Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon and welcome to this Plenary meeting.

Note to self: don't mix up the first and the second bell.

So, questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language first. The first question [OQ63063] has been withdrawn. Question 2, Siân Gwenllian.

Good afternoon. Llywydd, we continue to work through the standards programme. The consultation on draft regulations for housing associations has now closed. We intend to lay the final regulations in the Senedd early in 2026.

I am pleased to see the work on standards for the housing associations moving forward, with the consultation having closed yesterday, as you just said. Ensuring that social housing tenants have the same rights as council housing tenants to use their Welsh language skills is vital. You may remember the problems with Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd, some 10 years ago now.

I understand that the next set of standards that you will be working on are the ones for public transport. There is great inconsistency in the provision of Welsh in this sector, with even Transport for Wales unable to provide information in both languages at times—for example, on a train that I took recently to Caerphilly, where there was no Welsh to be seen or heard. But I am somewhat concerned with the written answer that the Government has provided to Heledd Fychan, the Plaid spokesperson on the Welsh language, which says that you, and I quote,

'intend to align the introduction of standards for public transport providers with the establishment of...Great British Railways'. 

The policy work will continue, you say in the same answer, including considering the inclusion of bus providers in those regulations. So, I see that you place an emphasis on the policy work and you do not mention a timetable for the introduction of standards. Does this mean that you are backing away from the commitment to set Welsh language standards for public transport?

I thank Sian Gwenllian for the question, and I thank her for what she said on the work that is progressing in relation to social housing associations. The co-operation agreement confirmed an ambitious work programme, which has been delivered over the term of this Senedd, and bringing public transport under the auspices of standards was part of that agreement. So, we are proceeding with that work; that has not changed. The Government does want to see developments in the sphere of public transport, but, as I said in my written answer to Heledd Fychan, the context is changing, and there are some things that are not in place today.

So, what we are doing is to continue to work on the policy. We have been having discussions with those working on Great British Railways, to be clear with them on the expectations that we have, and what the implications of that will be when the standards are put in place. Also, the Bill is currently going through the Senedd to re-regulate buses, and that will change the context of this too. So, we are not standing back at all from the intention to bring public transport into the standards system, but we want to do it in a way that deals with the changes in this area. The work will be done during the term of this Senedd, into the next Senedd, so that the next Senedd will be in a position to align the introduction of standards and the establishment of Great British Railways and everything else that is changing in the area.

I thank Carolyn Thomas for that, Llywydd. I regularly discuss local authority pressures and our support for local government with the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government, and with other interested Cabinet Secretaries.

With the rising cost of out-of-county places in social healthcare, along with homelessness, it really worries and angers me when parties talk about cutting welfare and also cuts for public services. Areas that matter to people, such as public toilets, leisure centres, transport to school, are really important and they’re getting squeezed all the time. Previously, this Government has looked at devolving grants to help local government, with initiatives such as the pothole fund, which really helped local government. And I was wondering if you are looking at devolving other grants, such as, maybe, the local transport grants that could help them with that flexibility in each area of Wales, because each area of Wales is very different as well. Thank you.

Thank you to Carolyn Thomas for those important further points, Llywydd. It has been the policy of this Government, during this term, and at the end of the last term, to move more grants that are provided to local authorities out of specific grants and into the revenue support grant in order to give them the flexibility to respond to local needs, and to avoid some of the bureaucracy and the costs that are attached to some very small specific grants. It's not an uncontroversial policy, because many organisations keep a very close eye on specific grants to make sure that they’re being spent for the purposes for which they have been provided. But it has long been the policy of the Government to create a new transport grant—a local transport grant—which brings together a series of other grants and which will be provided to the corporate joint committees. So, these are regional transport plans. Now, they’re not untrammelled plans. They still have to come within the umbrella of 'Llwybr Newydd'—the Welsh Government’s policy in relation to transport—but there will be greater flexibility for local authorities to apply the grants with which they are provided to those more evident local needs.

The current Labour UK Government inherited inflation at the Bank of England's target rate of 2 per cent, and deficit levels of only 40 per cent of those inherited in 2010 by the Conservative UK Government, despite the financial shocks caused by the global pandemic and the global cost-of-living crisis. As I warned here in March, budget decisions by Chancellor Rachel Reeves remain the No. 1 barrier to economic growth, and the No. 1 domestic contributor to cost-of-living increases, stoking inflation, and borrowing costs have since hit a 27-year high. The International Monetary Fund has warned that Rachel Reeves will have to increase taxes further or make cuts, and leading economists, including the former head of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, have highlighted the risk of a repeat of the crisis in 1976, when a Labour Chancellor was forced to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bail-out, requiring substantial cuts in public spending. I remember it well; I’m sure you do also. What contingency plans are you therefore putting in place with local authorities to manage the risk of this?

Well, Llywydd, the Welsh Government continues to support local government to an extent far greater than the previous Conservative Government ever did in England. If you look simply at what has happened in the current financial year, local authorities in Wales are receiving an uplift of 4.5 per cent on a like-for-like basis. Every local authority receives an increase of at least 3.8 per cent, thanks to the additional funding floor that we negotiated with the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats in order to pass our final budget. And, over and above the money that goes into the RSG, local authorities in Wales receive a settlement of over £1.3 billion in revenue grants, and over £1 billion in capital grants in the current year. That is how we protect local authorities in Wales, and I look forward to discussions—continuing discussions—with local authority leaders and finance leads in order to ensure that we go on doing that into 2026.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Sam Rowlands. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, we know the UK autumn budget has now been delayed until the latest possible point, on 26 November. What impact is that having on you and your Government's budget planning? 

Well, thanks, Sam Rowlands, for that question. He makes a sensible point. The timing of the UK budget does have a material impact on our ability to shape our own budget. The later the UK Government budget takes place, the greater the time is squeezed for us to take into account any changes that appear in that budget. So, my officials will have to work very hard in the four weeks after the UK budget at the end of November in order to make sure that the final budget, which is due to be presented to this Senedd in January, can take into account any changes that make a difference to the resources available to Wales.

Thank you for that response, Cabinet Secretary. I certainly will keep an eye on the work that you and your officials do in that accelerated programme. Of course, last year, in the budget from the UK Labour Government, we saw the increase in employer national insurance contributions introduced at that budget, which has left a significant financial gap in public services here in Wales. Despite your own previous hopes that the Treasury, and I quote,

'will provide full funding to deal with the national insurance contributions of employers' 

for the public sector, the reality is, as a result of the last UK autumn budget, Welsh public services have been left with a £72 million shortfall, and, as you will appreciate, this is not simply a matter of accounting. It has very real implications for local authorities, public bodies and publicly contracted service providers. Those organisations are now asked to absorb the cost of a tax decision made by your colleagues in Westminster, despite those repeated promises that they wouldn't have to. So, are you still making the case, Cabinet Secretary, to see the full consequence of that decision come through to the Welsh Government's budget, so those pressures no longer have to be placed on those public service providers?

Llywydd, I do continue to make that case to UK Government Ministers, as do the finance Ministers of Scotland and Northern Ireland, who are equally caught up in the decision that the Treasury made to provide help to devolved Governments through the Barnett formula rather than meeting actual costs. Now, I believe that the statement of funding policy, signed up to by the UK Government, is completely clear on this point, that any government that takes a decision that creates costs to another government, the government that creates those costs must fund those costs in full, and I regret the fact that that wasn't done in this case. Now, Sam Rowlands will know, Llywydd, that the Government is proceeding on the basis of laying in front of the Senedd, in the draft budget on 14 October, a restated budget for next year. Given that we provided £36 million—half the £72 million gap faced by Welsh public services in this year—I intend to restate that next year, so that the level of help that the Welsh Government has been able to provide will be once again available to local authorities and other public services next year.

Thank you, again, Cabinet Secretary, for that further response. Of course, the national insurance increase decision by the UK Labour Government not just impacts those public service bodies, but, of course, countless businesses across Wales—small, medium and large—in having to deal with that additional jobs tax. At a time when our economy is still recovering, when energy costs remain high, when inflation remains stubborn, the last thing that our Welsh businesses need is a further jobs tax. And what we're not seeing is a Labour Government offering assurances that those extra funds raised through that tax will support growth, job creation or, indeed, our front-line services in Wales. We've heard from business owners who are now having to make difficult decisions around delaying new hires, freezing pay rises or, even worse, cutting jobs just to stay afloat. This is, of course, against a backdrop of a stagnant economy where employment here in Wales is sadly the lowest in Britain. So, given the significant additional burden placed on employers by that national insurance rise, how are you working with your Cabinet colleagues to ensure that those businesses and public service contractors in Wales are supported from those job losses and service reductions?

Just to make a small couple of points about the nature of the Welsh economy, growth in the economy in the first quarter of this year has well exceeded the projections of the Office for Budget Responsibility. It's one quarter, Llywydd, and there's no way of knowing whether that growth will be sustained over the rest of the financial year, but, nevertheless, the economy has grown faster than was anticipated, and there are more people in work today in Wales than there were at the start of the quarter. So, the employment figure in Wales continues to go up. [Interruption.] Well, in the last quarter, you will find there are more people who are in work. That's what I said. I'll check the figures, of course, to make sure I've given them accurately to the Member.

We support Welsh businesses in many, many ways, including all the help that is provided through the non-domestic rates relief schemes and the investment we make in skills and training. We'll see that come together, Llywydd, in the investment summit, which the First Minister will lead here in Wales during the autumn, all of which will be designed to demonstrate to potential investors in Welsh businesses everything that is available to them here in Wales.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson now—Heledd Fychan.

Thank you, Llywydd. I've been listening very carefully to your answers there. Obviously, the issue of NI has come up many times. How are we going to move forward with this now? You noted in your response to Sam Rowlands that you are going to be earmarking the £36 million. That had come from the reserves in this current financial year. Is that going to come from the reserves, or is it going to be an ongoing expenditure for the Government?

Also, could you provide us with some clarity in terms of arm's-length bodies? Previously, you've told us that organisations such as Amgueddfa Cymru and the national library and so on won't have the money because you haven't been compensated by the Labour Government in Westminster. I do understand that some of those organisations have received additional funding this year. Could you provide clarity on that? What do you foresee as the situation for the future?

Two points there, Llywydd. The £36 million that we provided to assist Welsh public service employers in the current financial year is to be reprovided next year, and I intend to baseline that next year. Therefore, that money will come from the additional funding that will come to Wales—£1.6 billion additional this year, and another £1 billion additionally next year. If I am restating this year's budget into next year, the money is in this year's budget, and therefore it will appear next year too.

Of course, there are a wide range of organisations where we have not been able to provide help directly with those national insurance costs, but they have benefited from more general uplifts in the funding available to them. It's then for those organisations to decide on their own priorities, and many of them will have used some of the help that they have had in that general investment to help them with additional employer costs.

Thank you. I do hope that we, in the wake of the debate this afternoon, can see a way for us to take this forward, and try to influence the UK Government to ensure that we do receive what we are owed fully in order to tackle this gap. Because, obviously, we have seen over recent weeks the Welsh Local Government Association writing to us to outline the severity of the situation that they face. They've said that it's a high-risk situation, including funding pressures of over £400 million and the prospect of council tax increases of up to 20 per cent.

You were of the opinion back in November 2023 that having a Labour Government in Westminster would lead to Wales getting, and I quote,

'the investment that we need in our public services.'

Are you still of the same view?

In relation to the point about local government and the letter received from the Welsh Local Government Association, Llywydd, the key responsibility that I think faces this Senedd is to avoid the catastrophe that would occur for our public services, particularly local government, by the failure to pass a budget in the final months of this Senedd term. That is why I have proposed bringing a restated budget in front of the Senedd, because this is the most politically neutral way in which a budget could possibly be made. Now, I would prefer to be able to put in front of Members a budget that uses the whole amount of the resources available to us that would answer many of the points made in that letter. But there is no way that the numbers here allow me simply to do that with the support of only Labour Members.

So, if there are other Members here who wish to respond to that letter and who wish to agree a budget in which the whole of the resources available to us can be deployed, then, as I said when I made my statement on 1 July, I'm absolutely open to those discussions. If there is no appetite for that, then I will lay a restated budget, which at least avoids the absolute catastrophe for local government of having to set budgets for next year on only 75 per cent of the money they have available this year, because that's what the Government of Wales Act 2006 would mean, if we were to fail to pass a budget.

But councils are telling us that a politically neutral budget is nothing but neutral in terms of the impact for their residents: up to a 20 per cent increase. Surely, the fact that we are not receiving fair funding for Wales shows that those commitments made prior to the UK general election show that, actually, our public services are still facing cuts and very difficult decisions. So, therefore, can I ask how are we going to ensure that we have that funding model in place? Because, obviously, if we do proceed with a budget, as set out by yourself, the situation for local authorities across Wales will be dire, and they will have to make very, very difficult decisions prior to any Senedd election and any other Government being able to take forward radical proposals and support them.

Well, I remind the Member that her party voted against the budget put in front of this Senedd for this financial year. Now, I say to her again, if she is interested in a conversation that would allow us to use the full resources available to the Senedd for the next financial year, in a budget that could be allowed to succeed through the Senedd, then, absolutely, I'm open to those conversations. But if she has no appetite for it—and she's showed no appetite for it so far—if there is no appetite for it, then the choice is not between a restated budget, with the difficulties that that undoubtedly will contain, but no budget at all. And if we fail to pass a budget of any sort through this Senedd, then it is not the sorts of difficulties that were set out in the WLGA letter that local government will be facing, they will be facing a legal obligation. Because let's not forget, local authorities have to set their budgets according to a statutory set of obligations, and the statutory obligations tell them that, by the 13 March, they have to set a budget within the sums of money that they know they will have available to them next year. If this Senedd fails to pass a budget, that will mean they will have 75 per cent of this year's budget available to them. That's what they will have to set. That will be catastrophic in terms of the redundancies that will follow and the collapse in services that are bound to result. We can avoid that. We can avoid it through a restated budget, at a minimum, and we could avoid it even more if we were able to agree a budget that used the whole of the resource available to us. But that's a responsibility that every party in this Senedd has to share.

Question 4 [OQ63079] is withdrawn. Question 5, Sioned Williams.

I thank Sioned Williams for her question, Llywydd. VAT is a reserved tax, overseen by the UK Government. However, tens of millions of pounds have been invested in new cancer facilities in Wales, equipment, digital systems, workforce training, treatments, screening and diagnostic services, all aimed at improving cancer outcomes in Wales, including cancers of the skin.

Thank you. We have had a wonderful summer, haven't we, and I'm sure everyone's enjoyed the sunshine. But we also know, from the four nations in the UK, that Wales has the highest rate of skin cancer, a cancer that can be prevented, for the most part, in the hope, then, that people won't have to go to hospitals and take up resources there to treat them, and go through that trauma, and the cost, of course, to the public purse.

I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Education about measures to prevent skin cancer, including scrapping VAT on sun cream, which is designated as a cosmetic product at the moment. He said that he would raise that matter with you, and he then confirmed that your officials had raised this with the Westminster Government. This, of course, would help to reduce the cases of skin cancer in Wales and the pressure on our health service. So, will you provide further information about the UK Government's response to your officials? Will there be action on this, and if so, when?

Well, I thank Sioned Williams for those additional questions, Llywydd. I've seen the letter from the Member and the response from Jeremy Miles, and, of course, I've discussed these issues with Jeremy Miles as well, and my officials have raised these issues with officials in the Treasury. The response that we've had so far is that they have no plans to change VAT in this area. They provide a number of reasons why that remains the case, in their view. But a team of new Ministers are now occupying the Treasury; there are meetings in the diary for me to meet them, and I'm willing to raise the point that Sioned Williams has raised this afternoon again, when I do have an opportunity to do so in those meetings.

Llywydd, the Barnett formula should be replaced and a new relative needs-based system implemented. For that to happen, it would require an agreement by all four nations and a new fiscal agreement overseen and operated by a body independent of the UK Government.

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for that response. As he will know, I very much agree with the policy position he's taken on that, and I very much agree with him as well that an independent body from the United Kingdom Government overseeing the UK financial framework would benefit everybody.

He will also have seen the recent reports from the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons and the Government's response to it. In that response, Hilary Benn has been very, very clear that the United Kingdom Government has reached an agreement with the Northern Irish Executive to deliver a needs-based formula without the need to reach agreement with Wales or Scotland. Now, putting aside whether that is the right or wrong way to proceed for the moment, it does demonstrate that where there is a will to reach an agreement on a fair level of funding, that agreement can be made and delivered. Is it not time that the people of Wales deserve the same fairness of funding as the people of Northern Ireland?

Llywydd, I thank Alun Davies for that. In some ways, this anticipates some points that may be made later this afternoon. I've said a number of times on the floor of the Senedd that I think we have to pursue a twin track in relation to Barnett. Our ambition is for the replacement of Barnett by a needs-based formula, but it's very hard to negotiate with other Governments who do rather well out of Barnett. And not only has there been a Northern Ireland select committee report recently, there's been a Scottish select committee report as well, which says that there is no need to reform Barnett. If I was Scottish and the Barnett river of gold flowed as fast towards me as it does towards them—not that they would say that—then I might think that there was no need to change the system either. But even if it is hard political work to forge an agreement around a replacement of Barnett, that is not a reason why we should not continue to pursue reform of the Barnett formula, and some of the points that Alun Davies has made fall into that category.

Now, there is an adjustment factor, as it's known, for Northern Ireland, which is 124—124 per cent, in other words—of the English settlement. We have an adjustment factor of 115, so we are significantly below Northern Ireland. Now, I've been reading recently Professor Gerry Holtham's independent review of the Northern Ireland formula. He argues that that adjustment factor needs to be reviewed, particularly in the light of the UK Government's decision to devolve agriculture funding and to uprate that in future on a Barnett basis. His report contains a calculation that says that the adjustment factor in Northern Ireland should be raised from 124 to 128. Now, that sort of discussion, discussion about the way the current formula operates and to make it operate more fairly, there I think we can make common cause with colleagues in Northern Ireland and in Scotland, and there I think we should look to see where gains can be made. The report of Gerry Holtham, drawing, as he does, on the work he did here in Wales, is helpful to us in that regard.

Llywydd, the regulatory impact assessment for this policy was published alongside the associated legislation in May 2022. We now know that 60 per cent of holiday lets have met the new letting criteria. This exceeds the levels predicted by the self-catering sector and the estimates included in the impact assessment.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you for that statistic. I met with a representative from the Professional Association of Self-Caterers UK this morning, and they provided me with a further statistic as well. According to them, 33 per cent of holiday lets in Wales have planning restrictions on them that would not allow those properties to be used for general housing stock. Now, I have several constituents in that situation myself, where barns have been converted, there are shared utilities, it's not possible for them to be used for any other purpose other than holiday let properties, and there are also planning restrictions on those properties as well. It is also the case that the market does not allow them to be able to let their properties out for more than 182 days a year. In my mind, moving to a council tax system would make operating those businesses very difficult, and also they are businesses, so, in my mind, they should be in the business rates system. What is your advice to those businesses?

And secondly, I know that you're currently undertaking a consultation. This does not capture this issue. Do you have any other plans to carry out any further consultations that would capture and deal with this particular issue?

Well, my advice to him, Llywydd, is to take part in the consultation, because the consultation does not preclude anybody from raising any issue that they think is relevant to the operation of the 182-day requirement. Now, we set out in the consultation some ideas that we think have merit, based on discussions with the sector, but I've already had ideas that don't at the moment appear in the consultation paper itself proposed to me as part of the review. The points that the Member makes should be communicated by those people who think that those are valid points and would allow us to implement the policy in a better way. They should contribute them to the consultation.

The Wales Tourism Alliance survey from last year said that only 26 per cent of business operators in this field felt that they would reach the 182-day threshold. Now, I know you have already said that a larger number than that did reach the threshold, but many have told me, and I'm sure you are aware, that they have to do that through heavy discounting in order to get to that 182-day requirement. So, it does beg the question whether this requirement is in the right place in the first place. Is 182 the right number of days? Many of these operators have asked me to ask you whether you would commission an independent economic impact assessment, now that this policy has been in place for around three years, to ascertain whether 182 days is at the right level, because it can't be the intention of the policy that three quarters of operators feel that they can't reach this target in their normal economic circumstances. So, will you commit to that independent economic impact assessment, so that we can see whether this 182-day rule is at the right level?

Well, Llywydd, the actual figure, the figure validated by two years' worth of returns to the Valuation Office Agency, is that 60 per cent, not 26 per cent—more than twice the figure that the Member quoted—have actually, in practice, met the 182-day threshold. And if people have to do it by significant discounting, then that is because there is oversupply in the market. And look, it is important just to trace what has happened in relation to short-term lets in Wales. The number of short-term lets in Wales doubled between 2013 and 2019, and there has been a further 60 per cent rise on it since 2019. The market is oversupplied. And what the 182-days threshold does is to make sure that those businesses that are proper businesses, operating at least half the year round in terms of letting, are properly recognised as such. And companies that offer much shorter periods, as the people who make their livelihoods out of this will tell you, are sometimes hobbyists rather than businesses, but they are not—[Interruption.] Well, you may say that, but that's what I am told by people who work in the field, that that growth is amongst people letting their properties for very short periods of time, and sometimes undercutting people who make their livelihoods out of it.

What the 182 days does—. It doesn't stop anybody from letting their properties for less than 182 days; it just means they're not entitled to apply for small business rate relief, because you are not a business in the sense that I think businesses ought to be recognised. You have to pay council tax as anybody else would have to do.

So, a consultation exercise, Llywydd, offers some, I think, sensible ways of responding to anxieties in the sector. I am very open to the idea that you would have to demonstrate that you get to the 182-day threshold not in a single year, but over a cycle of two or three years, given the cyclical and seasonal nature of tourism in Wales. If you can't demonstrate, over a cycle, that you are genuinely able to let a property at that level, then I don't think you are entitled to claim small business rate relief at the taxpayer's expense. And that is what this policy is about.

Prynhawn da, Cabinet Secretary. Even without a consultation, we can all see that this 182-day threshold is just not realistic. It’s been lethal for many properties in my patch, and I'm sure many other Members in this Senedd. Welsh tourism relies on these holiday lets. By forcing them out, your Government is damaging entire communities. Because, when those lets close, which is what these daft targets are driving them to do, it's not just the owners who suffer; it's the local shops, it's the pubs, the tradesmen, the cleaners—the whole local economy takes the hit.

There's a stunning windmill in Monmouthshire, near where I live, in Llancayo. It's been branded a 'second home' recently, because the owners couldn't hit the threshold, and they are certainly not hobbyists; it's not through lack of trying. Now they're being stung with an eye-watering council tax bill. Nobody in their right mind would think of this as a second home, and I'm sure it probably even couldn't be, as Russell George just mentioned, and these are things that are not being captured in this consultation by the questions that are being asked. Yet, while the council is cashing in, they are also using that windmill for promotion of local tourism. This is a reality right across Wales. Businesses are being forced to close through no fault of their own or lack of trying.

