspectors choosing the examination procedure for developments of national significance requires them to follow that advice in deciding the procedure, which they can reference if people question why a particular procedure has been chosen. Rather than being prescriptive on this requirement in legislation and requiring the examining authority to publish their reasons for choosing an examination procedure for each and every application, it's considered appropriate to keep those details on procedure as a matter for supporting procedural advice or guidance that inspectors are required to follow under the new consenting regime. Therefore, I do not support that amendment and I ask Members to reject it. Diolch.

I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to respond to the debate.

To the vote, please.

The question is that amendment 29 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore, we'll proceed to a vote.

Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 29 is not agreed.

Delyth, amendment 21.

The question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 21 is agreed.

Delyth, amendment 22.

Yes, please.

If amendment 22 is not agreed, amendment 23 falls. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 22 is agreed.

Amendment 23, Delyth.

The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 23 is agreed.

Delyth, amendment 24.

The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 24 is agreed.

Janet, amendment 30.

I move.

The question is that amendment 30 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection and, therefore, we'll go to a vote.

Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 30 is not agreed.

Janet, amendment 12.

I move.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. Therefore, we'll proceed to a vote.

Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 12 is not agreed.

Janet, amendment 13.

I move.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 13 is agreed.

The sixth group of amendments relates to Part 5—statutory policies and other relevant information. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 14, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to that amendment and others in the group.

Amendment 14 relates to our wish to see the Welsh Government pursue nature-positive development policy in Wales. The amendment would insert a new section: a national marine infrastructure development plan for Wales. It would create a legal requirement for there to be a plan prepared and published by the Welsh Ministers, to be known as the 'national marine infrastructure development plan for Wales'. The Welsh Parliament has previously supported my legislative proposal on this matter, and, additionally, our own climate change committee has heard evidence, such as from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Cymru, who felt the existing marine plan wasn't comprehensive enough for marine environment decisions. Along with the Marine Conservation Society, they advocated for a marine development plan. As Huw Irranca-Davies MS pointed out in Stage 2, it's been a long-running issue and a long-running campaign to drive forward our marine planning to get the whole thing in place, and I know that my colleague Joyce Watson has spoken up many times on this issue. Yet, this Welsh Government still has not delivered. We need to do proper planning in the marine environment as we do with terrestrial planning. Environmental organisations, this Senedd, our climate change committee, and me included, have called for a stronger approach to marine planning. This amendment provides an opportunity to transform marine planning for the benefit of all.

Turning to the amendments by Delyth, I am pleased to be able to support 36 and 37. Diolch.

I speak to amendment 36 and those consequential to it. Amendment 36 is a probing amendment. It was tabled with the aim of bringing about a debate on the guidance that's available that relates to natural capital and other green policy considerations. Now, if this amendment were passed, it would require the HM Treasury Green Book to be considered when making decisions on the granting of infrastructure consent. This is a UK Treasury document that pertains to the appraisal of policies, programmes and projects. We have decided to futureproof this amendment against the possibility of the Green Book no longer being used and some other resource being used instead. Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, as I'm sure you'd expect me to say, ultimately, Plaid Cymru would of course prefer to see Welsh-made guidance that would ensure sufficient resource allocation, transparent decision making, and systematic appraisal of options based on cost, benefits and societal impacts. We've tabled this because, at present, there isn't a direct Welsh equivalent. Now, the Green Book is an example of guidance that optimises project outcomes, it enhances public trust by ensuring decisions are evidence based and accountable, or at least it should if it were adhered to, which is seldom, or frequently is not. By adhering to the Green Book, Welsh infrastructure planning could prioritise projects effectively, compare options fairly, and justify decisions to stakeholders. Overall, integrating the Green Book into Welsh infrastructure planning would ensure that public investments would require maximum societal benefits whilst maintaining accountability and transparency in decision-making processes. And I would just say again that we would, obviously and evidently, far prefer there to be a Welsh-made equivalent of that, so this would be a stopgap that we are proposing. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call the Minister.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd, and I again thank the Members for outlining their proposed amendments to the statutory policies section of the Bill and will address each of the amendments in turn.

