Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Data centres clearly are a thing that's going to drive the twenty-first century economy that we all want to see, that will give those salaries that you talked about, First Minister. But the key thing is to understand how we bring them into Wales. I have two development zones in my area, one in St Athan and one on the old Aberthaw power station site. Both are vying for data centres. When I've sat as Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, virtually every growth area or enterprise zone talks about hosting data centres. What realistic assessment has been made by the Welsh Government about promoting bringing data centres to Wales that will actually come into fruition, and aren't something that these development areas are chasing to the detriment of other development projects that could provide valuable jobs as well?

I think you're absolutely right—we've got to get the balance right here. But having two AI growth zones is likely to get people to focus on the area. We need to make sure that the balance is right, and the balance needs to go, obviously, through planning applications. They're subject to consultation with key stakeholders, including local communities, and it's important that the Government also sets out how we want to see this balance against other things. It is important also that we prevent and mitigate any potential harm resulting from development proposals. But I don't think we can shy away from the AI revolution that is going to happen to us, whether we like it or not. So, the question for us is: do we want to be a part of driving it, or do we want to be a taker, somebody who absolutely just accepts what's happening to us and is pushed around? I think this AI revolution is going to be critical to the transformation of our public services in Wales, apart from the transformation of our hospitals as well.

Can I start by saying 'Lá fhéile Pádraig sona dhuit', happy St Patrick's Day to you, First Minister?

Ireland, of course, does have experience of a data centre expansion, and there are lessons to learn about wider value to the economy, land use, values and, indeed, power supply as well. Wales does have the benefit of two AI growth zones, which will increase data centre usage. It is essential digital infrastructure, as you recognise. It's also part of the UK industrial strategy investing in Wales. A private sector partnership will be essential to deliver the benefits of those growth zones. They need a mission and a purpose that builds on local strengths in the economy and opportunities to grow. Can I ask you, First Minister, how you will set out how the Welsh Government expects to work with partners, including the private sector, Ambition North Wales and the Cardiff capital region, to develop that vision and that plan for those AI growth zones that will bring the longer term, well-paid jobs and help to grow the Welsh economy?

Thank you. A happy St Patrick's Day to you, and, certainly, to your wife as well, who I know will be celebrating today. It was great to be celebrating with the Irish Government in Cardiff last week.

I think it's really important that we recognise that there are real opportunities here, but we've got to balance it off against the fact that AI, and data centres in particular, suck up a lot of energy. So, the question then is: what kind of energy? How do we make sure that what is powering these AI growth zones is energy that is sustainable? That's why I think the model that you see in north Wales, where you've got the modular reactors powering the AI growth zones, is a model that I think we should be welcoming. The key thing for me, though, is to make sure that we're not being pushed around by this technology—we've got to keep control of it. It's going to be difficult, but the fact that we've started this whole discussion in Wales, in social partnership with our trade union colleagues, is, I think, absolutely fundamental in terms of the values that we expect to see when people are going to be investing in Wales when it comes to AI developments.

Diolch. Every day, small local businesses across Wales contribute enormously to our economy and to our communities and our shared well-being. I recently visited Thirtythree/45, a new fantastic independent record shop in Neath town centre, and, this week, I'm hoping to visit the splendidly called We Are Butty, a new sandwich stall in Neath market. I set up a survey allowing small businesses from across South Wales West to raise issues of concern with me. Most who completed it were either sole traders or had less than five employees, predominantly operating in retail and hospitality. Sixty-four per cent of respondents said their biggest challenge was increased costs—a situation, of course, that may get worse due to the war in the middle east—and 83 per cent felt they don't get enough support, advice or information from the Welsh Government. Data shows us that footfall across high streets and town centres is continuing to decline, with Wales having some of the weakest footfall levels across any of the countries in the UK. And, of course, a few weeks ago, Marks & Spencer said they'd be closing their Swansea store, which will be of concern again to small businesses in the city centre. So, does the First Minister agree with me that we need to go further to ensure small, independent, local businesses in our high streets can flourish, and how do you respond to the call of those businesses for better advice and support from the Welsh Government?

I understand that businesses are under a lot of pressure, particularly those in our high streets, as people's habits change in terms of the way people shop. It is important for us as a Government to be able to rethink how our town centres look and what we can do to support them. It was great to be in Merthyr market on the weekend, where £1.6 million of our Transforming Towns fund has helped to change the middle of Merthyr and is bringing people in. It's a different approach, and we have to think about what it is that will bring those additional people in.