I'm certain that every Member has cases similar to this. The truth is that the policy was always unrealistic. A one-size-fits-all approach simply doesn't work and is adversely affecting one of Wales's most vital industries. Minister, isn't it time you admitted that this threshold is unreachable by many, and brought it down to a fair, achievable target? And would you argue that it’s also clear that questions in this consultation need to be revised as soon as possible?

Well, Llywydd, 60 per cent of businesses in Wales are reaching the threshold. The threshold isn't lethal to any business. It simply means that, if you don't reach that threshold, you're not entitled to claim non-domestic rates relief. Now, I do believe that if a business has to revert to paying council tax, then local authorities ought to be reasonable about the way in which that council tax is then pitched and that extra bill has to be paid. For example, there are local authorities that don't charge a premium in the first year that someone becomes liable again for the council tax. I think there are reasonable things that local authorities can do to smooth the path if a business isn't operating at the 182-day threshold. That is in the consultation paper. And there seems to be a bit of a myth going round the room this afternoon that, if something isn't specifically mentioned in the consultation paper, you're not allowed to mention it in any reply. That is absolutely not the case in this consultation. As I've said already, if there are ideas over and above those that are rehearsed in the consultation that anybody wants to contribute to it, they should go ahead and do that.

Thank you very much to Peredur Owen Griffiths for the question. We have provided over £33 million of capital grant funding to the local authorities within the region, and a further £1.8 million through the local authority education grant, to deliver on the commitments within their Welsh in education strategic plans. This has led to six new Welsh-medium schools being opened since 2022.

Diolch yn fawr am yr ateb yna. Dwi eisiau canolbwyntio ar un o'r ysgolion hynny—Ysgol Gymraeg Trefynwy—sydd newydd ddathlu blwyddyn o fod ar agor. Mae'r ysgol yn llwyddo i feithrin cariad at y Gymraeg ymhlith plant a theuluoedd, ond does dim cartref penodol wedi'i glustnodi iddi ar hyn o bryd gan y sir. Gaf i ofyn ichi felly sut ydych chi'n mynd i sicrhau bod cyllid digonol ar gael i gynnal a datblygu'r Gymraeg yn lleol, yn enwedig yn achos sir Fynwy, lle mae'r angen yn arbennig o fawr? Sut y bydd y Llywodraeth yn sicrhau bod buddsoddiad priodol a chynaliadwy yn cael ei wneud i ddiogelu dyfodol yr ysgol, a rhai eraill yn fy rhanbarth rydych chi wedi eu nodi yn barod, ac i gryfhau'r Gymraeg yn y gymuned ac yn y system addysg?

I thank Peredur Owen Griffiths for those additional questions. I'm aware of the situation in Ysgol Gymraeg Trefynwy. As the Member has said, the school, which has just opened, has been a success. More children have come forward to take-up Welsh-medium education than was originally expected. The point now is to be clear about the future of the school in the long term.

Llywydd, the school, Ysgol Gymraeg Trefynwy, was founded as what's called a 'seedling school': a school to begin the business of making sure that Welsh-medium education is more readily available to parents and young people in that area. It is now for the local authority to plan for the long-term future of that school. My understanding is that, from the beginning, there has been space at its current site for it over more than just two or three years. But I understand the point that lies behind the Member's question; parents and staff will be looking for certainty about the long-term location of that school. My officials have been in contact with the lead officer for education in Monmouthshire, and with the lead officer for Welsh-medium education. I understand that a paper will be going to the cabinet of the county council in the autumn, setting out the options that are there for the long-term location of that school, balancing, as it has to do, the provision of English-medium and the projections overall for falling numbers of young children entering education in the county over the decade ahead. I don't think we should act as though we think that those are easy things to resolve, but I agree that it is important for this school, Ysgol Gymraeg Trefynwy, that it has certainty about its long-term location and that it can continue the success it's had so far in attracting even more young people into Welsh-medium education.

I thank Jenny Rathbone. Llywydd, the Welsh Government is encouraging modal shift to reduce congestion on our roads through a range of positive transport policies, and providing funding for active travel, public transport, and for local authorities to improve services and infrastructure. The Member will be aware of our new £1 bus fare that is making public transport cheaper for young people in every part of Wales.

The £1 bus fare is extremely welcome and it's great to see that so many of the bus companies have actually engaged with that process.

I want to explore how we maximise the benefit of the fantastic £800 million spent on the core Valleys lines. I, myself, have recently been using the Rhymney line and have found it reliable. The services available are always there, the train always turns up on time and arrives on time. When I had to drive to Caerphilly during the rush hour, I was astonished to see so many people were still commuting from Cardiff to Caerphilly by car, with huge, huge queues behind us. So, I'm just wondering how we can encourage more people to do what is a much more effective use of their time, to go on the train. 

One of the ways we could do that, which has been discussed by Cardiff Council in the past, is by having congestion charging at times when the roads are completely blocked—completely blocked—and my constituents are suffering all the costs of the air pollution. Given that people who work in Cardiff central are very happy to use the rail services, why is it not possible to encourage more of them to do so when they realise how reasonable the prices are?

Well, Llywydd, I share Jenny Rathbone's wish to encourage people to use public transport, and especially the core Valleys lines, with everything that they now offer. The Welsh Government is focused on the positive inducements to do so, and I think that there are at least three of those that we can deploy further in order to go on encouraging more people to use those services. And of course, there has been very strong growth in the use of those services and in the farebox that Transport for Wales has been able to collect as a result.

The first, I think, is the point that Jenny Rathbone made in opening that, because of that period in which trains were being delivered very late to Transport for Wales, there was a period when their services were not as reliable or as frequent as Transport for Wales itself had expected. We have to persuade people that that era is behind us and that the investment is now paying off, so that we do have more frequent, faster and more reliable services. And I think that as that reputation takes hold, so more people will make the choice that Jenny Rathbone has mentioned. Then, we can see the move to pay-as-you-go ticketing, which is being rolled out across the whole of the south Wales metro area. And we know from what passengers are saying that a pay-and-go ticketing system makes it faster, easier and more convenient and cheaper to travel. So, I don't think that we have exhausted the positive ways in which we can go on persuading people to make better use of what will be a Europe-leading regional transport system here in south Wales, and then we'll see even more people benefiting in the way that the Member has described from her own experience. 

Finally, question 10, Mabon ap Gwynfor. 

Thank you very much for that question. Llywydd, promoting the use of Welsh by private businesses is an important element of our 'Cymraeg 2050' strategy. One example of the support that we offer to businesses is the work carried out by the Helo Blod service. Since its launch, we have processed over 8,000 requests for support from businesses.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. It's good to hear that more businesses are taking an interest in providing Welsh language services. Back at the beginning of the 1990s, the Welsh Language Act 1993 at that time was transformational in placing a duty on public bodies to offer bilingual or Welsh-medium provision. But since then, of course, we have seen far more public services in Wales outsourcing their work to private companies that don't have that expectation to offer Welsh-medium provision. So, what consideration have you as Cabinet Secretary and the Government given to ensuring that private companies that do win public contracts provide services through the medium of Welsh across Wales?

Well, as the Member said, Llywydd, we don't have statutory powers at present to impose duties on private companies, and on the whole I think that we have succeeded in collaborating with them and persuading them to use more Welsh, and the work of the Welsh Language Commissioner in this area has been very important. But we are hearing and we know of examples where businesses are pulling back from their use of the Welsh language. Every time that happens, it gives more power to those people who argue for more statutory powers in this area. Now, at present, we're pressing ahead with the powers that we have to persuade people, providing the good examples that we have to persuade other people. But, in the next Senedd term, I'm sure that people will want to consider whether we've reached the point where we need to legislate to put more powers in the hands of the commissioner, and more duties on private businesses, whether we've reached that point. We're not there yet and, on the whole, we have succeeded in increasing the use of the Welsh language through the good examples and persuading people to do so. 

I thank the Cabinet Secretary. 

The next item will be questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, and the first question is from Peredur Owen Griffiths. 

Thank you, Peredur. We are supporting a sustainable and productive agricultural industry in all of Wales through the sustainable farming scheme, and we're backing farmers in South Wales East specifically with over £22 million of basic payment scheme 2024 payments, and farm support is also provided through our rural investment schemes, with a 2024-25 budget of £97.64 million.

Thank you for that response.

I was at the Usk agricultural show on Saturday, and it was great to see so many people from across the region there, even with the frequent downpours. One of the main topics of discussion with the farming community was tuberculosis and the work of the technical advisory group on bovine TB. The big question from farmers, and I will ask you directly, was: will you commit to fully accepting and implementing the forthcoming recommendations of the technical advisory group on bovine TB, recognising the urgency of developing evidence-based strategies to tackle this long-standing disease? Given the serious economic, emotional and welfare impacts of TB on farming families across Wales, how will you ensure the group's scientific advice is not only published transparently, but also translated into concrete practical policy measures that command confidence, deliver measurable progress, and provide the farming community with clarity, consistency and long-term certainty for the future? 

Diolch, Peredur. Thank you very much for that. I also have been out at many of the shows over the summer period, chatting to farmers about TB and many other issues as well. I was also delighted to attend a recent meeting, sitting on hay bales, together with the Llywydd, with several farmers who've been affected by TB, and hearing the stories of heartbreak upon them and their families trying to cope with TB, some of them over many, many years.

Now, just to make it clear, I've always been very clear that the TB advisory group—expert-led as it is—when it brings forward recommendations, the track record is that we've acted on those and we've implemented them very rapidly as well, and I think that's acknowledged out there in the field. They are working on further recommendations to bring forward. They'll come to me in due course, and I will consider them as they come in front of me, of course, but the track record of this Government has been that we have faith in the TB advisory group—led by, of course, the programme board as well—and when they bring forward recommendations, we are advised by the Chief Veterinary Officer for Wales as well, and we act very rapidly on those recommendations.

Thank you so much, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, let's be perfectly honest here: this Labour Government and the Labour Government on the other end of the M4 are not supporting farmers in any way, shape or form. You are doing the exact opposite, with farmers being punished and penalised at every single toss and turn. This is despite farmers playing a crucial role when it comes to food security, our economy, our rural communities, and, of course, without them we'd simply have no food. The family farm tax is just one example of the Labour Party's attacks on our hard-working farmers. According to research, in Wales this crippling tax is expected to reduce gross value added by £580 million, resulting in 9,715 job losses, and to reduce business turnover by over 12.2 per cent. Cabinet Secretary, this tax will prove catastrophic for the farming industry, including within my region of south-east Wales. So, will you please join me in urging the UK Labour Government to abandon this tax to protect our farmers, or are you just going to be happy to stand back and watch your colleagues decimate this industry? Thank you.

I dispute the substance of the question as it was put by Natasha entirely. This Welsh Government is firmly on the side of good sustainable land management, food production and also the gains of environment, flood protection and biodiversity. We've shown that through our work on the sustainable farming scheme, which, as you know, we launched earlier this summer. I think it's fair to say that when you look at the responses of some of the organisations to that, whether it's the farming unions or the Tenant Farmers Association and so on, they've not only engaged with the work that we've done, and they recognise the collaborative nature of the work that we've done as well, but they've also, alongside us, been encouraging farmers to step up over the summer and use the ready reckoner we provided to look at what the impacts would be for their farm.

To be absolutely crystal clear here, from a Welsh Government perspective we want to ensure the future of a type of farming in Wales that is very characteristic of Wales, those small and medium-scale family farms that are not only the bedrock of food production, land stewardship and environmental stewardship, and can help us as we can help them with climate resilience as well, as we face drought and as we face deluge, but also that we will stand by them and support them, not least with the £238 million that we've allocated this year going forward from the BPS budget into the SFS. So, this Welsh Government stands four-square with sustainable farming within this country of Wales, and also all those farmers and their families who produce good food.

Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. I too am in regular dialogue with our South Wales East farmers, including at the fantastic Usk show as well, and in Caerphilly recently. Instead of feeling supported, they feel continually punished by the Labour Governments at both ends of the M4. The inheritance tax is the single most worrying policy for farmers, and it threatens our family farms right across Wales, their existence and, of course, the entire rural communities that they support. Earlier this week, your First Minister made it absolutely clear that she wants to sever ties with the sinking ship that is your UK Labour Party Government. Now, with those obvious tensions between this Government and Westminster, have you and the First Minister managed to make any representations from Welsh farmers over the very real concerns they have over the inheritance tax? Are you willing to publish what has been said between your Governments, as your job as Welsh Labour Government is to fight for our Welsh farmers, not to bend over for or cut ties with our UK Government when this is of such significance for Wales? Diolch.

Thank you. Let me deal with the substance of the question. First of all, we've made consistent representations, as we've been developing the sustainable farming scheme, to the UK Government, both in ministerial engagement directly, but also in writing as well, including more recent correspondence with the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Secretary of State—although, of course, the personnel have now changed there—where we asked the UK Government to consider all those practical alternative proposals, modifications to the policy that might mitigate any potential impacts on our small and medium-scale family farms, such as the analysis that's been put forward by the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation. We've also sought reassurance that the changes to inheritance tax do not impact our plans for the future of sustainable farming in Wales.

So, I and the First Minister and others will continue to make those representations, but be under no mistake as well that the reason that we're in this unenviable predicament is because of the black hole in finance in which the Conservatives, of which she was a member at one point, left the nation's finances.

Diolch, Mabon. Local authority farms are an important asset to the agricultural industry. The most recent published data for the financial year 2023-24 shows there were 954 local authority farms in Wales.

Thank you very much for that response, Cabinet Secretary. As you said, they are an important asset that we must try and preserve. As part of this estate of farms, there are homes, of course. The Welsh Government has rules on the standards of public housing in Wales. They must reach specific standards so that people can live in them. But those rules and those standards don't apply to houses on local authority farms. Many of those houses on our public farms are very low quality, with leaking roofs, dampness, with spring water being used, and so on. We need to see investment in them. If we want to see the continuation of these public farms, then we must see investment in them, particularly in the houses, so that the families can live comfortably on those farms. So, what plans does the Welsh Government have in order to ensure that that investment is made and that we see the houses on our local authority farms improved in terms of their quality?

Diolch, Mabon. I understand the purpose behind this question. As I said in my opening remarks, there's a real importance to local authority landholdings and smallholdings, not least because they can provide the entry point for many people into agriculture. So, they are really important. However, it's worth saying that it's not something the Welsh Government can directly intervene in or have a role in. It is for local authorities to consider.

I realise that, recently, one local authority in particular had put forward a proposal to dispose of not only the land but the houses as well, but has reconsidered that. But it is for the local authority to do that. The Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023, Mabon, doesn't confer ministerial control over local authorities' powers on their land and the disposal of land. Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 does require a local authority, if it is considering disposal of land, to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable, unless the consent of Welsh Ministers is obtained to a sale at under value.

From a Welsh Government perspective, Mabon, we are very keen to make sure, as with our design of the sustainable farming scheme, that there are many routes for people to get into farming and agriculture and sustain those rural economies. What is within our powers is the ability to support some of that mobility within the industry—the skills development, the access to training, things like shared farming, and developing that modern professional agricultural industry. Much of that we do within Welsh Government-supported schemes, but local authorities are in the pole position in terms of their landholdings.

Thank you to Mabon ap Gwynfor for the question.

Building on what Mabon has asked you, Cabinet Secretary, you'll be aware that normal council homes fall under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, with additional requirements such as electrical safety checks and hard-wired smoke detectors under the 2022 regulations. In contrast, homes let under farm business tenancies on council farms are instead governed by the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, with housing standards enforced only through the housing health and safety rating system in the 2004 Act. Given that there are discrepancies in the standards of council housing, be they let as a single council house or as part of a council farm, what correspondence are you having with your Cabinet Secretary for housing to bring equality into this so those that are renting council farm properties have the same standards of living as those in a normal council property?

Thanks, Sam. Could I invite you and Mabon to write to me? I'm more than happy to have those discussions on a cross-Cabinet basis to explore this issue. It's a valid issue that you've raised, but drop me a line and I will happily come back to you after discussing it with Cabinet colleagues.

Farms owned by local authorities, as both you and Mabon ap Gwynfor said, do form a very important part of the agricultural sector in Wales. They offer an opportunity particularly for new entrants and young farmers to enter the agricultural industry.

You mentioned the number of local authority farms that are now there. I think you said it was 934, which does show a significant drop over the last 15 years, as councils have been selling off these agricultural assets, usually for another purpose, such as house building. And, of course, once they’ve been sold, they will have been lost forever.

You did outline some of the work that the Welsh Government is doing with local authorities. I appreciate it is up to a local authority how they use their assets, but what more do you think the Welsh Government can do to ensure that these farms stay within the agricultural sector?

Thank you, Lesley, very much for that. I do think we have a role as the Welsh Government in making clear that it is our intention that we need to use all tools available to make sure that young people and others have a route into farming, and that, very often, it is through landholdings that are in the gift of local authorities. Whilst we don’t have direct control of them, I’m very aware of the importance of protecting the interests of the agricultural tenancy sector in Wales. We’re very committed to ensuring that those opportunities exist, such as the local authority farms for those wishing to make agriculture a career. I have written very recently to the chief executive officers of each local authority, seeking their responses to an intention survey on their landholdings for the short, medium and long term. My officials and I will be analysing the responses when the information is received, and I’m sure I can update the Senedd in due course.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Janet Finch-Saunders. 

Diolch, Llywydd. This afternoon, I was really pleased to engage with a Climate Cymru event, and indeed was a panel speaker there. They obviously want to push for a healthier, fairer and safer future as part of 'Act Now, Change Forever'. They have called for fairness and a just transition. Nowhere more, though, in Wales does this seem to be lacking than in our water sector.

Over the next 18 to 24 months, Dŵr Cymru expects to reduce its workforce by 12 per cent. That is up to 500 roles made redundant, and at a time when our water bills have increased by around 27 per cent. Peter Perry, the chief executive, who has been remunerated to an amount well over £0.5 million over the years, per year, has led on defending this particular programme to cut this number of staff.

I’ve made it clear to the Chair of our climate change committee that the current chief executive should come before us for scrutiny, and I understand we’re going to be discussing this in the morning in committee. However, there is a major flaw. Roch Cheroux starts as the chief executive next month.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that the planned programme of 500 job cuts should be postponed? In most businesses, either non-profit-making or good businesses, it would be seen that the new chief executive coming in should really want to see how he can make the company far better than it’s been. We’ve all stood up here and made several references—

I've been really generous. You need to come to your question.

We’ve all stood up here many times and condemned the poor functioning of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water.

I would definitely urge Dŵr Cymru to engage with the trade unions, the workplace representatives, and others. They’ve made clear that if they take forward these proposals, in consultation with the workforce, then their intention is to focus on voluntary redundancies and the reallocation of staff, to minimise any losses. They’re also focused on the front line. It’s worth saying, in terms of that front-line aspect, that we have, of course, as you know, put additional specific funding into Natural Resources Wales this year for enforcement on river quality. So, credit to Climate Cymru and those others who are very focused on making sure that we do the right things in terms of the climate, but also in terms of the health of our river systems as well. Everybody will have to play a role in that: the water companies, developers, the Welsh Government, local authorities, planners and also our farming community. I hope that helps, Janet.

Diolch. There is no doubt that major changes are required at Welsh Water. In my opinion, they should be set out and led by a chief executive who is going to be there to see them through. In July, even NRW called on Dŵr Cymru to make urgent and fundamental changes to its operations. However, there is a need now for you, Cabinet Secretary, to make fundamental changes too. The final report by the Independent Water Commission is scathing. For example, there has been no report on progress made with the water strategy for Wales 2015 for almost a decade, and the commission has identified a list of over 100 pieces of legislation relevant to how water is regulated in Wales. The 2017 review commissioned by the Welsh Government into the legal framework for sewerage and drainage found that barriers are overcome in spite of legislation, not because of it. Why has the legislation not been streamlined, and the very strategy that sets out how the Welsh Government believes our water services and resources should be managed, during the last nine years? Why are Welsh people having to suffer as a consequence of this delayed reporting?

We're very focused on actions. First of all I will point out that, as you know, I'm not responsible directly for Dŵr Cymru, but I meet with them regularly. We regularly assess their performance and we push them to go further and faster. As a result of the recent price review, as you know, there will be a significant investment in Dŵr Cymru and Hafren Dyfrdwy's assets, including to tackle issues on water quality. I met this week, by the way, with Ofwat. Ofwat and I share the desire to push Dŵr Cymru harder and faster on their performance. There are several areas where they are underperforming, they're very aware of it, and we very much hope that the new chief executive and chair—there's a new chair also—that are in place will drive forward the actions to improve performance on behalf of customers and the environment here in Wales.

Diolch again. Nobody's suggesting you run the water company, but what I'm telling you is that, as a Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary, I believe you do have a responsibility to my constituents and people across Wales in how we stop the bad performance of Dŵr Cymru. It is astonishing that you, as the Government, have expected water companies to operate in such a regulatory swamp, despite almost a decade of evidence that it needs to be streamlined and that action needs to be taken—10 years of evidence completely ignored.

Work on a water (Wales) Bill should be commenced urgently, so to progress the Cunliffe commission's recommendations. One of these is to create a separate and independent economic water regulator for Wales. We, as the Welsh Conservatives, believe that needs to happen, and happen quickly. The last thing NRW needs, because it has its own staffing problems, is more responsibility.

As such, do you agree with me that now we should be establishing a new flood and water agency for Wales, which would inherit all responsibilities NRW have for flooding and water, act as a national system planner, direct funding, lead on producing a strategic plan, assess current conditions, and put forward a set of national objectives that will actually ensure that this current failing of both your Government and Welsh Water will be brought to an end?

Janet, 'no' to your last point. The last thing that we need at this moment in time is structural upheaval just for the sake of it. What we do need to do is focus on performance. As you know, in terms of the flood space, which you mentioned, we have record investment going into flood prevention. That goes from the large schemes all the way down to the clearing of culverts and the video monitoring and so on. We've debated that many times here within the Senedd.

I'm glad you referred to the Jon Cunliffe report. I'm very pleased that the report actually took cognisance of the different policy framework, structures and approach here in Wales as well. It's not 'for Wales, read England'. He's very much said that in some aspects, including the working together to deal with these problems, we are actually ahead of the game. We have some of the structures in place already. He does put forward a very specific recommendation on a regulator for Wales. We are working intently now through the detail of what that might mean, including those areas where it would actually make sense on a UK basis to have regulation, as well as what we could do here very specifically in Wales. But we welcome that recommendation.

I can't anticipate, Janet, that we will be bringing forward a specific water Bill this side of the election. We have got plenty of other things in front of us, including one that I'm sure you will be involved with, which will be the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill as well. So, we've got our legislative plate full, but who knows what the next Senedd term will bring? I'd be very surprised if there wasn't water legislation within that.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Delyth Jewell.

Diolch, Llywydd. The legacy of chemical waste in Wales, Dirprwy Brif Weinidog, has left deep scars—the contamination poisoning our land and our waterways. Communities are still living with that toxic inheritance today. I've been working alongside campaigners across Wales who are calling for action on this. In Ynys-ddu, for example, residents have had to endure the legacy of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, chemicals so dangerous that their production is now banned in 151 countries, including here in the UK. Yet, despite the ban, contaminated landfill sites continue to blight our communities. Many of these sites are not properly recorded. In some cases, we only know part of what is buried there. In others, we know nothing at all. Increased rainfall, though, in the coming months and years could unleash this waste into our communities time and again. Friends of the Earth Cymru estimate there may be up to 45,000 of these sites across Wales. Will you listen to their call for risk assessments of these sites for monitoring and, where necessary, remediation?