Amendments 14 and 15 are proposed by Janet Finch-Saunders and follow similar amendments tabled by the Member at Stage 2. They would, in combination, require a new national marine infrastructure development plan to be prepared and for it to be a statutory consideration in determining applications under a new consenting regime. Again, I must again reiterate my priorities for marine planning, which I did set out in the March 2023 written statement. We already have an existing marine plan in place, which is based on an extensive evidence base and stakeholder engagement, and has many important policies, including those for the enhancement of our marine environment. It would be, in my view, a complete waste of time and resource to duplicate the existing marine planning process, and there's no substantive justification for the approach. I'm committed to delivering benefits through the existing plan, and my officials are working with stakeholders to that effect.

But even if there was a need to deliver specific policy on infrastructure in respect of the marine environment, including on the spatial direction for development, we already have the means by which we can use existing policy tools to do this. We could either publish supplementary marine planning guidance alongside our existing statutory policies, or we could use our power to create an infrastructure policy statement. Therefore, I think this duplicates existing powers, and I do not support the proposed amendments.

Amendments 36 and 37 update section 54, which sets out the plans and framework in which an application for infrastructure consent must be decided against. The amendment, as Delyth said, would require the examining authority or the Welsh Ministers to apply the HM Treasury Green Book, or any more up-to-date equivalent guidance, as a consideration in deciding an application for infrastructure consent. I believe the intention of the amendments is to ensure all relevant impacts of developments are fully considered. Sections 54 and 55 of the Bill as drafted operate in tandem and already ensure that all relevant considerations will be taken into account in deciding an application for infrastructure consent. To enable this to happen, development will be accompanied by assessments, such as the environmental impact assessment and habitats regulation assessment, as well as other documentation on the effects of the development. These include the economic, social, environmental and cultural impacts the scheme will have.

The Green Book is not a plan or policy consideration that could be applied to making decisions on individual projects. Applications will be determined in accordance with the policy documents set out in section 54, such as the NDF or marine plan, unless there are relevant considerations that indicated otherwise. Therefore, as all relevant impacts of development are already taken into account in decision making through the considerations listed under sections 54 and 55 of the Bill, and the Green Book actually can't be applied in the same way as those considerations already listed, I'm afraid I do not support the amendments, and I call on Members to reject them. Diolch.

Janet, do you wish to reply to the debate?

Sorry, I missed—

Do you wish to reply to the debate?

I'd like to move amendment 14.

Okay. Before we vote on amendment 14 or I ask the question, if amendment 14 is not agreed, amendment 15 falls. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 14.

Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 14, 11 abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 14 is not agreed, and amendment 15 falls.

Delyth, amendment 36.

I move.

If amendment 36 is not agreed, amendment 37 falls. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. 

In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 36 falls, as does amendment 37.

Group 7 is next. The seventh group of amendments relates to Part 5—the decision. There's only one amendment in this group, amendment 16. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to speak to that amendment and move it. 

Thank you. This amendment ensures those who participated in the application procedures are notified of the decision. I'm sure we would all agree that transparency in the planning process, certainly on infrastructure projects, is essential. Across Wales, there are now residents and town and community councils responding to planning applications and yet hearing nothing further. The planning process should go further, and individuals' involvement should not finish simply when they submit their objections; they should be updated at least once when a final decision has been made. I hope you'll be able to agree to that transparency by backing my amendment. Diolch.

I call on the Minister.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I would like to thank Janet Finch-Saunders for her comments on this proposed amendment. The amendment amends section 60, which covers the reasons for a decision to grant or refuse infrastructure consent. The amendment follows a similar amendment tabled by Janet at Stage 2, and requires the Welsh Ministers to notify all persons who participated in the application procedure of the decision.