I was in Swansea last Friday as well, and I spoke to people about their disappointment about the closure of Marks & Spencer, and I'm particularly concerned about the people who will be losing their jobs there. What we've been doing is we've been putting huge investment into the middle of Swansea—£93 million to support regeneration projects. I've been to the Palace Theatre—if you haven't been there, it's quite extraordinary, and it's a wonderful facility where lots and lots of small businesses can house themselves and share experiences—and Y Storfa, which is again bringing people into the town centre. So, I do think that local authorities, like the one in Swansea, are being creative and imaginative in terms of rethinking how you pull people into their town centres.

We're doing the same thing in using, for example, the health service—at Debenhams stores, for example. There have been a couple of examples—I think in Bangor and in Carmarthen—where we're trying to get footfall into the middle of town using health as the thing that drives people into our town centres. So, there is a lot of support there.

I'm pleased that the people you spoke to didn't mention the fact that rates were an issue, because, actually, they're exactly the kind of people who are not having to pay rates because of the £250 million that we're investing, and 50 per cent of businesses are benefiting from that.

First Minister, the community of Pembroke Dock and wider south Pembrokeshire was delighted last week to learn that, following a year-long campaign, a banking hub will be established in the town. Having been trusted to lead this community campaign, I worked with local residents and town and community councils to gather over 1,500 signatures on my petition, raised the issue in this Chamber, and a number of times engaged extensively with Ministers, the FCA, the older people's commissioner, and with Link, who I convinced to return to the area to undertake an in-person assessment and meet with concerned residents. It demonstrates what can be achieved when a community comes together to not accept 'No' for an answer. With a temporary hub expected within three months, momentum is clearly building. Given that banking hubs are operated through the Post Office, and we have committed in our manifesto to scrapping business rates for post offices, will you commit to the same, to ensure that these vital services are given breathing space so that they can support our town centres, our high streets and our communities?

I, too, am delighted to see that banking hub that is going to be supported in Pembroke Dock. If ever there were a community that needs to make sure they get access to funding and to their own money, it is that community there in Pembroke Dock. I understand why you're making this offer of scrapping business rates for everybody. What you're not telling them is how much it costs to do that. I think we need a bit of honesty from the Conservative Party in terms of the costs of what they're offering—the costs not just in terms of the businesses, but the cost to other public services that will be cut as a result of what you are doing elsewhere.

First Minister, on a more positive note, I wonder if you'd agree with me that the road to successful high-street regeneration is ultimately dependent not on a one-size-fits-all model but on a partnership that's formed between the Welsh Government, local government and local businesses, and also cultural organisations. This might be my last opportunity to talk about the success of Welsh Government investment in Pontypridd—a success that actually came from a £1 million grant under the Vibrant and Viable Places scheme, to enable the council to buy the freehold to the derelict Taff precinct, then a discussion with the leader of the council, Andrew Morgan, about how that could be used to develop the transformation of the town centre, which has now taken place. There was a business case, which then meant a conversation with Ken Skates, who agreed that Pontypridd would be the ideal place for the location of Transport for Wales. And add to that what's probably over £100 million of investment that's taken place, because it's also to protect the cultural identity of the town—so, the development of YMa, the development of the Muni, the support for Clwb y Bont when it was affected by flooding. Putting those together, we now see footfall increasing and we see a massive transformation of the town. So, there is no one-size-fits-all, but that partnership has created an incredibly vibrant town that is now growing. Do you agree that that is the approach that we should be looking at now on the regeneration of some of our towns and communities?

I think the transformation in Pontypridd has been quite remarkable. I remember visiting it a while ago and thinking, 'This is bad. This is really not good'. What was great was when they started that programme of buying the precinct. That was the beginning of the transformation, as you say, and then Transport for Wales really being an anchor organisation for the town. What that means is that people come in, they spend in the local shops, and all of that just starts to encourage movement. It's been a remarkable transformation. I'm really pleased that the Welsh Labour Government has been able to work very closely with Rhondda Cynon Taf council under the leadership of the remarkable Andrew Morgan, who will be stepping down very shortly as the leader of that council. I'd like to pay tribute to him here for the remarkable work that he's done on behalf not just of the people of Pontypridd and of RCT, but also of the people of Wales, because I can't begin to tell you how instrumental he has been in leading the Welsh Local Government Association. The work that he did in particular during the pandemic was quite remarkable. I wish him all the very best when he steps down as leader of the council.

I'm very pleased to see that the UK Prime Minister is resisting pressure from the US President to get more involved in that war, but let's be clear, this war is going to affect us—it already is, and already the people of Wales are struggling with cost-of-living pressures. We need to see de-escalation, and I know that the responsibility of the Prime Minister is to put our country first. I'm really pleased that lessons have been learnt from the Iraq war.

The impact is real, and it's happening already. Petrol prices at the pumps are already going up. I am particularly concerned, as you are, about these people who are dependent on oil. Other people are protected, at least for now, through the price cap. Let me be clear, though, that we already have a discretionary assistance fund, and the Fuel Bank Foundation, and people are able to access money there already via their local authorities. I think that is a message that I want to make loud and clear to people who are struggling.