Thank you very much. You raise a very important issue here, because the legacy of historical industrial waste disposal activities, sites of contamination, is a very real issue here in Wales, as it is throughout the UK as well. Just in respect of Tŷ Llwyd, which you mentioned there, back in December, I approved a capital grant for Caerphilly County Borough Council to undertake improvement works at that site to improve drainage on the site, very much, Delyth, because we are so aware of the increasing pressures, including through rainfall, that we are having now. So, that is intended to reduce the risk of off-site pollution incidents. That work has now been completed. As I say, it was with Welsh Government support that that happened. But, there are real challenges here. The good thing, I would say, is that we are very seized by this. We are very aware of this. We're working with local authorities to identify the sites, and then work with them so that they can take the necessary preventative or remedial action. But, we do actually recognise that local authorities are in challenging times as well, where they are trying to decide on their budget allocations as well. But I think this is something we all need to address together.

Thank you for that. Related to this, of course, the Senedd is scrutinising the long-awaited environmental governance Bill. Now, that promises to give Wales powers to establish an environmental governance body. The body should surely be able to hold the Welsh Government and other public authorities to account for their environmental performance because—and we've rehearsed this so many times in committee, of course—since Brexit, Wales has languished in a governance gap when it comes to our natural world. When it comes to contaminated land, we can't afford to wait any longer, can we? We're talking about tens of thousands of sites that could be leaking toxins into the soil under our feet, seeping into rivers that run through our valleys, and threatening the safety of our homes and communities. This really is urgent. Every poisoned acre is a broken promise to future generations. So, how do you envision the role of this body in confronting the reality of contaminated land, to close that governance gap, and to protect the people, water and wildlife of Wales for generations to come?

Thank you, Delyth. Can I just say I'm really looking forward to taking forward this legislation, in concert with the committee and with other Senedd Members as they scrutinise? I think it's vitally important we get this on the statute book as soon as possible. We need to fill that regulatory legislative gap that you've rightly identified. And, of course, this will set up a very independent environmental authority that can go where it chooses to go, that doesn’t have a Minister saying, 'Keep away from this', or a Minister saying, 'We insist you focus on and prioritise that'. It will be for them to decide where they go, and they will provide that challenge to me and to public bodies as well. So, if they choose to focus on the issue of contaminated land, that is for them to do and I wouldn’t want to constrain them in any way.

But, to be clear as well, in the right here and right now—and this is the interesting aspect—in the way that the legislation will ultimately interplay with existing duties and responsibilities, under Part II(A) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the existing requirements, local authorities have a duty to identify contaminated land within their areas. If they identify land that meets that definition of contaminated land, they’re required to ensure that it is remediated appropriately. So, it will be interesting, going forward, to see whether the new environmental body says, ‘Well, we’re going to challenge whether that’s being done or not’. But the power of the legislation we’re taking through is exactly that—it gives an independent voice to say, 'Are statutory duties on things such as contaminated land, and a wide range of other issues, being properly taken forward?'

Well, I look forward very much to that coming into force.

Finally, Dirprwy Brif Weinidog, I want to turn to something that brings together everything we’ve spoken about today, which is Zane’s law, and that’s a campaign that centres on the urgent need for tighter regulation of contaminated land. Now, Zane’s law is named after a seven-year-old child whose life was lost when his home was flooded and lethal gas seeped in from a nearby contaminated landfill site. His family have campaigned tirelessly ever since. They’re determined that no other family should suffer the same heartbreak or loss, because Zane’s story is not an isolated tragedy. It is a stark reminder of what is at stake when contaminated land is left unchecked. So, Deputy First Minister, would you commit to considering Zane’s law and to pressing the UK Government to take action on this too—many local authorities across England have already adopted these principles—so that, together, we can ensure that there’s proper monitoring, stronger regulation and real accountability to protect our people, our land and future generations from the dangers of these sites? I know that Zane’s law campaigners have held a meeting with the Prime Minister. Would you agree with me that Wales can’t be left behind on this?

My heart goes out to the parents who have been campaigning so hard, now, on Zane’s law, and I think the spirit of what they’re trying to do is very much in the approach that we’re taking here in Wales—identifying, monitoring and carrying out remediation on those areas of contaminated ground. I think the work that we are doing, which we touched on earlier with the environmental governance principles, will help strengthen that as well. So, I’m very alive to the campaign behind Zane’s law and keen to ensure that we take the spirit of that into what we do here in Wales.

Diolch, Tom. We provide wide-ranging support to farmers in South Wales West and right across Wales, from agricultural support schemes to advice via Farming Connect, and we support a sustainable future for Welsh agriculture. We are backing farmers in South Wales West with more than £49 million under the basic payment scheme 2024.

Thank you for that response.

You will know, as well as I do, that, for many farmers, their only industry is not necessarily just in farming and, actually, many of them have diversified, often at the encouragement of the Welsh Government, to pursue other industries. And that's particularly clear in Gower, in my electoral region, where lots of farmers have entered the tourism industry, particularly around self-catering holiday let properties. Now, we had a discussion about this under the previous agenda item, with the Cabinet Secretary for finance, in this area, but many farmers feel like they have almost been penalised now because of the changes that have been made to self-catering holiday lets, having to meet this 182-day threshold—being penalised, if you like, for doing the right thing, for diversifying their businesses in that way, like I say, at the encouragement, very often, of the Welsh Government. So, you are the voice for not only the farming industry, but for farmers and for rural communities across the Cabinet table. So, what conversations are you having with the Cabinet Secretary for finance and others to be the voice for farmers who are concerned about the 182-day rule?

We do have those conversations, Tom, I can assure you on that, and it's partly because we do recognise that farming, of its very nature within Wales—the characteristic nature of it in Wales—is very often extremely diversified. There are very many strands to a farm income, and it could include people actually working off the farm within public services—the public sector—or running businesses as well. Now, part of that is, undoubtedly, the tourism offer that many farms—those that are fortunate enough to be able to do so—have diversified into. I'll continue those discussions, but I did see the earlier exchanges with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language. I think he answered this fully, and I would encourage, as the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, you, but also any constituents of yours, and any across Wales, to feed into that discussion around the future of accommodation within Wales, because it is a pertinent part of farm businesses for many, many farms nowadays. 

Thank you, Adam. The Welsh Government is investing £77 million in 2025-26 to reduce flood risk across Wales. Natural Resources Wales has published guidance for preparing farming or agricultural land. I urge everyone to sign up to NRW’s free flood warning service to stay informed and be better prepared for future flooding events.

Minister, I'm sure you will be aware of the heartbreaking case in my constituency recently, which was close to Pontyates just this month, where a local farmer lost 275 sheep in a flood on land near the Gwendraeth Fawr. Never mind the cost, of course, the incident has had a terrible impact on my constituents emotionally and mentally, as a family that has had to overcome several significant challenges before this occurred. As the weather becomes more difficult to predict as a result of climate change, it is inevitable that there will be further cases where unpredictable flooding takes place. So, how is the Welsh Government working to reduce the number of cases such as this one and to review the flood forecasting system in order to support landowners and farmers, and what other support can be offered to those who are affected in this way?

Thank you very much for that, Adam. I'm very aware of that deeply distressing incident, and I think anybody who has seen some of the coverage and read about this will be heartbroken for the individuals involved, but also for the animals that were lost as well in those floods. First of all, let me stress that I hope that the farmer and his family are getting the support that they need, because it's a traumatic incident. 

The way that we can help is, first of all, to say to farmers that if they're in flood risk areas, they should register for Natural Resources Wales's free flood warning service. Register—we've got too many people who aren't registered. We need to get everybody registered, particularly if they're in flood risk areas.

Secondly, there is advice out there as well that anybody keeping animals outdoors should have, as a farmer, a contingency plan in place to safeguard welfare during extreme weather events. This wasn't the first and it won't be the last of such weather events. We've seen them now increasing over recent decades here in Wales and in England as well. Those contingency plans are vital, and there is help and support out there about how to put those together. Where there is a flood risk, farmers should have that plan to protect the animals, and this includes where they should be moved to and how they'll move them—how they will get there.

I draw attention to the fact that farmers are often extremely supportive of each other and will work together in these situations as well. There are many other aspects that are pertinent to this. It's not just during the flooding, but it's after the flooding, because pasture and feed can become contaminated, so animals need to be closely monitored afterwards. So, the advice to farmers is: work with the vet, both in advance of this, but also in the aftermath as well, because if animals have drunk floodwater or eaten potentially contaminated feed, that could also prove high risk as well. But work with the vet, work with NRW guidance here, and seek support from others within the farming community as well. I'm concerned about the welfare of the farmer affected, but also the welfare of animals as well, and this won't be the last that we see of this. So, preparation is everything.

Those images of that flood event in Adam Price's constituency really were heartbreaking. In your answer, Cabinet Secretary, you mentioned some of the things that the farmer can do in avoiding or helping to mitigate some of this. But across the border, we've seen a farmer in Lincolnshire build their own private reservoir, so what that does, then, is stop rain water flushing down and flooding a downstream area, and also helping them in times of drought, feeding their crops. So, there could be a benefit in better water management in our catchment areas here in Wales, avoiding flooding and helping in periods of drought. I've previously asked when was the last reservoir built here in Wales, because we don't have a water shortage problem, as the farmer put it, we have a water management problem. So, what discussions are you having with other bodies, such as Natural Resources Wales and Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, to look at the viability of upstream or private reservoirs with farmers, to firstly mitigate downstream flooding and secondly to help mitigate droughts in dry summers as well?

Thanks, Sam. You will know that the challenges we face in Wales here from a weather and a climatic point of view, particularly in mid and west Wales, are significantly different from those that they face in, let's say, the east of England. But I take your point that if a farmer had a proposal that had merit within it to actually build additional reservoir capacity, then they would need to bring that proposal forward through planning, through their own procedures, run it through NRW and so on. 

There's nothing precluding a farmer actually putting a proposal forward, but there are a wide range of considerations in doing that. I can absolutely see the attractiveness of this more from a drought management point of view in terms of parts of England that are now regularly within drought status, or water shortage status. Here in Wales, if there are farmers who want to bring those proposals forward, then they can do, but it would need to go through the full gamut of considerations.

The impact of climate change is the biggest threat to our agricultural sector, and the extreme weather where we've seen these numerous flooding events and, indeed, heat waves, such as we've seen four times over this summer, have a significant impact on our food supply. How is the Welsh Government ensuring our farmers are prepared for the challenges that they're already facing due to climate change? 

Thank you, Lesley, for that question. It's vitally important. The way we design now the funds that go into farming for food production, for biodiversity, for climate resilience—they need to do all of those things to the benefit of the farmer, but also to the water catchment area as well. And that does mean, in the design of the SFS, we've made sure that we are taking a whole-farm approach, but also a whole-nation approach. The ability within that scheme, for example, to take forward collaborative actions such as the Ffermio Bro scheme, a precursor of it, which we are doing within the national parks alongside farmers, where farmers can work together to mitigate climate change, deal with things such as rapid run-offs because of flood, because there's denuded tree coverage and so on. That is where we need to be focused. And I have to say, this is to the benefit of farmers, their individual climate resilience, their stock and the welfare of their animals as well. This is the new reality that we are now working in. It's not somewhere down the line. It is right now. So, everything we do within the farming community and land management, and the money that we put forward into that space, has to be to take that holistic approach—not just doing one thing, but doing the whole thing, for the benefit of the farmer and for society.

Thank you, Joyce. Following my July written statement outlining the next steps in delivering a deposit-return scheme for Wales, I launched our consultation on 18 August, covering how the scheme will support reuse. This week has also seen the commencement of the notification period for the World Trade Organization.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I think sometimes we can be too modest about these things, but having the second-highest recycling rate in the world is an achievement this country should rightly be proud to celebrate. And we can lead the way on reuse too, which as you say delivers significantly greater environmental benefits. At the same time, a deposit-return scheme will not solve all our packaging problems, so do you agree with me that the food and drink industry must uphold and push on with reusable packaging targets, and particularly refillable polyethylene terephthalate plastics, with the growing number of PETs that exist here in Wales?

Absolutely, Joyce. We have all got a responsibility, including individual producers, to step up to the mark on this, to reduce the amount of packaging and amount of waste at source, before it gets onto the shelves and gets into the environment, but also to make sure that we use the polluter-pays principle, so that where costs do fall on local communities, local authorities and others, those costs are recompensed by those who are actually producing the waste as well. And that's why the DRS is so very important, alongside the extended producer responsibility that we're doing on a UK basis with the UK Government to push those costs upstream.

I've got to say, when you look at the countries who introduced DRS, including those who introduced, as we intend to do, DRS with reuse, the transformation in their local environment has been stark and has been rapid. People who were previously disposing of waste, whether it's glass or PET or aluminium, on the kerbsides, on the roadsides, in those quiet, disregarded corners where they mount up with piles of rubbish—suddenly when there was a value on it, it really tackled that, because people were going back to the supermarkets and the grocery store and getting the money back on it.

So, I think this is very exciting going forward. But you are right, Joyce, everybody has a responsibility, including individual producers, and what they can do in the design of their products.

Question 6 [OQ63064] has been withdrawn. Question 7, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thanks, Llyr. I have had extensive discussions with a range of stakeholders, including the farming unions, primarily through the sustainable farming scheme ministerial round-table.

Thank you.

I've also had a number of discussions throughout the summer, as I'm sure you have, at the Royal Welsh Show and a large number of shows over recent weeks. But one of the most consistent concerns that's coming through clearly from the sector is the lack of long-term funding when it comes to the sustainable farming scheme, because without multi-year financial commitments, farmers are left unable to plan ahead and they can't have confidence in committing their long-term futures to a sustainable farming scheme that's only funded, as far as they can see, for the next 12 months. Now, Plaid Cymru has already committed to delivering a multi-year funding settlement for farmers. Will you do the same? 

I think, Llyr, we've put our money where our mouth is, literally, both in the previous year, rolling over the basic payment scheme funding, and in the year ahead, giving the certainty for this year ahead of this Government that we will take that funding into the sustainable farming scheme, which gives that certainty for the year ahead.

No Welsh Government now can commit on a multi-annual basis to what comes after next May. I'm glad to see you and others are committed to that long-term funding, and that helps in a way. We also need to vote budgets through as well to make this happen, and there'll be another opportunity to do this next year as well before we get to the election. But this Government has been very, very clear. We've committed, sometimes at risk, the funds. We’ve put our money where our mouth is to give that certainty to farmers, and that's my intention as Cabinet Secretary—to keep giving that certainty as we launch the SFS. 

Thanks, Mark. The Welsh Government offers support to the horticultural sector through dedicated horticultural grants. Tailored advice is also provided through the Farming Connect horticulture service.

Thank you. In 2019 the environmental, horticultural and landscaping industry in Wales supported contributions of £1.125 billion to UK gross domestic product, supported the employment of 31,168 people, and delivered huge social, environmental and health benefits. I recently visited Daleside garden centre in Hawarden with the Horticultural Trades Association, or HTA, to learn more about the work of the centre and to discuss issues, including HTA's environmental horticulture growth strategy, 'A vision for Wales'. They call for a long-term UK water resilience strategy, peat-free growing and how skills are a key challenge for the sector. How will you therefore work with the education Secretary to respond to their call for the Welsh Government to work with industry to ensure that the skills system delivers for the current and future skills requirements of the environmental horticultural sector?

I will definitely be working with the skills sector on this. We consider the horticultural sector not only an important sector, but one that has potential for significant growth as well. We know how far behind the curve we are in Wales in terms of the horticultural sector. It's a diverse sector, but we need to do far more there. Part of the way in which we can do this, beyond the discussions cross-Cabinet, of course, is what we do in terms of funding those who want to come into the scheme.

We opened a new agricultural diversification and horticulture scheme on 4 November last year, with a budget of around £1.5 million. We had 29 expressions of interest. We awarded 20 grants with funding to date of just short of £500,000. We've also had the small grant scheme as well, the horticulture start-up scheme. Again, we've allocated many grants through that. But you're right, we need to develop the skills side of this as well. I will certainly be having those discussions with the skills Minister on how we develop the skills within the horticultural sector. This is a vital part of our economy in Wales.

And finally, question 9, Hannah Blythyn. 

Yes, thank you, Hannah. Agricultural workers remain fundamental to the success of our farming sector in Wales. Our agricultural minimum wage plays an important role in protecting the interests of agricultural workers, both in terms of minimum wage rates and conditions of employment.

Thank you for the response. 

And I'd like to say at the start I am a member of Unite and have campaigned on the issue I'm going to mention in the past. You referenced the agricultural minimum wage. It's nearly a decade since the legislation was passed in this place that enabled that, and the establishment of an agricultural advisory panel. Indeed, a decade or so ago, I was part of campaigning against the abolition of the then Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales and for a comparative body here in Wales. However, I am concerned by some calls for the abolition of the AAP. I think some of the rationale for that is that there are no other similar sector-type arrangements in place, but the employment rights legislation that passed through the House of Commons just this week actually sets in train the ability for sector-based fair pay agreements, starting with social care. So, Deputy First Minister, can I ask you today to give assurances on the future of the agricultural advisory panel, and that Labour in Government will always support a better deal for workers? Diolch.

Yes, absolutely, Hannah, and as you declared your interest in terms of membership of Unite, Unite is one of my unions as well, Llywydd, so I'll put that on record. But there's a bigger picture piece here, of course, which is the importance of this body. If we were to disband it, it would be a real step backwards in terms of supporting agricultural workers in Wales, and you're right in what you say, Hannah—the steps forward that the UK Government are indicating in terms of employment rights suggest that they are heading in the direction towards us and following our lead in many ways here, which is great to see.

Look, since its inception, the panel has played such a crucial role in protecting the interests of agricultural workers, as I mentioned, in terms of minimum wage, but also conditions of employment. But it also, the wages Order itself, encourages people to further pursue those careers in the agricultural sector, because it gives a structured path of progression as well. And we're not alone in Wales in having a minimum agricultural wage rate or having this approach; it's also undertaken in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and even the Isle of Man as well. So, we stand steadfast. We've fought hard to retain this, to put this into place. You and other colleagues, and people like Mick Antoniw at the time as well, were fighting hard while I was a junior Minister in the Wales Office as well, or shadow Minister. So, we will seek to protect this. We see the value of this for agricultural workers and for employment protection.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item will be the topical questions. The first today is to be answered by Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning, and to be asked by Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Planning permission was granted on 26 August, and the reasons are set out in my decision letter.

Thank you. I have to say that I was disappointed and angry to see that the Cabinet Secretary had approved this scheme. Hundreds were also angry and disappointed at a public meeting that I participated in in Amlwch last week too. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware of the level of opposition—1,000 people have signed an open letter; over 500 people had participated in the consultation process. She herself had given every sign to me that she agreed that this proposal went contrary to many of the Welsh Government's planning policies, particularly on development on BMV agricultural land.

This is what the Cabinet Secretary told me in this Chamber back in June:

'Should solar PV array applications on BMV agricultural land come before the Department for Climate Change, the Department will object to the loss of BMV agricultural land unless other significant material considerations outweigh the need to protect such land.' 

Sixty per cent of the Alaw Môn solar farm was to be built on BMV land. That surely had to mean this project couldn't go ahead. But, instead, the Cabinet Secretary's decided to hide behind the small print and labelled this project as one of overriding need. It raises serious questions about the Welsh Government's own confidence in its planning policies, and it undermines public faith in those planning policies. We need a strategic approach, one that doesn't give the Government free will to throw principles and policies out of the window, one that developers know they have to respect.

Work is currently ongoing to oppose this decision, and the only way to do that is through judicial review. There are a few elements within the development that are being considered for appeal. It's a concern that the process didn't consider other locations. What about the dispersed solar approach that I and others support—every roof, every agricultural shed, the sides of roads and so on, car parks? But also there are concerns about Planning and Environment Decisions Wales's decision to ignore or to take out of scope the risk related to battery storage on the site, and the possible pollution to the public water supply through the key Llyn Alaw reservoir. How can that be out of scope in terms of the developing risks? Now, the appeals window is very small; 7 October is the final date for appeal. Now, given the level of frustration locally, can I ask whether the Cabinet Secretary would be willing to propose an extension to the appeals process for this specific development, so that residents can appeal the decision in a legally fair way?

To close, briefly, Llywydd, we have to remember that this is not the only solar project going through the planning process on Ynys Môn. The Maen Hir solar farm is four times bigger than this one. This one's big in itself, but it's completely impossible now to envisage the other one, Maen Hir, going ahead. So, with that in mind, will the Cabinet Secretary commit to making representations to colleagues in Westminster, urging them to reject the Maen Hir development when that reaches their desks? The Alaw Môn solar farm is wrong for Ynys Môn. We have to have a Government that understands the concerns—the genuine concerns—of communities who want to take their environmental responsibility seriously, but not in this way.

Thank you very much for the question this afternoon. And just to be very clear with all colleagues, I've never given a view on any specific project, either publicly or privately, to any colleague within the Senedd. I'm very careful when I talk about planning matters and policy to talk about them in a way that doesn't relate to any specific proposal, and I do think it's important that I set out that this afternoon.

As we've heard, and as things stand today, we are still within that challenge period; that's still active. So, anybody with an interest in this case does have the right to challenge it through the courts. And, as we've heard, there does seem to be some interest in that; we've heard that this afternoon. The period for challenge, as we know, is ongoing. I'm unable to comment further on this particular case. I don't think it's in my gift to decide the length of period for those challenges. The decision letter does set out the reasons in full and I would encourage anybody with an interest to read in full that decision letter.

Diolch. I just want to congratulate you on bringing this forward into this Senedd. We have sat through—the climate change committee—we've sat through the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill. Only yesterday, we talked about planning and how, more and more, we need to move towards a model where the voices of the community are heard, and not ridden over roughshod. By allowing this decision to go ahead, you have ridden over not just the local community, but over your elected Members here, and also a local authority, Anglesey County Council, who made it quite clear that this scheme should not be going ahead. Whilst you say, 'Well, no, you haven't done this', you are the one who signed off that statement saying why you were approving this scheme to go ahead. And it just makes a mockery, Cabinet Secretary, with all due respect. And it takes away the—. There's a democratic deficit now when you can ride so roughshod over all our residents. This scheme now will see the loss of prime agricultural land; it will see panels installed across 660 acres of land.

You have chosen glass and metal imported from China rather than to support our food industry. You haven't got a solar energy policy or strategy for Wales. You'll remember that I presented a motion to the Welsh Parliament that proposed that we announced a moratorium on all applications to place solar panels on agricultural land. I agree with Rhun about the point where—. There's no objection to people having them on their roofs—you can have solar panels anywhere—but we should not be giving over prime agricultural land. And the next scheme on Anglesey—. I can see he's been at the same meeting. I was away; I couldn't go along. I will work hard with Rhun and Llinos Medi, because, at the end of the day, going forward, people need a voice, because you are ignoring it.