My views on the amendment remain the same as they were at Stage 2. Whilst I completely agree that there needs to be transparency in decision making, this amendment would require each and every person who participated in the application process to have provided their contact details in order to inform them of the final decision. Practically, I just cannot see this amendment working as it would likely place undue and unachievable notification requirements on the Welsh Ministers.

However, I do completely agree we should be notifying persons where appropriate. The power under subsection 3 to provide a copy of the statement of reasons to persons specified in regulations will allow us to specify those individuals that it would be possible to notify whilst enabling us to respond to different procedures of examination, such as a hearing or written representations. It also allows for updates in future if deemed necessary. So, for those reasons, whilst I understand the intention, I don't support the amendment, and ask Members not to support it either.

Janet, do you wish to move straight to the vote, or say anything else?

Straight to the vote. Thanks.

The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore we'll move to a vote. 

Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 16 is not agreed.

The eighth group of amendments relates to Part 6—infrastructure consent Orders. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 31, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in this group.

Thank you. Amendment 31 ensures that tolls cannot be authorised on highways that are considered a significant infrastructure project. This is a clear reflection of the public view that road charges should not be placed on motorists in Wales. Over 10,000 people have signed a petition titled 'Cease all further planning for road charging in Wales'. Having considered what the Minister said in Stage 2, I see that the comments relate to the principle of not including a toll as part of the SIP process, rather than the drafting or inclusion of particular provisions to seek to achieve the objective. As such, I've decided to pursue the same amendment at Stage 3. By voting in favour of the change, I'm proposing that this Welsh Parliament will show that it is listening to all those many concerns now being raised across Wales about a series of strikes against motorists by this Government. 

Amendment 17 is practical. It allows the applicant to check for any mistakes prior to the publication of an infrastructure consent Order. Such a change is in line with what the climate change committee heard from RWE. They cited their prior experiences with the Planning Act 2008. Where finalised development consent Orders often contained minor mistakes, they found the procedure of needing an applicant to ask for corrections inefficient, suggesting that to reduce such delays, the Welsh Ministers might share the prospective final version of an infrastructure consent Order with the applicant to address any minor drafting issues. The Minister has raised concerns that the amendment would raise an unnecessary level of process. That level could be cleared quickly and it would actually save time, because it would allow small errors to be addressed immediately. 

Transparency is at the heart of amendments 18 and 19. They would require Welsh Ministers to give reasons as to why they have changed or revoked an infrastructure consent Order. I will be supporting the amendments tabled by the Minister. Diolch. 

I call on the Minister. 

Dealing with the non-Government amendments first, I normally thank you, Janet, for tabling amendments, but I'm not entirely certain I'm thanking you for tabling this one. I don't support amendment 31 in relation to the charging of tolls on highways. You're making it some kind of weird culture war, whereas in fact it's about an application consenting process. The Welsh Ministers could clearly only introduce the charging of tolls in relation to highways where that was part of an original application for infrastructure consent that went through the process. So, your amendment is just nonsensical. You may as well say that we can't put windmills in the middle of the highway. It's just not a thing that we're trying to do. So, it's just nonsense. It just doesn't mean anything at all. The amendment removes the one-stop shop. It doesn't remove the power for Welsh Ministers to charge tolls in relation to highways, which already exists in lots of other legislation, and so the amendment does nothing and would result in serious system abuse. So, I call on Members to reject the amendment, which I think is just weird, frankly.

Following a similar amendment to amendment 17 tabled by the Member at Stage 2, this would suggest a new section being added to the Bill that will make it a requirement to share a draft of an infrastructure consent Order with the applicant prior to it being published. Again, Janet, I understand entirely why you are proposing this amendment, in order to ensure developers are made fully aware of the proposed Order. But we do have the same drafting issues here as arose at Stage 2, which we discussed there. If the Welsh Ministers propose no changes from those contained in the submitted application, what's the need to consult an applicant that's getting the application that they asked for? So, you're adding complexity and an unnecessary layer to a process when the whole purpose of this Bill is to streamline the process.

Where the Welsh Ministers propose to make an Order that is materially different to the application, there are already regulation-making powers under section 57 that would specify the procedure to be followed in those circumstances. For example, if we were to look at procedure for sharing a draft Order with the applicant, it may also be appropriate to share it with other statutory bodies to ensure a fair and equitable process. I must also emphasise that the nature of the consenting process will mean that the Welsh Ministers and the examining authority would engage with the applicant where issues in the drafting of a proposed consent are identified. So, the process allows for appropriate engagement with the applicant to ensure those issues can be resolved and ultimately the application is granted and the consent is correctly drafted. I do not see a need to legislate for the sharing of a draft Order in this way, and so I don't accept the amendment and call on Members to reject it.  

Turning to amendment 18, there are occasions where a decision document may contain an obvious and correctable error. It is important that there is a procedure in place to ensure the speedy correction of a decision document. The amendment is not necessary as an error will always be corrected in the interests of clarity. However, if it was considered to be desirable to require Welsh Ministers to make a statement explaining the reasons for correcting an error, this can be set in subordinate legislation. I therefore call on Members to reject this amendment also.

Amendment 19 amends section 85, which is the power to change or revoke infrastructure consent Orders. The amendment intends to place a duty on Welsh Ministers to publish a statement of their reasons for changing or revoking an infrastructure consent Order. As with other notification requirements throughout the consenting regime, I do agree it's important applicants and other relevant parties are informed of the Welsh Ministers’ or the appointed person's decision in a timely manner. To promote transparency and reach as wide an audience as possible, I consider it appropriate for the Welsh Ministers or the appointed person to publish reasons for a decision. But the purpose of the amendment can be facilitated through the requirements of section 89, and therefore this amendment is unnecessary and I call on Members to reject it.

Turning to Government amendments 2 and 3, these amendments are technical, drafting amendments only, and have no effect on the policy contained within the Bill. The amendments merely ensure consistency in drafting across relevant planning legislation. Diolch.

I call on Janet to—

Yes, I would like to respond on this. Do you know, so far, this has been a really good introduction of legislation, and it's shown cross-party support, but I have to draw the line at your comments about putting an amendment forward to be 'weird'. We have taken advice from our professional lawyers here. I've worked with some fantastic researchers, and I stand by the amendment that I put forward. I do think it is quite insulting and offensive to describe an amendment as 'weird' that has been written up by a professional lawyer. I've got to put that on record. I just think it taints bringing forward a Bill where we work cross-party, so I would just ask the Minister to maybe think twice before coming out with comments such as that. Anyway, let's move to the vote.

The question is that amendment 31 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote.

Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 31 is not agreed.

Janet, amendment 17.

Yes, move.

The question is that amendment 17 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. Therefore, we'll proceed to a vote.

Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 17 is not agreed.

Janet, amendment 18.

I move.

The question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. Therefore, we'll proceed to a vote.

Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 18 is not agreed.

Janet, amendment 19.

Move.

The question is that amendment 19 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. Therefore, we'll proceed to a vote.

Open the vote. Close the vote.

In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 19 is not agreed.

Minister, amendment 3.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 2.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed. 

The ninth and final group of amendments relates to Part 8—supplementary functions: infrastructure policy statements. The only amendment in this group is amendment 20, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the amendment.

I would like to thank the Minister, nevertheless, for her co-operation on this amendment. Where Welsh Ministers publish a new infrastructure policy statement under section 125, Senedd Members must be notified. As the Minister said in Stage 2,

'I agree the Senedd should be made aware of any statutory policy prepared to support a new consenting regime.'

The change is to the advantage of this Welsh Parliament and our democratic oversight. And I won't be speaking any more on this tonight. We'll be moving straight to the vote. Thank you.