Can you consider bringing forward draft legislation introducing a moratorium on solar farms, going forward, so that farm land is protected from large developments whilst a proper solar strategy is developed for Wales? The community campaign, so ably represented by Sarah Pye, they have got legal administration now—there will be, hopefully, a judicial review. But what support is ever going to be available for our communities where the big developers can get their legal representatives—usually, very expensive barristers from London—and yet the community have no scheme in our planning process to be able to fight back with any vigour?

So, all I'm asking is: can you not bring a moratorium in, the sooner the better, allowing those who want—farmers or people with land—to put panels where they want? But this is absolutely disgraceful. And I blame the Welsh Labour Government for allowing this scheme to go ahead. I think you are single-handedly, as a Government, responsible for just absolutely eradicating what should be a true democratic process in Wales.

We did have that wider debate on solar recently, before the end of the last Senedd term, so I don't want to return to those particular arguments today, because I think they do go beyond the topical question itself.

This is the first time that we've had a planning decision that is still in the live challenge period brought in a topical question and I'm really aware that I'm setting a precedent today in the way that I respond to it, and I don't want to set an inappropriate precedent that is within that challenge period. Colleagues will know it's my instinct to try and be as helpful to colleagues as I possibly can, but I can't go into the detail of the decision today. But I would ask colleagues—urge colleagues—to read the decision letter and the inspector's report, where I think that a lot of this detail is set out for colleagues quite comprehensively.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The next question is to be answered by the Counsel General, and to be asked by Mick Antoniw.

Thank you very much, Mick. The Welsh Government has supported the call for a Hillsborough law, and very much welcomes the fact that this Bill has now been introduced. Officials are now working through the detail to determine the impact, implications and scope of the provisions for public authorities and for public services in Wales.

Well, thank you for that answer. I think we would all welcome the announcement and the fulfilment of a commitment that was made by Sir Keir Starmer that the Labour Government would introduce a Hillsborough law. Can I say there's also a recognition of the determination of that group of families in Liverpool, who not only ensured that there was an inquiry to expose the real events at Hillsborough, but also now to bring forward this proposal for law, which is long overdue and most necessary?

Can I also say, at the same time, of course, that it reflects the announcement of an inquiry into events at Orgreave? The reason why those events at Orgreave are so important is because they relate to an issue from the miners' strike of an abuse of state power, and, of course, had the events at Orgreave been properly investigated, then it might be that Hillsborough would never have occurred. Can I ask you—? Just in terms of your consideration and engagement with the UK Government over this, there are, of course, elements that relate to candour and public services in Wales. We obviously want to protect the role of Welsh Government in this while accepting in full the principle. So, it's the issue of implementation, I think, that is important, with the Welsh Government clearly needing to work with the UK Government and others in ensuring that we have effective legislation that delivers the things that I think those families from Liverpool who have fought so hard for this want to see implemented.

Yes. Thank you very much, Mick. It's an incredibly important moment, actually. I think we're all very proud to see the law introduced, and I also want to pay tribute to the families and the wider campaigners who've tirelessly pursued the Hillsborough law over many years of, frankly, vilification and victim blaming and all of the other things that we've seen so very unedifyingly in our newspapers—the very same newspapers currently screaming the place down about other appalling miscarriages of justice.

I also want to recognise, Mick, yourself and Jack Sargeant in particular who've both tirelessly campaigned, alongside other Members of this Senedd, for this law to be put in place. I know that you've both worked very, very hard indeed behind the scenes and in public and with the families to make sure that this happens.

I couldn't agree with you more about Orgreave. The point is that there is a whole series of these kinds of misuses of public state power, if you like, against people who have little power to fight back, and the ramifications of that for those families continue on into generations, actually. It scars entire families and communities into generations, and we've seen that many times.

We expect the impact to be far-reaching, quite rightly. We have to work through it to understand the provisions of the Bill in detail and to make sure that we have that analysis properly. But, just to say, candour is a fundamental thing that all Governments should adhere to. It's fundamental to good governance and to regulatory compliance. We have duties of candour in the NHS already in Wales, of course, and I don't think it's asking us to do anything that the best of us wouldn't already do fulsomely. It gives legal backing to who we should be, who we ought to be at our very best. The civil service code already calls for this. It enshrines it in law, as you know.

One of the things I was most pleased to see in this was the expansion of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests. That's really important, so that people do have the right support in what can be a pretty formidable experience, and a pretty emotionally damaging experience as well. So, I really was very, very pleased to see that. As you know, we're pursuing a Member accountability Bill—a working title—at the moment. I had the privilege of discussing with Adam Price and Jane Dodds earlier today whether we can import bits of this across, so that the language makes a coherent package and makes sense. So, we will certainly be looking to do that.

What this really is doing is saying to people, 'For goodness' sake, do the right thing. Do the thing you knew you should have done in the first place.' And it puts the power of the law behind it. So, we're delighted to see the Bill introduced, and we'll be following it closely.

One of the things I was most pleased to see in this was the expansion of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests. That's really important, so that people do have the right support in what can be a pretty formidable experience, and a pretty emotionally damaging experience as well. So, I really was very, very pleased to see that. As you know, we're pursuing a Member accountability Bill—a working title—at the moment. I had the privilege of discussing with Adam Price and Jane Dodds earlier today whether we can import bits of this across, so that the language makes a coherent package and makes sense. So, we will certainly be looking to do that.

What this really is doing is saying to people, 'For goodness' sake, do the right thing. Do the thing you knew you should have done in the first place.' And it puts the power of the law behind it. So, we're delighted to see the Bill introduced, and we'll be following it closely.

I'm pleased that this subject has been raised in the Senedd today, and I thank the Member for Pontypridd for tabling this topical question this afternoon. Reflecting on the title of the proposed Bill from Westminster, I want to begin by expressing my support and solidarity with the families of the 97 people who so tragically lost their lives in the Hillsborough disaster on 15 April 1989. It's their tireless fight for truth and justice that has provided the impetus for this legislation, with the failings of the authorities at the time and the subsequent cover-up exposing just how urgently we need transparency and accountability in our public institutions. I welcome the progress that has been made over the years to address those wrongs and the further steps now being taken.

When we talk about the principle of candour in public life, it's important to remember that it was a Conservative Government, under Rishi Sunak, that took the first meaningful step, by agreeing to the Hillsborough charter. That charter was the recognition that families and the public deserve honesty, transparency and accountability from institutions that are meant to serve them. But we need to go further. The duty of candour now being developed in law is a good and necessary thing. It gives reassurance that when something goes wrong public bodies will not be evasive, but will instead face up to mistakes, learn from them and be open with those affected, with legal deterrence against lies or evasion, as you alluded to, Counsel General.

Just as importantly, this law will strengthen the position of whistleblowers—those individuals within institutions who have the courage to speak out. They should not be silenced or punished but supported, because their candour is often the first step in preventing tragedy or injustice. At a time when trust in our institutions and, indeed, in elected representatives is low, this is a step in the right direction. We only need to look at the damage caused by the Angela Rayner tax affair recently—

Gareth, can you ask a question?

—or, more recently, the Peter Mandelson scandal, to see how corrosive a lack of openness can be and how this can damage public trust. The public are right to demand higher standards, and we as politicians must demonstrate that honesty is non-negotiable. I'm supportive of a Hillsborough law, which I think would be beneficial to Wales.

So, can the Counsel General outline how the provisions of a Hillsborough law would apply here to institutions, right here in Wales, specifically, and what practical and financial implications there would be for devolved Welsh public services of implementing the statutory obligations in such a law? Thank you very much.

Well, I'm really sorry to hear you politicise it in that way. I am not going to respond by reading out the long list of Tory politicians who have been less than candid over the last 15 years—although, trust me, it's a very long list indeed—nor would I have politicised it in that way. I think we all should welcome this law. It's a good law. It provides a duty of candour. It embeds the Nolan principles in public life. It goes further by saying that public bodies should promote their—[Interruption.]

I would ask the Member to listen to the response and not have to engage in other conversations.

Oh, it's just Members making wrong allegations.

Counsel General.

The Bill goes further, and it puts a new duty requiring public bodies to promote the ethical conduct of their employees. The codes of ethics, as I said, already exist, but this gives them the force of statute, which is a good thing. It creates a whole series of duties. We don’t yet know, of course, what the ramifications of that are, as I said in opening, because we need to have a look to see how the final Bill looks, and we need to work through what that means.

But I would say that we have worked very hard to make sure that the Nolan principles are embedded already. I wouldn’t expect there to be much to do, but what there will have to be is a training programme, to make sure that people do understand what promoting ethical governance looks like—it’s not just what you do as an individual—and what we can do to make sure that people know that it’s about more than just telling what they perceive to be truth, but actually understanding that truth can be subjective and that what you need to be is objective and transparent and open in your dealings with the public.

The Bill as introduced says that it currently is excluding Welsh devolved functions because it wants to respect the devolution settlement. I think that is to be welcomed, but it creates a mechanism for the Welsh Government, effectively, to introduce the principles through regulations. Can we take it from what the Counsel General has said that the Welsh Government intends to avail itself of that mechanism, so that we can have consistency and it can be applied to Welsh devolved functions?

The Counsel General is actually mentioned in the draft Bill, not personally, but alongside the First Minister, Welsh Ministers and Deputy Ministers as a holder of public office who personally can be charged with the offence of misleading the public intentionally and recklessly in a way that is seriously improper, and for the most egregious examples that would result in imprisonment of up to two years. Does the Counsel General, does the Welsh Government, support that new offence that will be applied to Welsh Ministers? And on the point that she made earlier, does she see some advantage in aligning the definition of 'deliberate dishonesty', but also having consistency in terms of the sanctions as well? If it is a criminal offence for Welsh Ministers with one definition, for public understanding, should we have, as much as possible, alignment between the accountability Bill that she referred to, that she is leading on, and the accountability Bill that Westminster has introduced?

Well, the simple answer is, 'Yes, Adam, of course we want to do that.' What we want to do is have a coherent set of laws in Wales that make sense. So, as much as possible, you want definitions that line up, that are accessible, that people understand, and that there’s not too much sophistry between a definition for one thing and a definition for another. As you know from our conversation only this morning, it’s easy to say that and it actually turns out to be a little bit more complicated, but we will do our absolute best to make sure that they line up as much as possible. We absolutely do want it to apply to Wales; there’s no doubt about that at all. As I said, I think we all strive to do that, but it puts the force of statute behind it, and that’s no bad thing at all.

We’ve seen a series of scandals over the course of my lifetime, none of which should have happened: the infected blood scandal, the Horizon scandal, the Hillsborough scandal, Orgreave. There’s a long list. I regret the politicisation of it on the opposite benches, but actually there’s been a theme. I’m so glad the Government has introduced this. Many people have fought for this for a long time.

But I personally am particularly glad to see the expansion of non-means-tested legal aid, because I think, as I said in the planning consolidation debate yesterday, that access to law is one of the things that we need. It doesn’t matter what the law is if you can’t access it. So, the extension of non-means-tested legal aid is one of the fundamentals of this, so that people can get help to challenge state authorities, who can be pretty opaque and overwhelming if you’re just an individual family, particularly an individual family in grief. So, for me personally, that is one of the things I’m most pleased about, that it will give people access to that kind of help and support, and that they need not bankrupt themselves in order to be able to do that. Many of the families have got themselves into financial difficulty in trying to do that, although, of course, they’ve had pro bono help as well, and so on, and many people have helped along the way.

So, I’m particularly pleased to see that, but we will need to work it through. We will need to make sure that it’s coherent for Wales and that it works for us in our circumstances, but, yes, in principle, we’re very pleased about it.

I'll start off by saying that I'm a Liverpool supporter, after being a Swansea supporter. I remember exactly where I was when that event occurred. It's etched into my mind. It was one of the great disasters. No-one should go to watch a football match, like many of us do regularly, and not come home alive. I just think it was a huge disaster for the people of Britain, as well as those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough.

There are three questions I really want to ask you. One is, you've said you support it, I'm very pleased to hear that, and I'm not going to ask you to reiterate that, but there was something that happened there outside of that that wasn't about the institutions, it was about the media: the media attacks on Liverpool fans, which were all lies, which were put out by the South Yorkshire Police in order to deflect from what they'd done.

The two questions I've got, apart from asking you to reiterate what you said earlier, are: one, should the law be increased so that there is a crime committed by media outlets who say things that are absolutely and utterly untrue in order to deflect from the problem? And the second one is: should we not, within this Hillsborough law, have a situation that never again will people have to go for so long, have to fight such a long fight, in order to get there? There needs to be a time limit on dealing with this, rather than what we've had up until now. Those who follow football will remember Steven Gerrard talked about his cousin who died there, and that is just one of many.

Thank you, Mike. That really does bring home to us, doesn't it, that you should not go to a football match and not come home? It's appalling, what happened on that day. There are families with ramifications for generations, aren't there, that are totally traumatised by it? So, I completely agree.

The Bill doesn't address the media point, because it's aimed at public authorities, but I couldn't agree with you more. I'm not speaking for the Government just for a moment, I'm just speaking personally. I think that the previous Government should have implemented Leveson 2 as it promised to, and I personally would very much like to see this Government do that. But, certainly, the media should be held to account when it egregiously reports things it knows are not true. And that's wider than this, isn't it? But this Bill does not cover that.

Just to be really clear, there are three big elements in this Bill. The new duty of candour and assistance at inquiries, inquests and other investigations. Those are backed by criminal sanctions, as we've heard—a number of people have said that. The bit I particularly like is the obligation on public bodies and officials to help investigations to find the truth. The central tenet of the Bill is to ensure that what happened following the disaster can never ever happen again. So, public officials will be under duties of candour, but they will also be duty-bound to help empower bereaved families and others caught up in this kind of event to get justice. That's been one of the biggest things, hasn't it? The fight for justice has been long and hard. So, the Bill is specifically involved with that. And then the new offence of misleading the public or covering up the truth, which we've already covered. And then the cultural embedding of a duty of candour across public service. The Nolan principles sort of do that, but this gives some oomph to it, if I could put it that way. I think that's not a bad thing to reiterate in what seem to me to be quite dark days at the moment. So, we will be, as a Government, striving to make sure that all of our efforts in this area are coherent, open, accessible and transparent, so that people can get access to it.

Thank you, Counsel General. The final topical question today will be asked by Sioned Williams.

Diolch yn fawr, Sioned Williams. The Welsh Government strongly welcomes the UN commission's report. The First Minister immediately wrote to the Prime Minister, urging him to consider the findings and additional measures that the UK Government can take to place pressure on Israel and bring an end to the suffering of the people of Gaza.

That's welcome, Cabinet Secretary. The findings of the UN commission, of course, are deeply significant. They confirm the scale and illegality of the horrors inflicted on the people of Gaza over the past two years. It is clear, they said, there is an intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza through acts that meet the criteria set forth in the genocide convention.

I asked on multiple occasions for a statement from the First Minister to confirm whether Welsh military bases or premises were being used to train Israel Defense Forces personnel. It took a few months, and then, in a brief written response, which I received last week, two sentences. The only answer I received was, 'It's a matter for the Ministry of Defence', and basically told to take it up with them. That reply, for me, completely sidesteps the Welsh Government's own statutory responsibilities to be a globally responsible nation.

Why doesn't the First Minister believe she should be raising this with the MOD on behalf of the people of Wales, to ensure our nation has no part in facilitating genocide? The contrast couldn't be greater between the attitude displayed in this letter and the strong statement delivered and actions taken by the First Minister of Scotland, John Swinney, who has announced a removal of support by Scottish Government officials and bodies from facilitating trade with Israel.

The Senedd has been told that no Welsh Government financial support has been provided to companies in Wales who export arms to Israel. We now know that's not true. The freedom of information request from Amnesty International, and indeed the Cabinet Secretary for economy's own letter to the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, confirmed that funding was awarded to a company named by Amnesty as exporting weapons used in Israel. While Ministers argue the support went only to its automotive arm, the case exposes a glaring absence of human rights due diligence in Welsh Government decision making. Simply taking multinational companies at their word isn't good enough when international human rights organisations are raising serious concerns.

So, was the Welsh Government genuinely unaware that it was funding companies linked to Israel's unlawful actions, which would show a serious failure of due diligence, or has the Senedd been misled? And what actions will now be taken by the Welsh Government to fulfil its responsibility to ensure no support is given, either practical or tacit, to any company connected to the illegal occupation and military action taken by Israel or any activity by the MOD in Wales?

Thank you very much, Sioned Williams, and thank you for the first point that you make in your supplementary. Just to respond to that, as you know, and as I've stood here and said repeatedly on behalf of the Welsh Government, we called for a ceasefire, condemned the atrocities taking place in Gaza, including the withholding of humanitarian aid, and it's important I say that again this afternoon, and also supporting the UK Government's position to recognise the statehood of Palestine.

It is important that we clarify that our procurement processes have recently changed, including clearly outlining when suppliers can be excluded, such as for fraud, bribery, unethical practices and national security risks. As you are aware—you've had this statement—no Welsh Government export support funding has been provided to Welsh companies to support the direct sale of armaments to Israel since the start of the war on 7 October 2023. We do expect, as a Welsh Government, public sector organisations, businesses and third sector organisations in receipt of public sector funding to sign up to the code of practice on ethical employment in supply chains. In addition, the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 will strengthen socially responsible procurement in Wales. We're currently consulting upon the draft regulations in that regard.

I think it is important, for the benefit of all to hear again, to clarify the position in relation to Welsh Government funding that was provided to Senior's Wales-based automotive branch, which manufactures tubing parts for electric buses. The grant was used to support building renovations to safeguard more than 50 automotive jobs in Crumlin. The company has 32 different locations across 14 countries. It has confirmed that none of its defence work takes place in Wales. But it is important, again, today, that you have brought this question. I'm glad that you have brought this question to us today in terms of the UN commission's inquiry into genocide in Gaza, and that the First Minister has written to the Prime Minister, as I said, urging him to fully consider the findings of the UN report.

Cabinet Secretary, the suffering in Gaza is a terrible indictment of our world and the current world order. The UN and some countries are doing what they can, but the genocidal actions of Israel continue unabated. We know that some 65,000 people have been killed, and goodness knows how many more lie buried beneath the rubble, so many of them children and women. It is inhumanity and madness, with the world largely standing by or ineffectual in its concern and opposition. I do believe that in this horrific situation, Wales and the Welsh Government must do all they can to oppose and pressurise the Israeli Government, such as urging Welsh local authorities to follow the action of Cardiff city council in reviewing their pension funds, with the intention to disinvest from funds supporting organisations that aid Israel's actions in Gaza and the occupied territories. Following the example of Ukraine, will the Welsh Government work with partners to issue a Welsh public procurement policy note to address the relationship with companies linked to Israel's actions and work with the Welsh public sector pensions partnership to divest from Israel?

Thank you very much, John Griffiths, and thank you also for shedding that wider light on what we can do within our powers, and indeed within the powers of local authorities relating to Welsh public sector pension funds, and also making the Senedd aware of local authority consideration of their responsibilities, including making us aware of the discussions that are taking place at Cardiff Council.

Thank you, John Griffiths, again, for shedding that light again as we are this afternoon. It's a terrible indictment of the horrific situation faced by the people of Gaza. I have already responded to the fact that we have recently changed our procurement processes and been quite clear about excluding suppliers for unethical practices and also ensuring that anyone receiving money has to sign up to the code of practice on ethical employment in supply chains. Of course, this is what we can do within our powers and responsibilities. You have drawn a very important light on our partners in local government as well, and indeed the Welsh public sector pension funds.

We're coming up to the anniversary soon of the 7 October attacks that started this particular conflict in the middle east, and those images that we see regularly on our tv screens and on our social media feeds of the daily occurrences that are happening in the middle east, in Gaza but also those that have happened in Israel as well.

I'm grateful to you, Cabinet Secretary, for the meeting that we held just a few months ago to talk about some of my constituents who had family who were unfortunately murdered by Hamas terrorists at their home in Israel on 7 October, and a further family member that was taken hostage and taken into Gaza. I'm very pleased that he has been released since then.

This is a very difficult, complex and complicated situation, but I do agree with what John Griffiths said, that the Welsh Government must do all it can to bring a peaceful resolution to this conflict, because that is what we all want to see. I think it is important that the Welsh Government uses all the levers and all the opportunities that it can in order to do that.

The most likely broker in any peace deal that happens in the middle east will be the United States, and that is why I can't quite seem to understand why the First Minister has declined today an invitation to attend the state banquet with the President of the United States and other members of the United States delegation, so that this issue, as well as other issues that are important to the people of Wales, like tariffs on exports, like our steel industry, for example, could be raised.

Why has the Welsh Government and the First Minister declined the opportunity to attend that state banquet with the President of the United States whilst he's in the UK today?

Thank you, Tom Giffard, for contributing your response to this question, and, indeed, for your important reflections on this very important question this afternoon. The death and destruction in Gaza is causing an unbearable humanitarian catastrophe, and it is important that we acknowledge that today. It is putting the hostages at risk, as their families have rightly recognised. Indeed, it was important that I did join you, Tom, and Luke Fletcher and Huw Irranca-Davies for your constituent affected as a hostage. That was important, that we do reach out. And indeed, this is something that I take responsibility for in terms of our faith communities forum, in terms of community cohesion. So, those were important reflections on this topical question today.

And finally, Jenny Rathbone. 

Thank you very much, and thank you, Sioned Williams, for raising this. I absolutely feel that we must be supporting all the peacemakers in this, whether they're in Israel, in Palestine or in Qatar. The bombing of the peace negotiations by the Israeli Government in Qatar clearly points to the fact that Netanyahu is unhinged, as the Qatari Government has said. I feel that we need to boycott the Israeli Government, just in the same way that we boycott the Russian Government because of their aggression and non-compliance with the rule of law. So, I wondered if, on top of all of the other things that have been raised, we could ask the Welsh Government to follow the lead of Spain and Ireland in boycotting the Eurovision Song Contest in the event that Israel is allowed to take part, and indeed any other international sporting or cultural activity until such time as there is a change of Government in Israel and, indeed, in Russia.

Thank you very much, Jenny Rathbone, and thank you also for drawing to our attention another wider dimension of what we can do in Wales, how we can express our horror. You drew attention to the attack by Israel on the sovereign nation of Qatar. Israel's actions are a violation of Qatar's sovereignty and risk fuelling further attacks, when the focus should be on ending the devastating cycle of violence in the region, rather than escalating the conflict. We will, I'm sure, have the opportunity to raise 'what can we do?' in terms of events, as you've said, and boycotts. I'm sure representations will be made.

I did want to make one point that hasn't been raised this afternoon, which is that we are all recognising the devastating effects that the war is having on the population of Gaza, including children in need of specialist healthcare. That's why we are currently exploring what support we can give to Gazan children in need of medical treatment. We are participating as a Government in the UK Gaza medical evacuation scheme. We're committed to doing our utmost to support the children who need medical treatment and their families, and can meet their needs. So, I think that it's important that we also share that more widely and publicly today. But I think that it's important that we've had, across the Chamber, this recognition, and that I've had the opportunity to say, once again, that the Welsh Government strongly welcomes the UN commission's report and the inquiry into genocide in Gaza, and we now request the UK Government to fully consider the findings of that UN report. Diolch yn fawr.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Item 4 today is the 90-second statements. The first is from Siân Gwenllian. 