Minister.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank Janet for her co-operation on this, and can I also thank Delyth and Adam, who co-operated with us on the amendments to this Bill? It has been a real pleasure to work on this Bill, actually. It's been a real team effort. We've done some really good work. I thank Jenny for her help at Stage 2 as well, and Huw in the committee, and others. We had a really good debate about it. We're about to agree this amendment, because I agree with it; Janet, we've worked very hard on it together.

I just want, Dirprwy Lywydd, to—if you'd indulge me for a moment—just thank my Bill team, who have been exceptional, and who have worked with everyone across the Chamber to make sure that we have a process that is fit for a global development process. I want very much to thank my policy officials, who have laboured long and hard into the nights to make sure that this holds together in a way that really will make Wales a welcoming place for infrastructure development, whilst protecting our natural environment in the way that it ought to be protected.

So, Dirprwy Lywydd, this amendment inserts a new subsection into section 125. This section covers the making of infrastructure policy statements. I would like to thank the Member for tabling the amendment, which will require the Welsh Ministers to notify Senedd Members when a new infrastructure policy statement is published or withdrawn. As this amendment will offer greater transparency in the consenting process where a new infrastructure policy statement is published, I absolutely support the proposed amendment and encourage all other Members to vote in its favour. Diolch. 

Janet, do you want to say anything else? 

Yes. I'll move. And I'll take this opportunity, because I obviously don't know what's going to happen with the Cabinet, to thank you, Minister. We've worked on some interesting legislation coming forward, and it's really good when we can work cross-party like this to try and improve the nature of the legislation. But good luck, in whatever you do going forward. Diolch.

The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore amendment 20 is agreed. 

Just to remind Members, amendment 38 has already fallen. Therefore, we have now reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill. I declare that all sections of and Schedules to the Bill are deemed agreed. And that concludes Stage 3 proceedings on the Bill. 

We'll now move on to item 6 on the agenda. 

And item 6 is withdrawn. 

And item 7 is withdrawn. 

So, we'll move to item 8, the Regulated Services (Service Providers and Responsible Individuals) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. And I call on the Deputy Minister for Social Services to move the motion—Julie Morgan. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd. I move the motion. These regulations amend the Regulated Services (Service Providers and Responsible Individuals) (Wales) Regulations 2017, which place requirements on providers and responsible individuals of care home services, domiciliary support services, secure accommodation services and residential family centre services. The regulations exempt local authority-run intermediate care services provided in extra care settings from the definition of a care home service. They will continue to be regulated as domiciliary support services. The regulations also ensure that providers of any accommodation-based services who reconfigure their premises to create additional capacity must comply with the enhanced environmental standards applying to services accommodating five or more people. This includes having appropriate room sizes and en-suite facilities for the additional bedrooms, as well as sufficient communal space and accessible outdoor space. These regulations make minor amendments to the 2017 regulations to reflect updated terminology. These regulations will come into force on 30 March 2024, and I commend them to Members. 

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. A couple of Members have said to me this evening, 'Be brief', so I'll do my very best to curry favour with them and comply. [Laughter.] So, our report contains one technical reporting point, highlighting potential defective drafting, and three merits reporting points. The single technical reporting point notes that we're unclear why the order of the alphabet has not been followed when adding the new sub-paragraph after sub-paragraph (j) in relation to 2(1) of the 2017 regulations, which these regulations seek to amend. So, the Welsh Government response to our report provides a lengthy and helpful explanation, which I would draw to Members' attention and also students of our committee's deliberations as well for consideration. I simply note that the Government considers that the drafting is appropriate and adheres to its own guidance.

Our first merits reporting point highlights a matter relevant to drafting convention. At the beginning of the regulations, there is reference to the dates the regulations are made, laid and come into force. However, for draft affirmative instruments such as these, the convention is to refer only to the dates the regulations are made and come into force and not the laying date. Now, the Government has told us it will take steps to correct this non-substantive error prior to the instrument being made, and we're grateful for that. At this point, just to put a brief marker down that, in the next debate, which I'll be speaking very briefly on as well, should I be called to speak, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'll be talking about corrections 'prior to making' in a little bit more detail.

Dirprwy Lywydd, my final comments will be on our second merits reporting point. The Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 requires the Welsh Ministers to consult before making these regulations and to publish a statement about the consultation. The 2016 Act also requires Welsh Ministers to lay a copy of the statement before Senedd Cymru. The preamble to these regulations states that the Welsh Ministers have laid a copy of this statement, however we are not aware that that has actually happened.

So, in response, the Welsh Government has confirmed that it did undertake a 12-week public consultation between May and August of 2023, and a summary of responses to the consultation was published on the Welsh Government's website in October 2023. And the Welsh Government has said that it will ensure that a copy of the statement required in accordance with the requirements of the 2016 Act is laid before the Senedd before the draft regulations are made. So, Minister, diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call on the Deputy Minister to reply to the debate.

I'm grateful to the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for his points, which I believe the Government has responded to. Diolch.

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

We'll move now to item 9, the Packaging Waste (Data Collection and Reporting) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. I call on the Minister for Climate Change to move the motion—Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion. I thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for its work in scrutinising the statutory instrument. These regulations make amendments to the regulations passed last year, which obliged packaging producers to collect and report data on the amount and type of packaging they place on the market. This supports our programme for government commitment to introduce extended producer responsibility. The changes clarify the law and better align it with the original policy, rather than changing the policy intent of the regulations.

One of the amendments is to change the reporting requirements of drink containers, which would've been included in the Scottish deposit-return scheme and now need to be covered by the packaging extended responsibility. This arises due to the collapse of the Scottish deposit-return scheme, which was due to go live this month, which was as a result of the actions of the UK Government in seeking to place conditions on the scheme using the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. These actions have made the implementation of a deposit-return scheme harder for all. In Scotland there were direct economic costs with the loss of jobs and companies that had been preparing for the scheme, losing millions of pounds of investment, covering physical infrastructure, as well as significant amounts of staff time. And added to this, delays in implementation of direct environmental costs, with fewer cans and bottles being collected and recycled.

As a Government, we remain unwavering in our commitment to introduce extended producer responsibility and a deposit-return scheme and have been consistent in our policy throughout, with both schemes being vital in increasing resource efficiency and our levels of recycling and reuse and tackling litter, and crucial to action on the climate and nature emergencies. This data is needed to calculated the fees that producers will pay under the packaging reforms. As these reforms are being introduced across the UK, it is important that there is alignment on the data collection and reporting requirements, with equivalent amendments being introduced in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Each nation's data reporting regulations will be in place for an interim period before being replaced by the regulations implementing the wider extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme.

So, Dirprwy Lywydd, in summary, these amending regulations are being brought in to support the implementation of the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme, a programme for government commitment, which is a key step in contributing to the move to a circular net-zero carbon economy. It will not only help improve resource efficiency, but by incentivising better design will support further progress on recycling, whilst tackling litter, keeping materials in use and reducing the use of virgin raw materials—a key driver of the climate and nature emergencies. Diolch.

I'll try and make a few comments and keep them brief, again. But I think Ministers and colleagues will understand why our committee needs to put these on record there. And just to say, as well, thank you for the constructive engagement that we've had on this, because there are elements of progress that I want to comment on, as well as things we'll probably push for a little bit more, going forward.

As the Minister said, the regulations amend the principal regulations from 2023. Our report contains 12 technical reporting points, five of which highlight potential defective drafting, two highlight inconsistencies across the English and Welsh texts, and five raise matters where we consider that the form or meaning of a provision require further explanation. And we also have four merits reporting points in our report. So, just to encourage Members to look at the report for more detail.

But the comments I have this afternoon are going to focus on a developing issue, which my committee discussed most recently at our meeting yesterday afternoon. So, as a committee, we always take seriously our responsibility for scrutinising subordinate legislation like this laid before the Senedd. It is important, we believe, that this Senedd, and any parliament, passes well-made law that is drafted soundly and properly. So, when we highlight to the Welsh Government potential defective drafting or inconsistencies across English and Welsh texts, we genuinely do so in the spirit of trying to be a constructively critical partner in the overall legislation-making process. In the sixth Senedd, the Welsh Ministers, and the Counsel General in particular, have worked with us to ensure better clarity and transparency around the correction of Welsh statutory instruments, and we really welcome that.