Over the past five years, Pwyllgor Pentra Deiniolen has been working tirelessly to secure a permanent home in the hands of the community, and last week, it reached its financial target of £20,000 in order to buy the old library in the village. Across Wales, and especially in Gwynedd, communities are claiming their future, and taking pubs, energy projects and community centres into their own hands. The movement towards community ownership is a quiet revolution here in Gwynedd, and I'm so glad that the village of Deiniolen is joining that revolution.

Community ownership is the future. It puts the power in the hands of the people rather than corporations and forces that are far removed from our communities. It gives us the ability to shape our own future. We are very fortunate to have volunteers who give of their time, their vision and their energy so that our villages flourish, and therefore I would like to take the opportunity today to thank Pwyllgor Pentra Deiniolen from the bottom of my heart for its work and congratulate it on its success.

Next Monday, 22 September, marks the anniversary of the Gresford colliery disaster. The people of Wrexham will once again come together to remember the tragic events that unfolded on that fateful night, when 266 men and boys lost their lives. Only six men escaped; the bodies of 253 men and boys were never recovered. The devastating explosion that ripped through the Dennis section of the mine on 22 September 1934 was one of the worst mining disasters in British history, and its impact on the community was seismic. 

The annual service of remembrance will take place at 11.00 a.m. on the anniversary at the Gresford colliery disaster memorial on Bluebell Lane in Pandy. I pay tribute to the friends of the memorial, past and present, who have ensured we have the memorial, which is a focal point for the families of the miners to go and remember their loved ones. On Sunday the wonderful Wrexham Miners Project, which does a fantastic job in helping protect our mining heritage, is hosting a free community day event at the Miners Rescue Station on Maesgwyn Road, and additionally this year, previously unseen records that have been preserved at the National Archives will go on display to the general public for the first time. 'Gresford: Voices from the Archives' is a two-day event taking place at Wrexham library on Monday and Tuesday. I know a great deal of research and work has gone into this exhibition, which features notebooks, witness statements, petitions and letters related to the disaster, displayed together in Wrexham for the very first time. It is right we come together to remember this tragic day in our history. Diolch.

This week the Women's Institute turns 110. In 1915 the first WI meeting was held here in Wales at Llanfairpwllgwyngyll on Ynys Môn. Back then, they set out to give women a voice and to be a force for good in the community, originally brought to life to revitalise rural communities and encourage women to become more involved in producing food during the first world war. Since then, the organisation's aims have grown somewhat, and today the WI is the largest voluntary women's organisation in the UK. It's more than just jam and 'Jerusalem', although it's worth noting that the song was adopted by the WI because of its links with the suffrage movement, and in the 1970s, during the 'great jam debate', the National Federation of Women's Institutes successfully lobbied for members to be exempt from having to register with a local authority to sell jam to the public.

The WI has led the way and been active on a number of campaigns and key issues, from violence against women to climate change and plastic pollution. This week birthday celebrations are taking place across the country, including in my own constituency. On Friday the Clwyd-Flint NFWI is hosting an event at the Beaufort Park Hotel near Mold. It will bring together WI groups from members from across the area, will include a meal and a ukulele band, and has been organised by the Clwyd-Flint board of trustees. I should potentially declare an interest, as my mum, Lorraine, is one of the trustees and an active member of the WI; in fact, she's very likely busy right now, as I speak, making table decorations with the WI colours for the event.

For all WI members, this milestone is a chance to celebrate the friendships that have been formed and all that has been made by their movement. The WI: connecting communities, creating change and inspiring women for 110 years.

Happy birthday to you. 

Thank you.

The next item is a motion to elect a Member to a committee, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to formally move the motion—Paul Davies.

 Formally.

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

Item 5 this afternoon is debate on the Petitions Committee report, P-06-1307, 'The Welsh Government should commit to the adoption of the maintenance of new housing estates by local authorities'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Carolyn Thomas.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, thank you for this opportunity to introduce the debate. The petition was submitted by Eleri Lewis, and closed on 24 November 2022, having collected a total of 267 signatures. The petition reads:

'The residents of the Mill, a new estate in Canton, Cardiff are having to pay an annual fee of £102 for the maintenance of a park bordering the estate. This payment must be made alongside other maintenance payments covering the unadopted highways, green spaces etc. Residents also must pay the full council tax required. Residents are not provided with a detailed breakdown of the costs of the park, just a notice to say they must pay the fee.'

'The Mill was regarded as a good example of Welsh Government policy due to its status as a mixed tenure estate including affordable housing alongside freehold purchasing—therefore with the current cost of living crisis we believe that the Welsh Government should support residents on estates like The Mill by encouraging and facilitating the adoption of maintenance by local authorities and to remove these punitive charges.'

Many Members are familiar with the problem of 'fleecehold', which has grown in recent years, and does not just affect the residents of this particular housing estate. 

Before going further, we must particularly recognise the contribution of Hefin David, who gave vital evidence to our inquiry, and asked me to ensure that today’s debate took place. Hefin was instrumental in highlighting this issue in the Senedd, having brought forward a Member's legislative proposal in 2018 aimed at regulating estate management companies and strengthening the ability of freeholders to challenge estate managers. Hefin continued to push for Government action, and when our report was published in May, he asked that it be shared with his Westminster colleague Alistair Strathern MP, who has championed the issue in the UK Parliament, including through a private Member's Bill, introduced there in July. Hefin also asked the First Minister on 17 June for an update on Welsh Government’s progress in addressing estate management charges, highlighting the concerns of his constituents in Ystrad Mynach and noting the committee’s work on this issue. It is fitting that work continues to pursue the regulatory changes that Hefin called for with such passion and energy on behalf of his Welsh constituents.

This was the second petition on estate charges considered in the sixth Senedd. An earlier petition calling for greater powers for freeholders to challenge estate management companies was closed in 2021, when the petitioner was satisfied with the Minister’s response. The then Minister for Climate Change said she was also concerned about the problem, which had prompted a call for evidence, and that she would use that evidence

'to help identify where change is needed and the options to bring about that change, legislative or otherwise.'

She recognised that the evidence raised a fundamental question about how public open spaces and facilities should be paid for, but that any potential changes proposed should not bring about unintended consequences or unforeseen adverse impacts.

It was clear from the committee’s later inquiry that problems with the current system persist. The committee’s visit to a housing development in Caerphilly, organised with Hefin David, highlighted home owners’ understandable frustrations.

Evidence gathering finished in 2023, but a number of developments then delayed reporting. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 affected the legislative landscape, and the incoming UK Labour Government then signalled an intention to make further changes, with a new draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill expected this year. In light of this, we made recommendations for Welsh Ministers engaging on that draft legislation and considering what needs to be done through Welsh law. 

The committee identified good practice to apply to future regulation, and suggested Wales can learn from the Scottish model. It is reassuring that the response accepts this recommendation. There is also scope for all tiers of government and home builders to work together for greater consistency. We call for robust mechanisms to ensure that homebuyers fully understand their obligations before they commit to buying a new home off-plan, knowing who will manage common areas and facilities and how, and what costs to expect. Sometimes, they're just so excited to buy a new home that they just glimpse over all these costs and charges and don't really understand the implications of them. This will make the system more fair and transparent for future purchasers, even if resolving issues for existing home owners is not as straightforward. Hefin David was pragmatic in his approach to this issue. He fully recognised the challenges and barriers for local authorities and the Welsh Government, but he was also typically candid about the problems of a poorly regulated sector, describing it as like a 'wild west', and he was resolute that there were actions that could and should be taken.

I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government has either accepted, or accepted in principle, four of the committee’s five recommendations, agrees that the current regulatory framework is fragmented, and states its commitment to work with the UK Government in this important area. The Government has rejected the call for financial support to those most badly affected by the burden of unfair estate management charges. The response says that support to local authorities for this purpose would divert funding from other pressures and priorities, and notes that the 2024 Act will provide a route for residents to challenge unfair charges.

A lot depends on what measures we see coming forward in the UK legislation to be introduced by the end of the year, but in the meantime, it is important that there is a strong will to improve the situation for Welsh home owners. I have noticed over recent years that new estates are getting—. Roads are getting smaller, the gardens are getting smaller. If estate roads, play areas and street lighting were developed to an adoptable standard by the local authority, with a 10-year commuted sum for maintenance, that could be a way forward, but we'll wait and see what comes forward in the UK Government's suggestions. I look forward to the Cabinet Secretary’s response today on what more can be done to prevent future home owners from facing the same situation as these petitioners. Diolch.

Can I start by highlighting my full support for this petition? Like our Chair, I also pay tribute to the tireless work that our late colleague, Hefin David, undertook fighting to address this issue for his constituents. There will be no surprises when I say that he gave invaluable evidence and much support to our committee.

Although I do recognise that this is a complicated and, indeed, expensive area, as a legislative body, we should be actively trying to resolve issues such as these for the benefit of the people of Wales. As a former county borough councillor, I have witnessed the issues that these estates create at first-hand. The problem, as I see it, comes from the fact that the maintenance of these new estates is seen by local authorities as onerous and something that they would rather not take on if they can help it. They would ultimately prefer to take the council tax money from the home owners and do as little of the maintenance work as possible. For as long as I can remember, local authorities have pedalled the narrative that they’re under-resourced, and so taking on commitments to adopt the maintenance of new estates will always be seen as the last resort. This is why councils place huge financial commitments on developers before they’re willing to adopt these estates.

We can read in the petition report how house builders who have built and paid for the public open spaces are being required to cover the costs of maintaining them for over 30 years and cover the costs of complete replacement of all play equipment halfway through that 30-year period. Some might see this as fair, but I don’t. This is also why, again stated in the report, local authorities are issuing more supplementary planning guidance relating to open spaces, stating that the council will not adopt it because it is for the developer providing it to put forward a way in which it will be managed. So, developers are put into a catch-22 position, whereby in order to continue their business, they either have to commit to long-term and substantial financial commitments, which they have to find a way to pay for, increase house sale prices, reduce costs by using cheaper materials or find cheaper labour, which, let’s be honest, they’re most likely unable to do. Ultimately, their only option is to bring in a management company to do the work.

I believe that, as part of the planning process, local authorities should, from the very beginning, be working with developers with a view to adopting the maintenance commitment of these new estates. Councils, of course, should be able to collect sufficient tax to cover the cost and council tax banding of the properties should be set to reflect the costs associated with maintenance. I also believe that councils and developers should have a transparent cost breakdown that residents are fully aware of before purchasing the property. Likewise, if management fees still remain, this should be reflected in the local council tax premiums.

The report sets out a few recommendations, and I fully support all of them. There need to be regulatory frameworks in place and there need to be sufficient financial resources allocated to support this. Moreover, there needs to be consistency across the whole of Wales. One of the major problems of having so many local authorities is that developers, and, indeed, residents, have to deal with different standards and practices, and this adds another layer of complexity and potential confusion for many developers.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to say a few words about maintenance companies. Without these companies many developments just would not be maintained. However, it seems that these companies have the right to charge almost any amount for the work that they do, and there's no obligation to provide a competitive rate for the work after they've been awarded the contracts, so that after just a few years homeowners could well be paying way over the odds for the work that they are getting done and, because these contracts are signed for lengthy periods, they have little recourse to challenge the costs.

Moreover, these maintenance companies also, in many instances, include additional charges for a reserve pot of money in case of major costs later down the line. Not only is it very difficult to challenge how much is collected, but they also receive interest money from these pots of money, which they don't necessarily reinvest back into maintenance, but take as profit. I believe it is high time that we had some stricter regulatory frameworks regarding how much maintenance companies can charge and how they review costs on a yearly basis. Thank you.

I'd like to thank the petitioner, Eleri Lewis. I played a part in drawing up the petition in the first instance, and then I became a member of the committee and had the privilege of being in attendance to listen to Hefin David giving his expert evidence. This issue was first raised as the residents of The Mill, including Eleri Lewis, received annual bills without any breakdown whatsoever and without any details when they requested details, and the bill would go up on an annual basis.

I have at least weekly e-mails from many constituents about management firms placing residents under financial pressure, with little or no transparency at all, whilst they’re managing unadopted assets. We could walk only five minutes around the block here today to see examples of that in place. There need to be standardised regulations for managing assets in new housing estates. These rules will empower residents and restore the trust. We could use one of the Welsh tribunals, for example, so that residents can go there, free of charge, with their complaints, and that can be viewed by an independent tribunal.

I hope the Welsh Government will work with local authorities to understand the financial impact of adopting assets and develop a framework of support, where appropriate. This will ensure that no community is left behind due to budget constraints or unclear responsibilities. They deserve transparency and fairness, and should not be expected to pay twice for services that the rest of us pay for only once through our council tax.

This morning, whilst I was taking my daughter to school, I walked past The Mill. But, before I walked past The Mill, I walked past Lansdowne Gardens, another fairly new development. One, Lansdowne Gardens, has been adopted; the other, The Mill, has not. Residents have no idea why this is the case—why, down the road, somebody has to pay for their road and for the pavement, but somewhere else they don't.

I was present when Hefin David gave his persuasive and impressive evidence, and I looked over the words again, and the words don't do justice, really, to what Hefin said. You could feel the passion in the room. Carolyn, the words ‘wild west’ stayed with me too, but it's true—without regulation, that's what you have. It is the wild west. Too many new housing developments have assets now owned by private firms, and more and more Welsh families, Welsh residents, are facing excessive and opaque costs.

Now, Scotland has shown that regulation is not only possible, but regulation actually works. They've done it in Scotland. In 2011, the Scottish Parliament passed regulation, including a code of conduct, access to an accessible tribunal, and financial transparency on how money is spent locally.

Hefin showed—and Hefin said, in his evidence—that this isn't a partisan matter. This isn't a matter that just affects one part of the country either; it affects communities across Wales, communities in each and every one of our constituencies. We need meaningful reform. The system at present is medieval, it's Victorian and it cannot continue. Time and time again, infrastructure in this country is sacrificed in the name of private equity and profit. That has to stop. Let us not wait now for more families to feel trapped in the system.

Last week, I had an e-mail from a constituent trapped in one of these developments, feeling suicidal because of the situation. We cannot let things go too far before we take action. These people feel trapped. We here in the Senedd need to lead with fairness, transparency and accountability. Diolch yn fawr.

Firstly, I'd like to thank Carolyn Thomas for bringing forward this crucial petition to the Senedd today, and I also thank the late Hefin David for his tireless work in this area. I'd also like to say thank you for the report, which looks more widely at problems facing people in all parts of Wales. Essentially, the problems are a symptom of a housing system that is structured not to support residents, but to fill the pockets of big companies.

In my own constituency in Arfon, I have seen the unfairness of the situation on several estates, and the most recent example is the Gwêl y Llan estate in Caernarfon. Residents have been paying management fees since Gwêl y Llan has been privately managed, and the intention of the fees originally was to pay for roads, lights and drains. But those responsibilities have now been transferred to Gwynedd Council and Dŵr Cymru, and yet, for some reason, the management fees of the company, Trinity Estates, continue to rise. And I'd like to thank Councillor Dewi Jones, who has striven tirelessly to put pressure on the company on behalf of residents. His campaign has revealed once again that the system allows management companies to line their own pockets without giving value back to the residents. Residents in Caernarfon and across Wales deserve fairness rather than a lack of communication and increasing fees for services that they don't receive.

We are in the midst of a housing crisis. Shelter Cymru has clearly warned that home owners are being squeezed between increases in mortgage and rental costs, and unreasonable estate fees are adding to this pressure. The danger is always the same: that families fall into homelessness. The evidence shows that this is the result of a lack of legislation for many years, and the problem is not about to disappear unless we have some urgent action. Management companies in Wales are already preparing to take over 24 new estates with over 4,000 homes.

Yes, some changes have come through a Westminster Act, namely the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, but the majority of the provisions have yet to come into force, and the current system still leaves enormous power in the hands of the management companies.

Over the summer, I pursued this issue again and I submitted a written question to the Government asking when the provisions of the reform Act 2024 would come into force in Wales, because they are provisions that could offer protection to freehold home owners on private estates, including the requirements regarding transparency over their estate payments, and the ability to challenge the payments that they make by bringing proceedings before a tribunal.

The disappointing answer that I received was that there was a need for further consultation and the development of detailed secondary legislation by the Welsh Ministers in collaboration with UK Ministers. When, therefore, will this happen, and when can we see companies like Trinity Estates, which has been operating in Gwêl y Llan, being part of a plan or scheme where residents can hold them to account?

Welsh Ministers will, technically and legally, be making this secondary legislation, and so it's very disappointing that the Welsh Government is allowing another legislature to take the lead on this. I would argue that we need more than just what is in the Westminster Act of 2024, and that we need to legislate here in the Senedd to ensure fairness, transparency and responsibility. This is a devolved matter, and it's our duty to act, but once again it seems that the Welsh Government is going to wait and see what comes from Westminster rather than pressing ahead and creating our own system. Legal divergence already exists, and we need a suitable system here in Wales. Creating resilient infrastructure for the future is vital for our country, and residents all over Wales deserve better.

Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Presiding Officer, and I have to say I'll start my contribution by agreeing very much with the final words of Siân Gwenllian. I think people are being let down. I think the situation that I've come across in my constituency is nothing short of a scandal, what we are seeing here with management charges. It was something I discussed with Hefin and we campaigned on together, but the fact is that it isn't simply myself and Hefin doing this work: it's Siân, it's Rhys, it's people and Members across the whole of this country, from every part of Wales, and I can see and I'm sure that our friend Mike Hedges in Swansea will be contributing before too long, making a very similar point.

So, this isn't simply one rogue company. It isn't simply one estate where things are difficult. It isn't simply an error made by a lawyer, potentially, or whatever. It is a systemic problem in the way in which properties are purchased and the way in which estate management charges are let. I accept—. I'm sure the Minister in responding will lament about the settlement—I've heard it from her predecessors—but that is no longer a good enough argument to allow people to remain in this situation, where, as Rhys ab Owen has said, this drives them to their wits’ end. It is simply not fair on people to be placed in this situation and then for Ministers and for Governments to stand back and simply say, ‘It's too difficult for us to solve, and so we won't even try.'

And the issues from The Mill, and the issues that Siân has described, are exactly the same as the issues in Cae Ffwrnais in Ebbw Vale, and I pay tribute to the work of Sarah Jones, a resident there, who has worked her socks off year after year after year because she recognises and she is driven by the sheer unfairness of the system.

I want to be absolutely clear: as I said, this is no accident. Redrow, as the company involved here, have acted in an absolutely scandalous fashion, and they should be ashamed of what they've done. They have been deliberately obstructive, in my view. I'm not sure if they've always been honest. If they are honest, then they are incompetent. And I don't know which one it is, but they certainly have not been straight with me. There is a clear requirement for legislation, in my view, to ensure that Redrow, who here have sought to stop and prevent us from finding a solution, are held to account, and that no other people are placed in a similar position as we see people now in Cae Ffwrnais in Ebbw Vale.

What I want to see is a clear resolution to this. I want us to ensure that there is law that secures the rights of people and that protects people, and I want us to ensure that the law holds these big businesses to account. It is right and proper that some of the biggest companies in Wales, making some of the most extraordinary profits, do not then hold their freeholders to ransom, and do not hold them to ransom year after year after year, and that that the freeholders in this case and the owners of these properties have rights as well. The law has to ensure fairness and equity in all of these matters.

I want to be absolutely clear that the freeholders in Cae Ffwrnais have been left in a position where the information they were provided with at the time of purchase does not marry with the reality of the costs they pay and the responsibilities they now face. Redrow, through their actions, have tied freehold property owners to a management scheme agreement that significantly diminishes their rights. It is essential to ensure that the freeholders who want to own their own properties in the real and true sense do not therefore have to pay contributions to a management company over which they appear to have very little control. And the fees that are charged by this company seem to be extortionate, growing like Topsy with no reason at all, and done in an entirely opaque way.

I'll conclude by thanking the Petitions Committee for its work and thanking the Chair of the Petitions Committee, Carolyn Thomas, for bringing this matter to the Chamber this afternoon. I look forward to the response of the Minister to this debate, but, Minister, what I really, really want to see isn't simply a response to this debate, but action for the people I represent.

I'm not going to go through a long list of parts of my constituency that have got this problem. What is surprising about them though is that they are modern, well-built, expensive properties. These are not the sorts of houses that are cheap to buy. You're paying an awful lot of money not to have your road adopted.

I support the adoption and the maintenance of new housing estates by local authorities; I fully agree with the petitioners. For adoption to take place, the roads, pavements and the street lighting have to be made up to an adoptable standard, and that includes the drainage. Many of the major developers leave areas not up to adoptable standards, and in the cases that I have dealt with, the first that residents know their road is unadopted is when a street light fails and needs replacing, or when they discover the estate management fee covers their road maintenance. Residents contact the council and then discover that the road is not adopted and that they are responsible.

For highways infrastructure, local authorities may adopt estate roads when requested to do so. They are not compelled to adopt estate roads when they're not up to adoptable standards. In which case, estate management companies come in and take over and charge very large fees. The residents are very unhappy. They say, 'I'm paying through my council tax for road maintenance, why is my road not included in it?' From my experience, the council usually negotiates with residents to bring the road up to adoptable standards, but residents may have to pay to have it improved to adoptable standards, and that can be several thousand pounds.

The residents are unhappy and this should not be happening. They should not be building these roads that are not up to adoptable standards. They should not be allowed to sell houses on an estate when the road is not up to adoptable standards, when the drainage has not been put in correctly, and people discover that when they start to get some flooding, and where the street lights are not built to adoptable standards, and they discover that when they fail quite quickly. So, we need to have some sort of legislation, and I wish we were bringing housing legislation forward in this session because there is a substantial number of items like that that need addressing.

Developers also enter into section 106 agreements, which are legal documents between developers and local authorities to reduce the impact of developments, and sometimes they provide play areas, they provide parks, they provide other amenities in the area. They can help with issues such as traffic environmental impact and the need for public amenities. It's a legally binding contract between the housing developer and local planning authorities, and initially a part of the planning application. When large numbers of houses are built in a local area, there's a clear impact on the community. Section 106, you provide them with a park, you provide them with a play area to make people less unhappy about it, and the council negotiates this with the developers, or the developers make an offer.

I think what's happened in the case that you've been looking at here is that they've just put the park in without having a 106 agreement, and that's happened in Swansea as well. They provide you with a park—'You wanted a park, here's your park. Good luck to you'—without realising that somebody is going to have to be responsible for it. The council will only take over parks if they have a commuted sum in order to pay for their maintenance over a period of time. It just means that the council isn't left with a bill by some of these very big developers who are making very large sums of money and just trying to dump on somebody else. I mean, I think it really is important that if any development takes place and play areas, parks are being provided, open spaces are being provided, that a 106 agreement is used to provide them, and the sum needed to keep them going over a period of time is provided.

I fully agree with recommendation 2, that the Welsh Government should legislate for a regulatory framework, including a fully transparent registration system, showing who is responsible for managing every housing estate asset included in each development, meaning the roads, the pavements, the street lighting and any play areas or public areas. It's important that people know that before they purchase. Because the first time they discover it is when they start having their charges from the estate management people, and when they discover that that street light out there has gone out and it's their problem, not the council's problem, when they think it's the council's. So, it really is important that everybody knows that from the very beginning. And we do need legislation. We desperately need housing legislation. I would even say we need housing legislation substantially more than we need a consolidation planning Act.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government, Jayne Bryant

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. I'm grateful to Carolyn Thomas for opening this important debate, and to the committee and the petitioners for raising this crucial issue, and also to all of the speakers today for raising their constituents' awful experiences.

But first, like others, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our colleague and friend Hefin David, whose evidence to the committee would have been of real value in the consideration of this petition. Like many of you speaking today, Hefin campaigned tirelessly on the issue of estate management charges and, as always, he advocated on behalf of his constituents with conviction, dedication and courage. I have no doubt whatsoever that he would have taken part in this debate today with his usual well-argued, persuasive flair and compassion. I remain grateful for all his work on this issue, and we all feel the absence of his contribution today.

I think many, if not all of us, would have heard directly from constituents about their experiences, anger and frustrations of having to pay for the maintenance of new-build estates that have not been adopted by the local authority. From our call for evidence on this topic in 2020, we know that this practice is a relatively recent phenomenon, but one that is affecting more and more new-build developments. The Competition and Markets Authority also took evidence on this in their work on the house building market in Great Britain, and highlighted their concerns about estate management charges, noting that home owners often face high and unclear charges for the management of facilities such as roads, drainage and green spaces.

The Petitions Committee made five recommendations in its report, and my written response sets out our position on those points. So, in summary, we will investigate the case for a holistic and standardised approach to managing the different types of assets a housing development may include, including the potential for development of common standards. Alongside this, we will consider how best to ensure current and prospective residents are easily able to understand the arrangements in place on a development.

At this time, we have not accepted the recommendation to progress a financial support package to retrospectively adopt privately managed assets, but given the ongoing work and improvements we hope to deliver, it's right that we consider the need for intervention of this sort at a later stage. In all our work to come, we will of course look to understand examples of best practice and innovation elsewhere, including in Scotland, which could help inform our own approach.

To this end, we are working closely with the UK Government on implementation of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which introduces much-needed protections for those paying estate management charges. For the first time, there will be legal requirements for charges to reflect works undertaken and there will be requirements for transparency about the charges and the services that home owners pay for—and that's something that nearly every contributor today raised. Home owners will also be able to challenge the reasonableness of charges via the leasehold valuation tribunal.

I'm confident these measures will help tackle some of the poor practice that has proliferated. The UK Government is responsible for making the subordinate legislation to bring these provisions into effect, and I understand that they're due to consult on the details of the new regime later this year.

The committee report noted that there was consideration of whether the activities of managing agents could be regulated via our building safety legislation, but given the scope of the Bill that's being developed in consultation with stakeholders, unfortunately, that is not possible. I am, however, considering how best to address these activities of managing agents, and I'm currently consulting on the potential to introduce minimum qualifications for these companies, including those that operate on unadopted housing estates. The consultation runs up until 26 September and I would encourage anyone interested to feed in their views on these proposals.

I also welcome the recent announcement by the Law Commission on the inclusion of a project on the management of housing estates in their fourteenth programme. I understand that their project will consider how a right to manage, similar to the right available to leasehold home owners, might be created for freehold home owners living on unadopted housing estates, and I look forward to engaging with this project as it progresses.

I know that the UK Government have committed to taking further action to address the proliferation of private management arrangements, and my officials continue to actively engage with their counterparts to identify whether there may be further opportunities for us to take action jointly to improve the experiences of home owners here in Wales. I'll continue to actively update the Senedd on the implementation of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act and those associated work streams as they progress.

I would like to reiterate my thanks again to Carolyn Thomas, Petitions Committee Chair, the committee and the petitioners for raising this important information, and to all Members for their contributions today. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on Carolyn Thomas to reply to the debate.

Diolch. I would like to thank the Members for their contributions today. Joel James highlighted that developers and planners should work together to bring estates up to an adoptable standard. But we do have some divergent opinions, I think, on who should fund the maintenance, from the conversations we had during the debate. We need regulation on how much maintenance companies can charge.

Rhys ab Owen highlighted that there is no transparency regarding costs and we need to have them standardised and also have somewhere for people to go regarding complaints. That was actually captured in the response by the Cabinet Secretary. And there's discrepancy as well as to which estates are adopted—new ones—and which aren't, which is hard for residents to understand. Rhys also mentioned private equity and profit being put before fairness.

That was an opinion that was also shared by Siân Gwenllian. She also highlighted a lack of legislation for many years, and mentioned that 24 new estates and 4,000 homes could be impacted by this. That's why we need to have this legislation in place now, before more estates are developed, impacting on people.

Alun Davies said it’s a scandal, and it certainly is. It's a systemic problem. We need to hold developers to account with legislation in place and stop holding people to ransom.

Mike highlights that people are paying a lot of money for their houses in the first place. They're expensive, houses, today, aren't they, Mike, without also having to pay for maintenance annually as well. As well as streetlights, roads, play areas, the drainage is another issue, isn't it? So, all these need to be considered. Developers could fund this with section 106 funding as part of the development, to go to councils for ongoing maintenance. That's a suggestion.

I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for her very comprehensive response. I hope we can continue working together on this, and keep it live when we know what the UK Government's going to do with their legislation.

I'd like to thank the Business Committee for the time for this important debate, and I'd like to thank the petitioners for raising this important issue in the Senedd. I again recognise the dedicated work of our late colleague Hefin David, who tirelessly championed this cause on behalf of his constituents and all those affected across Wales. He would have spoken today. He would have been really passionate about this and would have added so much to it. Today's debate will form part of his lasting legacy, and that's what we must do. Going forward, we must continue his legacy to make sure that change does happen. I'd like to thank the Deputy Presiding Officer.

You can thank me as much as you like.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 6 this afternoon is a debate on the Equality and Social Justice Committee report, 'Turning up the heat before 2160: time to pick up the pace on tackling fuel poverty'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Jenny Rathbone.

Diolch yn fawr. The Equality and Social Justice Committee decided to do an update on the report we published on fuel poverty and the Warm Homes programme back in 2022. Obviously, a huge amount has changed with that, not least the invasion of Ukraine, which massively hiked energy markets, the volatility in the energy markets worldwide, and has occasioned unprecedented price increases for oil and gas.

Because of this change, we felt that there was justification for an update to see what had happened since then. We have to report that household heating bills are now on average 43 per cent higher than they were in the winter of 2021-22. Self-evidently, this is disproportionately impacting the poorest and most vulnerable people in Wales. So, we have revisited this issue and assessed the Welsh Government's policy response to our original report, and we very much thank all the stakeholders who contributed to our updated work, which we published in April.

The first recommendation of our updated report was for better data, which was something that was flagged up by a lot of voluntary organisations who said, 'We simply don't know what's been going on because we're basing it on 2018 data'. So, we very much welcomed the updated estimates commissioned by the Welsh Government, which were published during recess, in early August. Unfortunately, these figures revealed that we now have 340,000 households—that's one quarter of all households in Wales—battling fuel poverty, and that was back in October 2024.

Clearly, there have been further rises this year, and that means, unfortunately, it's very likely that that figure will have gone up again. This was already a substantial increase from the previous set of figures published in 2021, which estimated 14 per cent of households were fuel poor. Now we've got over 24 per cent. We're talking about very large numbers of people. People, overall, are paying an average of £1,850 a year, intensifying the pressures on poor people's cost of living, because it represents £36 a week, and if you think of what the minimum wage is, you can see that this is a really massive problem for low-income households.

Overall, the Welsh Government's policy response to tackling fuel poverty is multipronged, holistic, looking at both incomes and energy efficiency, and, obviously, we support that. But there is a constant misalignment between the overall aspirations of eradicating fuel poverty and the rate of delivery to resolve it.

The title of our report, 'Turning up the heat before 2160', is informed by the estimates, at the time we published this update in April, that it would take another 135 years to eliminate fuel-poor households in Wales at the current rate of delivery. And I'm afraid that the further rise in energy bills, pegged to gas price rises, based on the August figures the Welsh Government has published, extends that estimated time scale to 2237, so 212 years from now. We'll all be dead for sure. Clearly, together, we have to own this problem.

We very much welcome the Welsh Government response to our update—accepting four of our recommendations and accepting the other three in principle—but the committee's overarching observation is that the scale and pace of change is ludicrously insufficient to meet the challenge, and it's something that we all have to own.

On the plus side, the committee commends the rigour of the new Nest scheme. It addresses the substantive issues that Audit Wales and the committee identified in 2022. The design of the new system separates the free impartial advice everyone can get regardless of income on how to make their home energy efficient. The number to call is 0300 123 1234. That's for anybody, regardless of your income. If you need to have free advice on how to retrofit or improve the energy efficiency of your home, these people are here to help you. Secondly, a completely separate organisation is involved in commissioning building works to tackle cold homes, based on the latest available technology, for the specifics of that individual house, for which the Warm Homes programme is available. And then there's a third body to audit the outcomes of the work carried out. In this scheme there is no room for people to be marking their own homework, and that is absolutely as it should be.

So, the framework is the right one. The pace of change is what we all need to worry about, particularly as north Wales has the highest energy cost in the UK, and south Wales is not far behind. This isn't just an issue for next year's Welsh Government budget, but for all the other stakeholders who should be seeing this as a major barrier to productivity, economic growth, the foundational economy that people are unable to support because they're having to spend so much of their income on their energy bills. I wonder whether this is front and centre of the north Wales ambition board's plans to repurpose £50 million on a project that's no longer going ahead. I don't think so, based on the evidence we took in the economy committee. How is this being addressed in the Cardiff capital region, where so many of the south Wales fuel-poor homes are?

The Welsh Government's Warm Homes programme has remained broadly flat since 2021-22 when accounting for inflation, and coupled with the higher costs for new technologies, this is likely to have eroded the purchasing power of this funding overall. But I really do think that we have to look at all avenues of funding for sorting out fuel poverty, not just the Welsh Government, but we certainly need to be looking at this in relation to next year's budget.

It's true that fuel poverty isn't just about energy prices or heating systems; it involves incomes too. So, I think we should applaud the Welsh Government's efforts, working with local authorities, to identify residents who are eligible for benefits proactively. In its response, the Welsh Government highlights the pilot of the low-income family tracker, which the Welsh Government is funding and which 14 local authorities are using to target families who may be missing out on entitlements. And that's obviously to be applauded, but it does mean that without changing the leaky home that they're living in, they're simply going to just—. It will enable them to have more money for food, but it won't resolve the problems of having to spend so much of their income on energy costs.

Specifically, it'd be very good if the Welsh Government, in the Cabinet Secretary's response, could tell us a bit more about this pilot of the low-income family tracker. When would it be completed? Twelve of the local authorities agreed to take part, and a further two local authorities were using it anyway. Has the Welsh Government considered making it mandatory, or are you awaiting the outcomes of the pilot? If the outcome of the pilot is encouraging, where will it leave the eight remaining local authorities who don't seem to be chasing all these people who aren't claiming what they ought to be entitled to? Because, clearly, this is one of the ways of doing it.

Whilst the Warm Homes programme, as it is, is rigorous and not wasting money, we just don't think that the pace is fast enough, and we really do feel that some form of area-based scheme is required to really ratchet up reducing the number of households that are living in fuel poverty.

We understand completely that the end of the EU funding—another success from Brexit—has placed a constraint on where we are going to be able to identify the resources—I'm glad to see the Cabinet Secretary for finance is also present this afternoon—for a new area-based scheme, because that's really the only way in which we're going to be able to make a difference in the rest of this current Senedd, to get fewer households absolutely crippled by the extent of the problem.

None of us want to see this, and hopefully by working together, the Senedd, working with the Welsh Government, can find a range of strategies to accelerate the programme of insulating and retrofitting the homes of those in the greatest need. I look forward to people's comments.

Fuel poverty remains one of the most pressing challenges facing Wales today. The seven recommendations and three conclusions in the Equality and Social Justice Committee's report, 'Turning up the heat before 2160: time to pick up the pace on tackling fuel poverty', underline the urgent need for action.

This includes both the recommendations that the Welsh Government has only accepted in principle, itself an unacceptable response, when the Permanent Secretary gave the previous Public Accounts Committee a commitment to end this practice in light of Members' concerns that this did not constitute an adequate response.

I welcome the report's recommendation for the Welsh Government to set interim targets by September 2025, to increase the scale of the Warm Homes programme, and to ensure that any related consequential funding is invested in the programme.

The report also urges the Welsh Government to accelerate its development and establish a new area-based scheme as a matter of urgency. These calls are not only supported by National Energy Action but also by the wider Fuel Poverty Coalition Cymru. As the chair of the cross-party group on fuel poverty and energy efficiency, I've consulted them before speaking today. Since the report was published, official estimates from Welsh Government published in August reveal that one quarter of all households in Wales—340,000—were in fuel poverty in October 2024. This includes more than four in five of Wales's lower income households—83 per cent—almost a quarter of whom are estimated to be in deep, severe fuel poverty. 

Ofgem has recently announced a further 2 per cent rise in the energy price cap from 1 October, meaning that the average dual-fuel direct debit bill across Great Britain would increase to £1,755 per year, almost £500 higher than in October 2021. It's clear that high energy prices are here to stay for the foreseeable future, and many low-income and vulnerable households will struggle this winter, leading to worry, debt and dangerous coping mechanisms to stay warm, with average household bills of £1,781 in south Wales and £1,853 in north Wales, meaning that north Wales remains the most expensive region across Britain and south Wales the fourth.

Adding to this, vulnerable households across Wales and Great Britain are weighed down by over £4.15 billion of energy debt, largely built up over the past three years. Just a quarter of that figure is attached to a repayment plan. The average amount that a household in arrears owes to their energy supplier for both gas and electricity combined is around £3,200—considerably more than a year's worth of supply, even at today's unaffordable prices. Care & Repair Wales have outlined the key issues around fuel poverty and energy efficiency that are impacting older people in Wales today, including the consequences that poor housing conditions have on energy bills and the urgent need for targeted support to vulnerable and low-income households to keep on top of high, rising energy costs. They highlight how excess cold, damp and mould in the home can worsen respiratory conditions and increase the risk of falls, placing additional strain on health and social care services.

Fuel poverty is often linked to existing vulnerabilities, with many affected individuals facing multiple challenges, such as frailty, health issues, unpaid caring responsibilities and financial hardship. Older people are particularly impacted, with Care & Repair research showing that only one in 10 clients live in homes with an EPC rating of C or above. They state that while schemes like the Welsh Government's Nest programme provide vital support, their scale, pace and eligibility criteria mean many households in urgent need are unable to access help, especially those living in hazardous or complex housing conditions. They recommend implementing a national safety-net grant for hazardous housing disrepair and increasing investment in fuel poverty initiatives, urging the Welsh Government to use the full yield of UK Government's Warm Homes plan consequentials to address avoidable health inequalities. Earlier this year, the UK Government announced it will be investing £13.2 billion into its Warm Homes plan, resulting in consequential funding for the devolved nations, which could equate to over £0.5 billion for Wales. This offers a vital opportunity to invest in Welsh homes to protect low-income, vulnerable households in the long term, an opportunity to implement the Equality and Social Justice Committee's recommended actions by significantly ramping up investment in energy efficiency for those who need it most, including the existing demand-led Nest schemes, and by introducing a complementary area-based scheme to target clusters of inefficient homes in deprived areas. Fuel poverty is a social justice issue requiring sustainable and affordable solutions. Diolch yn fawr.

The scale of fuel poverty in Wales has reached unprecedented levels, and I think we've almost become desensitised to statements like this. Fuel poverty has become normalised. It's absolutely appalling that in one of the richest countries on earth, people are fearing the winter, rationing their heat and their light. According to the official Welsh Government estimates that we had in August, a quarter of all households in Wales were in fuel poverty in October 2024—so, that's a year ago. Crucially, this includes over four in five lower income households. Almost a quarter of these are in severe fuel poverty. And, of course, on top of this, as we heard, Ofgem has announced a further 2 per cent rise in the energy price cap from October, almost £500 higher than October 2021. In Wales the impact, as we know, is even greater, with north Wales being the most expensive region in the United Kingdom, and south Wales the fourth. So, those are the figures.

Age Cymru's new report on their survey of older people in Wales, recently published, also contains figures that tell the story of the effect of fuel poverty—50 per cent of them saying they had to use less energy and heating to ensure they had enough money to live on. And it also contains descriptions by older people of the effect of this on them, such as this one:

'We can’t afford to have the heating on for longer than a couple of hours a day in the winter. We have been cold this year...we owe a lot to credit card companies, and we are always overdrawn. It’s unsustainable.'

As we've heard Care & Repair say, their home energy officers who visit older people's homes see first-hand the detrimental impact that fuel poverty is having on the health and well-being of older people. 

The Equality and Social Justice Committee have long recognised that problem of fuel poverty, of deepening debt, the anxiety, the ill health and death that need so much more focus, and we've long identified that it is not being sufficiently addressed. So, this new report urges the Government to see how critical this issue is by ensuring the action taken is more effective, targeted and impactful. One of the key findings, I think, is the need for interim energy efficiency targets in the tackling fuel poverty plan. Interim targets provide a clear road map to 2035, opportunities to monitor progress and, crucially, provide confidence to the industry and supply chain and training providers. Without these targets, I don't know how the Government hope to fully assess whether measures like the Warm Homes programme were working as intended and keep the hugely important need to tackle fuel poverty on track and ensure the sector and necessary skills developed as needed. So, it's no wonder, really, we haven't seen the urgent progress needed on energy efficiency without these targets. So, I'm glad the Government will finally fulfil its statutory obligations to set those targets. They are promised by September; well, we're in the middle of September now. We haven't had an update as yet, so I'd be grateful for an update. Can we have a date, an indication of when we're going to hear about these targets, what they'll be, and how they'll be achieved?

We've also heard compelling evidence in our inquiry about the need for a replacement area-based scheme, and it's something we also heard about in our previous report. We were told an area-based approach would be cheaper, quicker and would support more properties across all tenures and could be supported by data such as that provided by the FRESH mapping tool—the foundation data for robust energy strategies for housing, FRESH—vulnerability mapping developed by Cardiff University academics and Warm Wales, which identifies households most in need of support to heat their homes and only costs around £5,000 for local authorities to access it. At the moment, only five local authorities in Wales are currently using it. It's really frustrating our recommendation around this kind of mapping tool wasn't accepted in full. Actually, it was concerning that the Cabinet Secretary didn't even seem to be aware of its existence, although it's been available for years.

It's clear that high energy prices are here to stay for the foreseeable future, and many low-income and vulnerable households will again struggle this winter, many already so deep in record levels of energy debt. As we head towards the UK Government's budget, is the Welsh Government therefore calling on UK Government to provide deeper energy bill support for people in Wales who cannot afford a warm and healthy home? Diolch.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and the Trefnydd, Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I do welcome this opportunity to discuss fuel poverty. I thank the Equality and Social Justice Committee for their ongoing interest, helpfully revisiting their previous reports. I'd also like to thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee and to our fuel poverty advisory panel. That input has been invaluable in reviewing our fuel poverty plan and improving our Nest scheme.

In response to the committee recommendations, as has been acknowledged this afternoon, on 7 August, I published revised fuel poverty modelled estimates, and these figures showed 340,000 households in Wales, or 25 per cent, were living in fuel poverty in October 2024, and a further 215,000 households, 16 per cent, are estimated to have been at risk of fuel poverty. This is a reduction on the modelling that we carried out at the peak of the crisis, which predicted that up to 45 per cent of households may have been in fuel poverty back in April 2022. But these figures still, which I published in August, are significantly above pre-crisis levels and continue to disproportionately affect financially vulnerable households, as your report has highlighted.

Global factors, of course, impacting on these costs are outside our control, but this Welsh Government and across the Government, in terms of responsibility, is determined to support households in need. I meet regularly with energy suppliers to remind them of their role in offering fair payment plans and making available emergency support where required. I met with Ofgem earlier on today to ask them what they are doing to support vulnerable people with energy costs following the rise in the price cap, which has been referenced today. I will write to Members, because there was quite a lot of detail in the points and the actions that they're taking, so I'll write to Members to update on the outcomes of the meeting with Ofgem.

But one point that did come up, and something that hasn't been referenced yet, is the Warm Homes discount. I do think it's important to put on the record that all households on means-tested benefits will receive the Warm Homes discount. We welcome that. Removing the high-cost-to-heat threshold from the Warm Homes discount should offer some certainty and comfort to Welsh householders ahead of next winter. This change means 110,000 households in Wales will receive the £150 electricity bill rebate for the first time.

In June I published an update to our tackling fuel poverty plan. It does update positive progress, reflecting success in the delivery of our plan, such as launching, as has been referenced by the Chair of the committee, the independent energy advice service as part of the Nest scheme. It also includes in the plan actions to reflect the challenges those in fuel poverty continue to face. The plan now includes interim targets for fuel poverty, monitoring and evaluation of the Nest scheme, and advocating for vulnerable households and those with prepayment meters. The revised fuel poverty estimates will inform those meaningful interim targets. Thank you for raising this today, Sioned, because we are working on options for discussion with the fuel poverty advisory panel, which we do see as expert advisers to us. I can assure Members that I'll update you on the development of these interim targets.

Tackling fuel poverty remains a key commitment for this Welsh Government. We need to put more money into people's pockets by boosting incomes and strengthening financial resilience. Just two examples: the discretionary assistance fund provides contributions towards off-grid oil and gas for those who are in financial crisis. The Fuel Bank Foundation has provided £6.9 million to eligible households that prepay for their fuel with prepayment meters or off-grid oil or gas.

The committee recommended ensuring local authorities have tools to identify households likely to be in fuel poverty in order to target their support. Most local authorities can already identify these households. They use their local knowledge and the existing data, including the free Welsh index of multiple deprivation. But, as I acknowledge in response to the recommendations, it is important that we recognise purchase tools such as FRESH, which have been used. I think the point about our response is that we can’t recommend a specific tool, but we’re very supportive of efforts to improve data and intelligence. Funding provided for their ECO Flex activities has enabled local authorities to procure mapping tools if they wish. So, clearly, FRESH is one route to providing that intelligence.

Now, Jenny Rathbone, the Chair of the committee, asked questions about progress with our voluntary pilot, with Policy in Practice, which started in January of this year, with 12 local authorities taking part. It’s a lift tracker and these authorities are now accessing data that helps to identify and directly target residents who are missing out on their financial entitlements. In fact, two additional authorities are using the lift tracker—so, 14 authorities across Wales. There’s a robust evaluation of the pilot and we’ll be informing Members of the update.

So, moving on swiftly to the Nest scheme, improving the energy efficiency of homes and reducing bills and carbon emissions, with each Nest property receiving that whole-house assessment by a qualified retrofit assessor—a sample of which, of course, will be reviewed by an independent quality assurance service—we continue to review Nest. It’s vital that the scheme not only ensures that the right technology is installed, but also supports householders in recognising the benefits that it will bring. Retrofit assessors provide advice to all customers, and householders receive a customer information pack explaining how to use installed measures and the benefits of switching to these new technologies. We want the Nest scheme to support as many people as possible, and it’s important that the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government has introduced several changes to the scheme since last November.