Recently the Welsh Government has, indeed, put in place new arrangements, which it's worth drawing to the attention of the Senedd. Government responses to reports by the LJC committee now include a table setting out any corrections the Government intends to make to the statutory instrument after this Chamber has voted on it, but before it is signed into law. This is very welcome. Ministers will also now inform Members of any changes to be made during the debates, which we've just heard, indeed, from the Minister in her opening remarks.

So, as a committee, we indeed initially saw the positives in these new arrangements. But in our welcoming of these new processes, we weren't meant to be providing support for substantive corrections being made to an instrument after Members have given it their approval. This is what I just want to touch on today.

When the Welsh Government seeks correction slips from the SI registrar to instruments already made, there are, we are told, very strict criteria that must be adhered to. The corrections must be minor and obvious. We were under the impression, initially, that the Welsh Government would apply such criteria when it proposed to make amendments to draft affirmative instruments after my committee had scrutinised them and after this Senedd voted on them, but prior to them being made. Now, this is not what we believe we might be seeing in some cases.

As an example, in response to our ninth reporting point on these regulations, the Government is proposing to replace an entire sub-paragraph in regulation 10. Now, our question is: is that a minor and obvious correction? We're not convinced that it is, but maybe the Minister can persuade us that it is.

Should the Senedd approve these regulations this afternoon, the Government is planning on making 10 corrections to address nine of the LJC committee’s reporting points, as well as correcting other minor issues, 'prior to making'. That is a significant number of corrections. So, I'd just ask the Minister to reflect on these matters as they relate to the regulations in her closing remarks. Now, more broadly, we'll be writing to the Counsel General—and we thank the Counsel General for his engagement on this as well—seeking confirmation that the Welsh Government is applying the same criteria for correction 'prior to making' that the SI registrar applies for correction slips, if that's clear, Counsel General.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd like to explain why my committee wanted to highlight this issue this afternoon. Aside from being important for transparency, there is also a vires point, that is a question of something being lawful. The draft affirmative procedure is a statutory requirement. It is set out in the enabling Act. The Welsh Ministers may not make such regulations unless a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before, and approved by, the Senedd. There may come a point at which proposed corrections are so substantive that the Senedd cannot be said to have ‘approved’ a draft of the instrument signed into law, if you understand the point that I'm making here. That's the vires point, the point of lawfulness or not being lawful. So, we'd welcome any response from the Minister that she may have today on this matter in closing remarks, and also in continued engagement with the Counsel General and Welsh Government. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call on the Minister to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I take the point that the Chair is making, and, obviously, if we were changing a substantive point in the regulations, there would indeed be a vires point, but there are quite a few corrections and they're all technical and they are all basically changing the numerical order of something, because what we're doing is amending a different set of regulations for a different numerical order. So, I think the Senedd, in the light of the Chair's remarks there, should actually hear what the substantive amendment actually is. 

So, the substantive amendment is:

'In regulation 10, sub-paragraph (b) will be replaced as set out below.

'Current sub-paragraph (b)

“(b) in paragraph (2), for “paragraph (6)”, substitute “paragraph (5)(b)(iii), (6) or (7)”;”

'That's going to be replaced with

“(b) in paragraph (2)—

'(i) for “paragraph (6)”, substitute “paragraph (5)(b)(iii), (6) or (7);

'(ii) for “paragraph (4)”, substitute “paragraphs (3) and (12A)”;”'

I would submit to you that those are very technical and the likelihood of any Member of the Senedd thinking that that has substantively changed the policy intent of the regulations is zero. So, whilst I take the point you're making, in this particular case, I think it isn't with merit. Diolch.