Since December, officials have worked with Warm Wales and Care & Repair to identify and resolve issues raised by the committee, and, of course, those issues are important, about workforce capacity and the skills required to deliver the scheme. And expanding the contract base is important, but we must ensure that quality remains high.

So, in conclusion, while the Nest scheme is now working effectively and our local authorities are delivering local ECO Flex schemes, there’s always more to do. So, should there be, as has been raised, for example, a robust case for a new area-based scheme? It would need to be included in a future spending review and considered for funding alongside other priorities. And we need to also, of course, await the publication of the UK Government’s Warm Homes plan, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government will consider future policy and funding opportunities in that context.

But can I, finally, recognise the ongoing challenges that many households face? Support is available and I urge anyone on a low income struggling to keep their home warm to get in touch with our free Nest scheme service, our ‘Claim what’s yours’ network, and their energy suppliers, to ensure that they have help before the winter arrives.

I call on Jenny Rathbone to reply to the debate.

Thank you to those who contributed to the debate. I would say in response to Mark Isherwood that you need to be really cautious about saying that all acceptances in principle are wrong, because, if you look specifically at the responses as to why they're accepted in principle, there are very good reasons why there was that caveat. 

For example, the recommendation around the FRESH tool, which is a spin-off from work conducted by Cardiff University—the Welsh Government response is that there are other similar analytical tools being used, or already available, such as the Wales index of multiple deprivation. And the Welsh Government must be, obviously, subject to its own procurement laws that we have passed and can't simply go with one organisation without opening it up to others. These are really important principles and therefore there are moments when acceptance in principle, I think, is the appropriate response.

In terms of recommendation 3, which was about our request to increase the scale of the Nest programme, the Government responded that work is going on to tackle the imbalance of supply and demand. It's no use rushing ahead with yet more money for the Nest programme if we haven't got the skilled workforce needed to carry out the work to standard. Therefore, we, obviously, have to ensure that Jack Sargeant and Rebecca Evans are doing sufficient work on the skills that are needed to ensure that we are meeting our ambitions around making all our homes retrofitted to the right standard. It's clear from what the Welsh Government is saying that if there are underspends available I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice will make the case strongly with her colleagues.

So, I think whilst we should all be quite concerned about the level of suffering that's going on, we need to test whether the strategies that the Government and the local authorities are using are good enough to identify all these people. Because you have to bear in mind that somebody who's using more than 10 per cent of their income on trying to heat their home is probably somebody who's not eating very well, and that makes you less able to be able to go out and obtain the help that you need and are entitled to.

I also think people are very nervous about having work done on their house that they don't particularly understand. That's why it's so important that we have independent advice available to everybody, so that people can talk to their friends and families and be reassured that something is working.

It's very good to hear that the Cabinet Secretary has been in touch with Ofgem, and we look forward to the letter updating us all. It's very important, of course, that the Warm Homes discount is being offered automatically to anybody who's on the appropriate benefits.

But there is a lot happening that could influence the confidence of poor households to seek help. For example, only this afternoon I went across the road to the Urdd, along with many other people, and I met something called the Bengal Dragons Foundation, which has already retrofitted solar panels and a battery into seven mosques in Cardiff. And that is going to have ripple effects on households who think, 'Well, if they can have a solar panel and a battery, why can't my house?' Those are the sorts of demonstration projects that are extremely important to give people the confidence to come forward and make those changes and be assured that they're not going to increase the costs, and that they're actually going to improve their well-being. So, community energy certainly has a place in educating the whole community, but—

You need to conclude now, Jenny, please.

—the extent of this crisis means that we have to use every single mechanism possible, and we need to bear that in mind when we're in discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for finance on how we can use other forms of finance or other ways in which we can achieve the objectives that I'm sure we all want to see.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 7 this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on the UK Government autumn budget. I call on Heledd Fychan to move the motion.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Today's debate is an opportunity for us as a Senedd to unite and send a firm and unequivocal message that we see the UK's autumn budget on 26 November as an opportunity—the last opportunity before the Senedd election next year—to show that the UK Labour Government does care about Wales. The budget is also the latest test before the Senedd election of the partnership in power between the Welsh Labour Government and the UK Labour Government, because that partnership desperately needs to start showing its value and show that the voice of Wales is being heard and respected.

Because we have heard many times over the years from members of the Welsh Labour Government, and even at that time from some Labour MPs, about how different things would be with two Labour Governments in charge, with even Jo Stevens, who is now the Secretary of State for Wales, speaking about the scandal of the billions of pounds owed to Wales through HS2 alone. It's incredible the difference that there can be when somebody's in opposition, and in power and able to something about it.

Because, in the 16 months since the general election, we’ve not only witnessed Wales’s interests being emphatically ignored at every turn—on HS2, the steadfast refusal to listen to what every single local authority in Wales is saying on the devolution of the Crown Estate, and nothing being done to update an outdated funding formula that short-changes us year on year.

Indeed, whatever credibility the Labour Party had as the self-proclaimed party of devolution now lies very much in tatters, as Starmer’s leadership seems to treat devolution as nothing more than an inconvenience. Even Welsh Labour MPs don’t agree with their own leader here in Wales on so many key issues.

We’ve witnessed characteristic Westminster neglect towards Wales morph into this UK Government actively working against our interests. How else do you explain the refusal of the UK Government to provide Wales with the basic courtesy of a risk assessment of the impact of their proposed changes to the welfare budget, or a spending review that will result in the worst real-terms growth in the Welsh budget outside of the initial austerity years and a shrinking capital budget, or, if you need another example, the decision to impose a specific tax on Welsh employers as a result of the Chancellor’s ill-conceived changes to national insurance, which have blown a £72 million black hole in our public finances—let alone the impact on third sector organisations and other organisations across Wales? Those arguments are well rehearsed, but their impact is being felt in our communities day in, day out, and it will only get worse.

And as we’ve mentioned several times, the First Minister has to accept her share of the responsibility for this situation. Time and time again, when faced with the stark reality of her complete lack of influence and authority in this so-called 'partnership in power', she has opted for toeing the party line and not rocking the boat. No amount of retrospective rebranding and talking about a 'red Welsh way' can disguise the fact that, on each and every one of the key priorities for the people of Wales, she has absolutely nothing to show for it. This inconsistency of trying to play it both ways with her Labour colleagues at Westminster cuts to the heart of a fundamental problem the First Minister shares with the Prime Minister—namely, that she leads a Government of whom people have lost faith in their promises.

The Government’s amendment to this motion, unfortunately, speaks volumes in this regard: no attempt whatsoever to provide a compelling counter-narrative; rather, a deafening silence and a complete denial of the reality unfolding before them—a simple noting of the date of the budget, seemingly seeing it as something that is being done to Wales, rather than something we can influence and help shape with the support of the Senedd. It’s no wonder, as the leader of Caerphilly council rightly announced last week, that the Labour Party is a busted flush that has completely lost its way in the eyes of so many former voters.

So, when it comes to the upcoming by-election, and the Senedd election next year, it is clear that Wales’s future lies down two very different paths. One offers the grievance-fuelled politics of a far-right party that openly talks about erasing our very identity as a nation and the public services we hold dear—even this Senedd, which was voted for by the people of Wales. On the other hand, you have Plaid Cymru’s positive vision for Wales, rooted in fairness, equality and opportunity, one that will stand up for Wales, and take every possible opportunity to call for fair funding and illustrate why that funding is necessary, plus have a plan in place to spend it for the benefit of the people of Wales. We were told that the Welsh Government got everything it asked for. Why didn't you ask for more?

Would you want a referendum on independence now? 

Why are you bringing this into the debate? We have set out very clearly our position in terms of a referendum and where we stand on that. Why aren't you asking for what Wales is owed now from your own party? Why are you not delivering for the people of Wales now? You said you would. You haven't. 

Is that a 'no'?

No, you won't. Okay, you won't stand up for Wales. That's what you've confirmed. Thank you for confirming that. I can be clear here—I can be very, very clear—for a Plaid Cymru Government, there would be no 'delete all' and a simple noting of the date of a budget. And I hope today this Senedd won't do that either. By supporting our motion, you are supporting the calls for fair funding for Wales. We are putting clearly a marker about what we expect the resources of our own Senedd to be. Saying things like 'reforming the Barnett formula' means nothing if you do not call for them, and consistently call for them. So, what we are asking the Senedd to do today is to send a clear and united voice to the UK Government that it is time to fund Wales fairly. It's time to ensure that the Senedd has the funding it needs and is owed to deliver for the people of Wales. I ask our colleagues cross-party to support our motion.

I have selected the amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. And I call on Sam Rowlands to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move our amendment in the name of Paul Davies. I'd like to begin by thanking Plaid Cymru for bringing forward today's debate, and for the opportunity it gives us to examine the economic prospects that this Labour Government is putting forward, but, of course, a party in Wales which has been propped up by Plaid Cymru for 26 years. As we look ahead to the autumn budget, the position of the Welsh Conservatives is clear. Labour's so-called partnership in power is failing the people of Wales from Cardiff Bay to Westminster. That arrangement is delivering stagnation, higher taxes and fewer opportunities for working people and businesses.

But let me start with where we can agree with Plaid Cymru's motion before us today. Wales deserves its fair share of investment and support, and we'll continue to join you in calls for those HS2 consequentials. We agree that a revision of the Barnett formula is long overdue to better reflect Wales's unique economic and social needs. We support calls to—[Interruption.] Certainly.

I'm glad that you agree that the Barnett formula needs to be revised. You had 14 years to do it and you didn't do it.

And we'll continue to press the case that it should be revised, as we did as Welsh Conservatives during that time. We support calls to reverse the recent increase in employers' national insurance contributions, but we would want to go further. Welsh Conservatives want to see the reversal of the punitive tax on family farms and the introduction of a broader pro-growth tax-cutting agenda, one that supports enterprise, drives job creation and delivers for communities across Wales. That is why we will vote against the motion being debated today and are submitting an amended motion as laid out before us.

We oppose the devolution of the Crown Estate, a move that would add bureaucracy without benefits. We reject proposals to impose yet more taxes on already struggling families and businesses. And we strongly oppose the reckless and unfunded suggestion to abolish the two-child benefit cap, a policy that Plaid Cymru now shares with Reform UK, an unholy alliance riding the three horses of economic irresponsibility, populism and unfunded promises. Let's not forget that Plaid—

Would you take an intervention on that? 

Certainly. 

Do you recognise the price of poverty? Do you recognise that the price of keeping children in poverty puts a further burden down the line? It's not only a human cost, but throughout their lives they're not going to reach their economic potential and they'll have different social problems that will all have to be picked up by the state. So, to call that an irresponsible economic policy is absolutely wrong. 

I absolutely recognise the scourge of poverty, and the best way out of poverty is an economy that creates great jobs and enables good businesses to flourish, and that's what we need to see here in Wales. We would continue to support the two-child benefit cap that Plaid Cymru oppose with Reform UK.

Let's not forget that Plaid have propped up this failing Labour Government for over a quarter of a century. During that time, they've consistently supported calls to waste public money on their vanity projects. But, of course, the subject of this debate is about the UK Labour Government budget in November, which will have to deal with the consequences of a year of Labour now in power in London. We know that long-term borrowing costs have hit their highest levels in nearly 30 years. Just last week, the yield on 30-year UK Government debt climbed to 5.68 per cent, a figure not seen since 1998. If the autumn budget fails to correct course, we'll see borrowing costs rise even further, confidence in sterling fall, and investment disappear.

Let's talk about Labour's attack on family farms and small businesses. A recent report by CBI Economics, commissioned by Family Business UK, forecast that Labour's proposed changes to agricultural inheritance tax will cause a £14.8 billion loss in gross value added over five years. In Wales alone, that will mean a £518 million hit to our economy, the loss of 10,000 jobs, and a 12.2 per cent drop in turnover for those businesses affected. We are seeing time and time again our businesses and our economy being hit by this Labour Government. Wales deserves better. We need a Government that spends public money wisely, supports our entrepreneurs and creates jobs. The Welsh Conservatives are committed to delivering that vision.

As for today's motion, none of the proposals put forward by Plaid Cymru would grow the economy or improve productivity. Their high-tax, high-spend model simply does not work. Let's be honest about their own ultimate goal: they want independence, an economically unworkable fantasy. Without the UK's financial weight, Plaid's agenda would collapse under its own contradictions. An independent Wales would face deep cuts not prosperity. Plaid Cymru can't credibly criticise Labour's record while pushing on even more extreme and unaffordable policies. Wales needs realism not rhetoric.

To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, I urge Members to back the Welsh Conservative amendment. We are the only party offering a credible pro-growth economic plan to fix Wales. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language to formally move amendment 2.

Formally.

Over the summer, we learned that Keir Starmer would be launching yet another reset of his faltering Government, and when we reflect on Labour's lamentable record since the general election, decisions that have failed Wales, especially its most vulnerable citizens, it was not before time. After all, we've had some of the most shocking and disappointing decisions taken that have hit those needing the most support the hardest.

Fourteen million people are facing hunger and hardship in the UK in 2025, in one of the richest countries in the world. Research published last week by Trussell showed that one in 14 households in Wales used at least one type of charitable food provision in the last year, an increase since 2022. We are also seeing increasing foodbank need amongst working households, with almost a third of people referred to foodbanks in Wales being from working households, an increase from 2022. This report is stark evidence that the UK and Welsh Governments need to do more to tackle severe and deepening hardship in Wales.

So, what have we had? Well, not a lot of action, just reckless rhetoric that has only served to embolden rather than challenge the far right, prioritised over eradicating the scourge of poverty. Moreover, from the perspective of Wales, the propensity to ignore every single call to ensure fair funding, as Heledd Fychan outlined, has been frankly staggering. So, this so-called third phase of the UK Labour Government represents a long-overdue opportunity to course-correct for a more progressive trajectory. Most of all, it is an opportunity to do right by the people of Wales.

On child poverty in particular, which currently affects a third of children in Wales and is expected to rise to even more intolerable levels by the end of this decade, there has been a glaring lack of action. As we've seen in the Commons this week, the UK Labour Government maintains its stubborn refusal to pull the most effective lever at its disposal to ameliorate the most shameful blight on our society, that of child poverty, by removing the cruel two-child benefit cap.

This is also a Labour Government that was prepared to knowingly push thousands more children into the throes of poverty through its proposed changes to the welfare system. And let's remember that thousands will still be hit by the amended proposals, which have prompted the UN to express dismay at the actions of UK Labour Ministers, in what appear to be, in its words, 'discriminatory and unjustified' reforms to benefits. The special rapporteurs on the rights of disabled people and on extreme poverty and human rights have now written to the UK Government, adding even fiercer criticism of the measures to cut disability benefits, stating:

'On its face, the new two-tier system for the UC health element whereby new claimants will receive a significantly lower amount of the same benefit solely because of the date of their application appears discriminatory and unjustified.'

And they criticise the introduction of the Government's 'problematic' severe conditions category, which is

'not aligned with the concept of disability'

under the United Nations convention on the rights of disabled people, and

'penalizes people who are at particular risk of poverty while experiencing significant barriers to employment'.

They are also saying that they are 'gravely concerned' and 'dismayed'—and Plaid Cymru shares this concern—that the Government has used language that 'stigmatizes benefit claimants'.

Meanwhile, the Chancellor shows no inclination to fix our broken tax system and pursue a bold path of redistribution through measures such as wealth taxes. Instead, she continues to desperately scramble for loopholes in the arbitrary constraints of her own fiscal rules—all of which have done very little to move the needle on growth—while firmly setting the clock back on economic inequality. It's no wonder, therefore, that Labour's being deserted in droves, as we saw in the poll yesterday, by those who have seen their faith in the party as a vehicle for progressive change shattered.

The Government has deleted the point in our motion that regrets the failure of the UK Labour Government and the partnership of power between it and the Welsh Government to deliver tangible improvements to the people of Wales to deal with cost-of-living pressures. That, I'm afraid, from the point of view of the people desperate in our communities for support, desperate for real change, desperate for real champions, says it all.

Sometimes I think it could be a long six months we've got ahead of us.

In terms of the motion in front of us this afternoon, I think we should be searching for unity across this Chamber. Because wherever somebody sits in this Chamber, we should all be asking ourselves, basically, the same simple question: 'What is best for Wales?' Now, we will all come to different answers and we will place the emphasis in different places, and that's fine; in a political environment, that is what we would expect. But there must also be some common ground, and it's the common ground that I would like to seek this afternoon.

The Welsh Government, in responding to the House of Lords Constitution Committee some time ago now, described the union of the United Kingdom as a social union, a political union and an economic union. I would also say that it would be a financial union. And the purpose of a union, of course, is to ensure that everybody enjoys the same rights, or broadly the same rights. It was on that basis that I supported Westminster legislating so that people in Northern Ireland could have the right to same-sex marriage, because that is their right and it is the proper thing to do, and it is right to ensure that a union operates equally for everybody.

In financial terms, it is clear to me that the union doesn't operate equally for everybody, that we, in Wales, are not receiving the same support as people across the border in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. And that is not a union that works for us. So, the purpose of this debate and other debates that we have here is, 'How can we make this union work well for Wales? What is best for Wales?'

I was interested in the response of the finance Minister to a question earlier this afternoon when we were debating Barnett. And in reply—and I'll give way if I'm misquoting the finance Minister—he said that we needed an overview of Barnett that was independent of—. And I interpret that as independent of the United Kingdom Government. And he is right. Such a structure operates, of course, in Australia; the Commonwealth Grants Commission, I think it's called. And what that does is ensure an equality of treatment across the whole of Australia. And what we require is an equality of treatment

an equality of treatment across the whole of the union, a framework that's fair and that works for everyone, wherever they happen to live, whether it's Northern Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales. It's clear to me today that this union—this financial union—is not working fairly for Wales. I agree, and the Welsh Government agrees, I believe, with what has been said in the motion about HS2. It is wrong that Wales does not enjoy the consequentials of investment on heavy rail in England. It is wrong. It is unfair. It must change.

It is wrong that we are not allowed to manage the Crown Estate on our own territory. I don't believe some of the wild estimates of the riches that this might well bring to us. I don't believe that's true. But, I think it's right and proper that we should have the same opportunities to manage the estate as exist across the border in England and in Scotland. There is no reason why that should happen.

And most fundamentally, it is clear—and I was glad to hear the finance Minister make this point earlier this afternoon—that Barnett does not work for Wales. The amount of money, in real terms, according to need, that the Welsh Government has available to it to deliver services for the people of Wales is not equal with that which exists across the border in England, which exists in Scotland, or which now exists in Northern Ireland. So, Wales is uniquely discriminated against within this union. [Interruption.] I give way.

I thank you for taking an intervention. Very quickly—. I agree with so much of what the Member is saying today, but why does he believe that successive UK Governments, including Labour Governments, have been unwilling to address this, and why does he believe that, of all those injustices that he's mentioned, Welsh Government today—the Labour Government—has deleted them all? Why would they not agree with Plaid Cymru's position?

Let me say, I don't want to get into a somatic conversation about the nature of motions on a Wednesday afternoon, but I do think that it is always better to seek agreement, and I'm not generally a supporter of 'delete all' amendments.

But, let me say this. If we are a part of a union, then we have to be part of an equal union, and it is a duty on all of us, wherever we sit in this Chamber, to seek that equality for the people we represent. I believe that the finance Minister has been doing this, and the speeches that I've heard the finance Minister make, both in his current role and a previous role, persuade me that he is making this case for Wales on the basis that I've set out of fairness and of equality. And I believe there lies the best opportunities for Wales. It is right and proper that other people take a different view, and I fully accept that, but what I seek to do is to maximise the agreement this afternoon, not to emphasise the disagreement. And I think that is a fair and proper way to approach this debate.

Alun, you need to conclude now, please.

And in conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, what I hope we'll be able to do in future conversations of this sort, as we approach both the budget in November and on other occasions, is to seek agreement across the whole of this Chamber on what is best for Wales, and, on that basis, I hope that we can make progress.

How did Labour get itself into this mess, this stress of sacrificing principles they are meant to hold dear, whilst chasing instead the opinions of those they'll never win? The purpose of a budget should be to set priorities, to extend the realm of what is possible. Instead, I fear we will see the same constraint creep into every budget line, its cuts dressed up, no doubt, in Union Jack bunting. It doesn't need to be this way. Starmer and Reeves choose to follow fiscal rules, rules that are self-imposed, set as a trap by Tory chancellors gone by. All of this is a choice, a choice to cut welfare spending, to keep cruel policies in place, to follow the doctrine of austerity whilst claiming, incredibly, to reject the word itself.

On coal tips, I have welcomed Westminster's long overdue

long overdue, though inadequate and limited, funding to begin to clear the legacy of mining from our landscapes. The sums pledged by the UK Government to date, though, go nowhere near what is needed now, let alone what shall be needed in the months and years to come. We are entering the winter months, when we can expect more stormy, rainy weather, which could destabilise our land. We've seen that happen at Cwmtillery.

When I and others have questioned why so comparatively little has been pledged to us by Westminster, we've been told that that is all that has been requested, because that's all we need at present, as though this were an issue that can be frozen in time, packaged and dealt with to suit our schedules, as opposed to the capricious, inherently unpredictable wreckage of storms and flooding—damage which will destabilise too many tips at a dreadful pace if our climate becomes yet more volatile. The upcoming budget provides an opportunity to make this right, and residents of Valleys communities will watch with interest to see just how far the conscience of Westminster has crept forward.

There's also a chance to do what's right when it comes to the Crown Estate, to devolve, at last, the proceeds Wales is owed. This does seem a stumbling block for the Labour Party, I fear. My colleague, Llyr Gruffydd, pushed the First Minister on this only yesterday. No clear answer has been given on why these powers have not been devolved, on why Labour in London is choosing to ignore Labour in Wales. Not so much a 'partnership in power' as inertia, in spite of influence—an influence that extends only so far as the door that is closed in our face. I talked earlier, Dirprwy Lywydd, about how budgets should create space and push at the limits of potential. Constitutionally, financially, even in terms of Whitehall bandwidth, though, Wales simply does not figure in their plans. And, in the current Secretary of State for Wales, we have not a voice for Wales in those corridors, but a silencer, a Cabinet Member who curbs the confines of what is seen as possible. That is the limit of their ambition for Wales, it seems—for us to know our place and keep quiet.

But, Dirprwy Lywydd, some of us have no intention of staying silent. The First Minister pondered yesterday what Plaid Cymru could do to push for powers instead. Well, clearly, more and more voters are now asking the same. The bar is set so low that it's tripping an entire nation up. So, First Minister, challenge accepted.

I'll be voting in favour of this motion. Of course, the wording perhaps could have been made a bit more consensual to garner the support of Labour Members. But, of course, we are nearing an election. But I am sure the majority of the Members here actually agree with the content of this motion. Maybe not some of the wording, but the content of the motion. There is a democratic mandate here to devolve the Crown Estate. It was part of the Labour and Plaid manifesto in 2021, and has the support of every local authority. The Welsh Government itself pointed out that the estate is set to benefit very significantly from leasing the seabed in Wales, in ways not foreseen when the current devolution settlement was determined.

I agree with Alun Davies that the question we should all be asking is: 'What is best for Wales?' But, clearly, there is no appetite in Westminster for further devolution. It appears that the Welsh parliamentary Labour Party has priority over the good of the Welsh public. I was glad to hear the finance Secretary's comment about the Barnett formula earlier on today. We can all agree that this motion is, of course, right, that we need to replace the current formula with a needs-based formula. Something which is actually fair. Funding based on need is common. It's common across the world, and it's in fact common sense. This is what the UK Government is doing in other areas. They're doing it to fund health boards. This is what they've suggested when rewriting council tax. And, of course, this is what we had when we had European Union funding. If Wales was funded based on need, we would already have the resources we need to pull Wales out of poverty.

out of poverty. But I would also like to highlight that it's not just that. We need to look at the devolution settlement. This is not constitutional navel-gazing. The constitutional status of this Senedd means that the UK Government can overrule the Senedd on a devolved matter whenever it chooses. This could pose a serious problem in the future. This has happened more and more since Brexit. Prior to Brexit, the highest number it happened in a parliamentary term was four. In the last term, it was up to 14. Once, the UK Government used to work with this place, but now they have normalised ignoring us, and that's a dangerous precedent for the future. It seems that ignoring us now continues with this UK Government. These Acts are in fact clawing power back from the democratically elected Senedd here in Wales. They are then, in the case of the subsidies Bill, handing powers to private companies. This is how we are now in a ludicrous situation of a private company taking this Government to a tribunal to prevent them funding publicly owned infrastructure—by that I mean Cardiff Airport. I hope to see a budget that is interested in sharing and interested in respecting: sharing power and sharing resources and respecting the democratic will of the people of Wales. That is not the track the UK Government is currently on. But I believe the majority of us, including Labour Members here, want that to change, and hope that will change soon, because we need that change. No. 10 and the parliamentary Labour Party need to realise that quickly, because we're already seeing the effects of people feeling ignored and people feeling hopeless. I saw it on the streets of London last Saturday.

And the future of this Parliament is not secure. Many people in our communities feel that devolution has not improved their lives at all. That's what people think. Whether it's right or not, that's what a lot of people think. Any Welsh Government, of whatever colour or colours, needs to have the tools to improve the lives of the people of Wales. A needs-based funding formula is very likely to make a huge difference for the people of Wales. As Alun Davies said, we are being discriminated against at the moment with the current funding formula. The status quo, with its lack of hope, with its lack of ambition, cannot continue. The status quo will come to an end, but if we are not careful, it will not come to an end in the way we hope. Diolch yn fawr.

The significant underinvestment in Welsh rail infrastructure for decades reflects the lack of fairness at the heart of our current financial settlement. And yet, although the transport Minister in Westminster acknowledged this historical discrimination at the end of last year, it is clear that there is no meaningful effort by Labour to turn the page and start a new chapter of fairness. If anything, the current Government in Westminster is determined to push the unfairness of the Barnett formula to the hilt. The warning signs have been there for a while.

After years of demanding our fair share of HS2 funding—over £4 billion, according to the Secretary of State for Wales—Welsh Labour became more and more reticent as the general election approached. The Welsh Labour Government has also been very quiet. Although the First Minister recently claimed that she was making the case for fair funding as a result of HS2, the truth is that not a single penny has come to Wales. Is this the destination of the red Welsh way—a tunnel of despair? 

But HS2 is a symptom of a deeper malaise. Historic underinvestment—between £2.4 billion and £5.1 billion, according to the Welsh Government itself—has been a permanent feature of our unbalanced relationship with Westminster, and although Westminster claims to recognise this injustice, the situation is getting worse. The recent spending review was even less generous than the previous one, particularly in terms of capital funding. Professor Mark Barry estimated that there will be a need for at least an additional £250 million per year over the next 15 years for improvements

for improvements to the core Valleys network and Network Rail. That casts the sum of £445 million over the next decade in a completely different light.

Therefore, there is no surprise in the conclusion of the Welsh Governance Centre that the Chancellor's plans fail to address the systemic problems in the way in which Welsh rail infrastructure is funded and that there is absolutely no basis for claims that funding from the spending review compensates for the loss of HS2 funding. It is also no surprise that the transport Secretary has refused to carry out a revised assessment of historic investment in Wales, because the Secretary knows very well what the conclusion would be: under Labour, every path has led to underinvestment, neglect and Wales being left behind.

Returning to the opening point made by Heledd Fychan, this is Labour's last chance to prove that the change promised during the last election is more than just empty words. We must see a firm, unconditional commitment to pay every penny owed to Wales from HS2 immediately as part of a full programme to remedy decades of underinvestment in our public transport. Thank you very much.

I'll start with a question: if the Crown Estate gets devolved, how does it provide extra money? Why will the net financial benefit of devolving the Crown Estate not be removed from the block grant? With everything that previously has been devolved, be it income tax or stamp duty, there has been a block grant adjustment. That is how the system of fiscal devolution works. A calculation is made and the block grant is adjusted accordingly. How would devolving the Crown Estate not lead to a reduction in the block grant in the same way? But if we can have tax devolution and no effect on the block grant, can we have the rest of income tax devolved as well, because that would be much more important?

I strongly support a 2 per cent wealth tax on assets over £10 million. According to published figures, the richest 1 per cent of households' assets are over £3.6 million. A wealth tax of over £10 million assets will raise large sums of money from a small number of people, mainly large properties in London and the south east, plus from some of the larger farms. All tax allowances, rates and bands should be the same, and not just capital gains and income tax, but also dividend income. There should be one set of bands and one set of taxes. There are too many complicated things in there that allow the wealthy to avoid paying their share of tax.

There's a very strong economic case for the United Kingdom, with not only Wales being a substantial net beneficiary of redistribution but also that larger countries can more easily withstand economic storms and support the less affluent parts. How do I know they can withstand economic storms? Look at what happened to Iceland during the banking crisis. Wales is a net economic beneficiary of the union, and has substantially more expenditure, including expenditure on people in Wales by Westminster, and funding through the Senedd and the Welsh Government than is raised in Wales.

There are four possible methods of funding Wales. The Barnett formula was specifically designed to preserve Scotland's public spending advantage over England. The formula was never designed with Wales in mind. The formula preserves the spending advantage for Wales over England. There have been periodic adjustments that have increased relative spending in Wales. The main advantage of the formula is simplicity and objectivity as a basis for making spending allocations. There has been notable success in securing a formula bypass since devolution, for example in relation to the Objective 1 match funding and the funding for city deals. We also have the Barnett floor, as the 2015 spending review provided guarantees that the Welsh Government's block grant funding per head would not fall below 115 per cent of equivalent funding per head in England.

A second option is for Wales to pay a share of Westminster costs and keep the rest of the taxes raised in Wales. This is what independence looks like. This would have a catastrophic effect on public expenditure in Wales. From published ONS data, we know the percentage of Wales's income is about 72.1, where Britain is shown as 100 per cent, and we know we get 115 per cent. The only way that Plaid Cymru could get anywhere near getting it to work is to not fund the state pension as a central benefit and also not fund the Welsh portion of the national debt.

The third option is that Wales gets its population share of devolved expenditure. This is the simplest and second most catastrophic. The 115 per cent Barnett floor would reduce to 100 per cent of English expenditure. This would lead to the removal of the Barnett floor that protects expenditure in Wales and sees Wales doing substantially better than England.

The fourth option is that a new formula is created that takes into account sparsity, age profile and deprivation, and any new formula will not be without criticism. Consider the local government formula in Wales and the misunderstanding, arguments and misleading statements we have on it. Anyone who has not followed the discussions on it would not realise that the two authorities that receive the least

receive the least Government support per head are Monmouthshire and the Vale of Glamorgan. The system of grant allocation is designed to be objective and to equalise for need and resources. For the purpose of calculating standard spending assessment, local government revenue spending is broken down into 55 notional service areas. A separate method of distribution exists for each of these elements in order to distribute the total across the authorities. This formula can be compared to England and be used to calculate the relative local government need between England and Wales. Health is a major part of the Welsh Government's expenditure and has just come to be over 50 per cent of Welsh Government expenditure. 

On health, there's a simplistic age-based formula to calculate relative need. There's a more complicated and accurate formula, including the relative occurrences of all conditions, diseases, with a cost weighting attached. This would create a long and detailed formula, but is relatively easy to achieve; the data exists, and the calculations can be done. The data on relative poverty rates of long-term ill health—[Inaudible.]—unknown. The rest of the expenditure needed in Wales could be calculated in the same way.

Fair funding for Wales should be based on relative need, and as reform to a needs-based formula will take time, we need to start on it now. I support the introduction of a needs-based formula for determining the Welsh block grant, but we must also realise it could lead to a reduction. [Interruption.] Sorry, I was almost finished. Mark, carry on.

I'll be very, very quick. How do you respond, given the comments you and others have made to the statements I and other colleagues heard in the Scottish Parliament last week, cross-party, of commitments to protecting the Barnett formula?

Well, I think that Scotland does very well at doing it. The Barnett formula came out of Goschen. Goschen was created to give Scotland a financial advantage. When we had devolution into Wales, with the Welsh Secretary of State having a responsibility for expenditure, then it came that the only formula they had to use was the Barnett formula. I'm not trying to speak for it or against it. It's a lot worse than the Barnett formula—[Inaudible.]—.

I was on my last sentence, Chair, when I—[Inaudible.]— I support the introduction of a needs-based formula for determining the Welsh block grant, but we must realise it could reduce the block grant we have. There's no only moving up.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Welsh Language, Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. During my childhood, a very long time ago now, I used to come home from school looking forward to listening to the Criss Cross Quiz, and in the Criss Cross Quiz, there was a round which always puzzled me as a child because it was called 'potpourri'. Potpourri was not particularly that widely available in Carmarthen in the 1960s. [Laughter.] But as I watched the programme, I realised that what this was, was a sort of 'anything you can possibly think of' round, and I was powerfully reminded of it when I read today's Plaid Cymru motion, a sort of kitchen-sink motion, in which the author has rounded up everything they could possibly think of and thrown it into a motion for the rest of us. The result is, of course, a motion in which there are things which are Welsh Government policy, things which are not Welsh Government policy, and several which are somewhere in-between.

The mover of the motion, the very first thing she said was that the motion was 'cyfle i uno', a chance to unite, before she went on to make an aggressively partisan speech, the first of every partisan speech that we've heard from Plaid Cymru this afternoon. Now, there is common ground, common ground that we could have found, but to pretend that that's what this motion is about really was confounded by everything Plaid Cymru had to say. In fact, the one thing that every single part of this motion has in common is that not a single one of them lies in the hands of this Senedd. And in many ways, that is the antithesis of responsible politics. It says nothing at all about the things that we can do as a Senedd, and instead spends its whole time dealing with things over which we have no direct responsibility.

Will you take an intervention?

How much easier, Dirprwy Lywydd, to slap down a slogan and pretend that you are doing something serious. [Interruption.] Yes, of course.

Thank you for taking the intervention. The fact that we're calling for these powers: that is the point of the motion, though, to say that these are things which should be in our power. We're trying to empower this place.

this place. So, what you're criticising us for is, actually, exactly what we're trying to prevent happening, which is that we shouldn't be kept in this place in the Senedd where we don't have powers over these things that could help to end our poverty, which isn't normal.

Well, if that is what the motion had said, then we would have had a different sort of debate, but the motion doesn't say at all—. Not a single time in it is does it say, 'These are the things that ought to be devolved to Wales.' It says every time, 'These are the things that that wicked UK Government needs to get on and do.'

Resolutionary policy making, Llywydd, with the magical thinking that lies behind it, just isn't the serious contribution that this Senedd deserves, because, to take just one example, and this is an example with which I do agree in the motion, the motion says that we should seek that there should be a replacement of the outdated Barnett formula with a needs-based funding framework. Well, I agree with that, Llywydd, but the idea that simply by calling for it you make it happen really is just not the way the world works. It took, after all, this Senedd itself the best part of a quarter of a century to change our own voting system when we had every power here in our hands to do it. But the motion criticises the UK Labour Government for not having, in 12 months, succeeded in doing all the things that this motion sets out.

Now, I believe that we should replace the Barnett formula, but how do you do that? What is the path to actually making that happen, rather than making a speech about it and feeling better for having sounded off about it? You need to have careful, patient, political investment. You have to make alliances. You have to agree compromises. You have to be prepared to edge forward in bringing about change. It's a complete misunderstanding to believe that the UK Government unilaterally could change and replace the Barnett formula. It would require the agreement of four separate nations, and as you've heard this afternoon, there is ample evidence that in both Northern Ireland and in Scotland there is no consensus to replace the Barnett formula, a formula that works very well for them.

Not only, Dirprwy Lywydd, do you need that careful, patient, alliance building approach to politics, but you have to be prepared to do the really hard technical work that lies behind almost every one of the strands in this motion, and a motion that assumes you can do it simply by calling for it and snapping your fingers—

Thanks for taking an intervention. Do you understand, though, why people, after 26 years of Labour First Ministers, have run out of patience that Labour can deliver this?

Well, I admire the willingness that you have to speak on behalf of everybody else. I think we'll leave it to them to say what they think, and we'll rely on that rather than you telling me that you can speak on behalf of all of them. I think if you were to talk to people and have a serious conversation about how we achieve a replacement for the Barnett formula, they would understand, in a way that this debate has been entirely devoid of, the complexity that would lie behind doing so.

I've been reading, Dirprwy Lywydd, the Holtham investigation into the funding arrangements in Northern Ireland. I thought I'd read out just the one table from this report in which he investigates just one strand, a single strand, in the funding arrangements. In order to come up with his conclusion that the figure for Northern Ireland should not be 124 but 128, this is one table of his working out. He says that he has taken into account the adjusted R-squared, the sum of squared regression, the log likelihood, the F-statistic, the mean dependent variable,

I call on Heledd Fychan to reply to the debate.

Thank you for the contributions to this debate. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to close it. The Cabinet Secretary began his contribution by accusing us of having an anything-you-can-think-of motion. I'm not old enough to remember the Criss Cross Quiz and luckily so, it doesn't sound very interesting to me. But, if I may say so, if you call this an 'anything-you-can-think-of motion', the fact that you have no amendment speaks volumes; that you've run out of things to say and call for; that you are happy to leave this Senedd voiceless in a process that will determine how Wales is funded in the future. We should be united. You can always amend. It's easy to criticise. Amend. Do not delete all. 

If I may just reflect on some of the things that we should be thinking of. Twenty years ago to tomorrow, many of us voted for the establishment of this Senedd. That referendum took place—

Twenty-eight.

Twenty-eight years ago. Yes. Sorry if I said differently. Twenty-eight years ago, we voted for this Senedd. Some of us may have voted against. Some of us may not have been old enough to vote. But it was 28 years ago to tomorrow. That took place merely months after the election on 1 May 1997. So, when there is political will, things can move quickly. But what we've seen here is no willingness to move on many of these areas. In fact, there's been a refusal to progress. On things like the devolution of the Crown Estate, the Cabinet Secretary asked for us to be patient with the Labour Government, that they've only had just over a year. But if they were able to move quickly then, why can't they move quickly now on many of these areas? They are unwilling to do so. No road map. Also, they had fourteen years in opposition to put these plans in place, to do that work. Why didn't that take place?

Sam Rowlands, your contribution, I am disappointed that the Conservatives have doubled down on their support for the cruel two-child benefit cap. I think Sioned Williams illustrated perfectly why poverty is linked to the future of Wales's economy; why poverty actually costs more to the public purse. I thought your party wanted to save money for the public purse. But no, seemingly you're happy for children in Wales to stay in poverty. Because it is a cruel policy. It is disgraceful that it has been continued by a UK Labour Government. In terms of having a credible economic plan as well, I'm sorry, that is laughable. The fact that you had 14 years to reform the Barnett formula and didn't, that is something that you have to reflect on. I'm really pleased, Sioned, in your contribution, that you did emphasise the importance in terms of the economy here, because that gets lost often when we talk about social justice and these policies. That's why we would like to see a child poverty strategy here in Wales with measurable targets, so that we could see progress. The fact that things are worsening is not helping this Senedd budget, nor is it going to help future generations.

nor is it going to help future generations. 

Alun Davies, in terms of unity, what is best for Wales, I think that is the crux here. Yes, there will be politics over the next few months. There is a by-election coming up. There will be electioneering. But we are not seeing any attempt in terms of unity here from the Welsh Government. And what I would ask, because it is clear we are not going to have unanimous support for our motion today, is: would the Welsh Government commit to sharing with all Senedd Members what their requests in the autumn budget are, what are you going to be calling for, so that we can understand what those calls are, and that we can measure then how successful those calls have been? What are you expecting to see delivered? Because that's the least this Senedd deserves, and that's the least the people of Wales deserve to know. Because by deleting all in the motion and just simply noting that the UK budget is happening, as I stated previously, it suggests that this is something being done to Wales, rather than something we can influence. We need to have that opportunity. And I would welcome even if the Welsh Government wanted to present a debate, so that we could have that unity. If that is something that people genuinely want to see, well, how can we progress this? And that's perhaps something that the Cabinet Secretary would wish to reflect on. 

In terms of other comments, Peredur Owen Griffiths, in terms of ensuring that we have not a penny less than what is owned to Wales, I don't think that's an unreasonable request, and, clearly, many people in Wales agree with us. 

Mike Hedges, in terms of some of the points raised there, I think it's very clearly shown why the Crown Estate does work, and I would urge you to look in terms of what's happening in Scotland and the revenue it generates. It's not true in terms of what it would mean for Wales, and it does mean that we can invest it differently. I would really urge you to look at that. 

I hope we can agree that this is not as good as it gets for Wales. We don't have the resources that are owed to us, that we deserve, in order to be able to deliver for the people of Wales. It is a shame that the Cabinet Secretary and the Welsh Government, by deleting the motion and just simply noting the budget, have not engaged seriously in this debate. I hope that they will do going forward. We need to know what those demands of the UK Government will be, so that we can see if Wales will get fair funding. Is there a partnership in power, or were they just words in order to try and win that UK general election? Because the people of Wales aren't seeing the benefits of having two Labour Governments working together at this point in time.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. I will therefore defer voting under this item until voting time. 

That brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time. 

The only item we will vote on this afternoon is item 7, the Plaid Cymru debate on the UK Government autumn budget. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed. 

I now call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be de-selected. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, one abstention and 38 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I therefore call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote.

Agor y bleidlais. Cau'r bleidlais. O blaid 26, neb yn ymatal, 25 yn erbyn, felly mae gwelliant 2 wedi'i dderbyn.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 25 against, therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

We now move to item 9, the short debate. I move to the short debate and I call on Cefin Campbell to speak.

Will those leaving the Chamber please do so quietly.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's my pleasure to bring forward this short debate tonight, and I intend to give a minute of my time to Sioned Williams and Mabon ap Gwynfor. 

The title that I gave for this short debate is 'Bridging the Rural Divide: women's health in Wales'. For far too long, women’s health has been misunderstood, dismissed and underfunded. Across Wales, especially in rural communities, generations of women have been told their pain is normal, their symptoms imagined or ignored altogether. From gynaecological conditions to chronic fatigue, women’s health has been systematically deprioritised, not due to a lack of evidence, but sometimes a lack of clinical understanding, political will, representation and research.

Now, this has resulted in what many now call 'medical misogyny'. Women’s health concerns are routinely minimised or misdiagnosed as psychological, while clinical research continues to rely heavily on male biology. The outcome is all too familiar: women waiting years for diagnoses, travelling long distances for treatment, or being silenced entirely.

The Welsh Government’s women’s health plan does acknowledge these problems but offers no concrete measures, in my opinion, to tackle the systemic measures that inflict this on women. There are no binding commitments to long-term clinician training, auditing or accountability.

Unfortunately, the plan does not address the specific challenges that women face in rural areas. It talks about preventative services, yet ignores the fact that surgeries and rural A&E departments are closing, that public transport in rural Wales is poorly maintained, that digital connectivity is unreliable, and that necessary infrastructure is insufficient, all of which undermine the availability of preventative services by dismantling access to care.

Women's health is not only a medical issue. It is the basis of economic prosperity, family well-being, and community cohesion. Yet in rural Wales, women face a unique patchwork of barriers that limit their access to basic healthcare and reproductive services. The Government must recognise that the solutions needed in urban areas are not the same as those needed in rural communities. One size doesn’t fit all as far as women's health is concerned across Wales.

across Wales. Take public transport: the lack of reliable connections makes it almost impossible to reach clinics or surgeries. The plan talks about digital innovation, but in many rural areas, connectivity is too poor to be usable. In regions of significant tourism, such as Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, women often rely on low-paid seasonal work, and they also face high poverty rates as high as 34 per cent. These pressures cause additional chronic stress to the stress that fundamental poverty causes and lead to poorer health outcomes as a result of that, which deepens the vicious cycle associated with rural poverty.

The deep geographical links between poverty and gender inequality make women's health in the area that I represent not only a clinical issue but a social and economic one. A shortage of specialists and the lack of continuity of care means that women are left to wait, to suffer and be ignored.

If I can just refer to two particular examples, which is endometriosis and adenomyosis. They affect one in 10 women, yet the average diagnosis takes nine years and 26 GP visits in the Hywel Dda area. In that area, a single endometriosis nurse was expected to cover the entire region. When she recently went on maternity leave, no replacement was provided, exposing the fragility of one-off investments.

Sadly, behind these statistics are real lives. One young woman, Emily—I've come to know Emily well over recent years—repeatedly sought help for severe pain, but was dismissed by doctors who insisted her symptoms were psychological. She was referred for mental health support more often than she was given medical investigations, and was even prescribed antidepressants, despite knowing her condition was physical. Eventually, when she was finally admitted to hospital, a 25 cm cyst was discovered, and she was diagnosed with stage 4 endometriosis, the most advanced form of the disease. Alongside this, she was also found to have adenomyosis, which can cause the womb to swell to three times its normal size. Emily's case demonstrates the devastating impact of delayed diagnosis.

If I can just use this opportunity as well to talk about my own daughter, who suffered chronic debilitating pain for 13 years. After her symptoms had been ignored as normal period pains for so long, on one occasion during an appointment with her GP in Carmarthenshire, she became emotionally distressed. Rather than investigating further what might be the underlying reason for the excruciating pain she was suffering, she was offered mental health support and a few paracetamols. Needless to say, the GP was a male doctor. Now, many women would have given up, but my daughter's determination and belligerence resulted in her eventually being diagnosed in a west Wales hospital with adenomyosis. But her story doesn't stop there. After transferring to a GP practice in Cardiff, where she now lives, she was at last admitted to hospital for a laparoscopy. However, it turns out that she had been misdiagnosed. She didn't have adenomyosis but stage 4—stage 4—endometriosis. So, as a parent, I was so angry and disappointed that she'd been let down and had suffered so much needless pain for so long. Now, things have to change