That £3.8 million is additional. I'm very pleased I had the opportunity to speak to the Prime Minister last week about the need to recognise that more people in Wales, proportionately, are dependent on oil for heating their homes. That's been recognised in the amount of money we get proportionately, and that money will now be available to top up what we as a Government already put in.

I did ask specifically about what pressure would be put to ask for support for people who will not be able to get hold of money through those schemes, who are on low incomes and who will be walloped by the increasing prices. I would welcome any further information from the First Minister.

I would like to now return, though, to a matter that the First Minister referred to last week in the Siambr. She said then, and I quote:

'I'll be going up to Llandudno to open a new orthopaedic hub, a new surgical centre, and that is great news—another surgical hub. I think we have seven, this will be the eighth, and I think there may be another one. So, that's nine surgical hubs we're talking about in Wales.'

Health professionals and experts in the field of delivering surgical expertise were quite taken aback by that statement from the First Minister. We know, of course, that there has been a demand from health professionals for what Plaid Cymru is pledging to deliver, which is accredited surgical hubs, which is something specific. Can she list the nine accredited surgical hubs that she mentioned last week?

I can, and I've been pushing them on this, because I recognise that you're getting a little bit prickly because of the 10 new surgical hubs that you're promising on top of the ones that we have already put in place. There have been new ones that have been established, for example, in Neath Port Talbot, and frankly the waiting lists in Swansea were incredibly long until that new surgical hub was opened, and now that has transformed the situation in that area. That's just one of many of the seven surgical hubs that already exist. As I say, there's going to be a new one in Llandudno and a new one also in the Llantrisant area, which will be co-ordinated between the three health boards in that area: a real opportunity for us to demonstrate working together, understanding the pressures that people are under. The fact is that, today, our waiting lists have come down for seven months in a row, and that has only been possible because we've had that additional money from the UK Government. There's a direct correlation between those taps being turned on and our ability to bring those waiting lists down. I think we should be really proud of what we've done already in relation to surgical hubs. As I say, the new one in Llandudno and the new one in Llantrisant are also ones that I'm sure we will be incredibly proud to support.

Llywydd, I did choose my words carefully. The First Minister didn't hear my first question this afternoon; she clearly didn't hear my second question either. Isn't it true, First Minister, that there aren't eight accredited surgical hubs and a ninth on the way, and in fact there can't be, because the call for expressions of interest to establish accredited hubs was only sent out last month? The Royal College of Surgeons was as perplexed as I was when the First Minister said what she said last week. Isn't it the case that little has changed since the royal college's assessment in the autumn? I quote again that the development of surgical hubs in Wales has been limited and beset by delays and that this has become more apparent when compared to the establishment of hubs in England and Northern Ireland. I'm talking about the accredited hubs that the surgeons are calling for. A Plaid Cymru Government will act on the recommendations of experts and establish, yes, 10 accredited surgical hubs—no more dither and delay. Why is the First Minister so content with just giving the illusion of progress, rather than actually doing it, as Plaid Cymru would?

The real issue here is can you separate planned care from emergency care. That was the lesson of the pandemic. That was the message of the pandemic. You need to be able to separate that out. That is more difficult in a country like ours. You can do it Cardiff. You've got the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff, and you're able to do the planned care in Llandough—a big centre, much easier. That is more difficult in other areas, which is why you've got to pull these different health boards together. I am really proud of the fact that we already have seven hubs in Wales, where we've got that separation. The thing that matters to the people of Wales is are those waiting lists coming down. You can call them what the hell you want, the question is are the waiting lists coming down. And the answer to that is a resounding 'yes'.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, I'd like to turn to matters of life and death. Last night, Y Byd ar Bedwar broadcast a deeply troubling programme exposing the reality of corridor care in north Wales's hospitals. It revealed that almost 90,000 patients have been treated in corridors in north Wales over the past three years. It interviewed Steve Jones, a 68-year-old man. He'd spent 44 hours in a corridor in Glan Clwyd Hospital in agony with a gangrenous gallbladder. He described the situation there as a war zone. Doctors tried to send him home due to bed pressures, and if it hadn't been for his wife's persistence as a former nurse—. Because of her intervention, he was re-examined. If it hadn't been for her intervention, he would not have been rushed into emergency surgery to remove his gallbladder, and would likely now, unfortunately, have passed away. Can you tell me, First Minister, did you watch that programme? And will you finally accept that the NHS in Wales is in a full-blown crisis?

I didn't watch the programme, but I have heard about the situation in Glan Clwyd. I think the situation is absolutely unacceptable. It is deeply upsetting for the people who are waiting to be treated there. Let me be clear: corridor care is unacceptable. That is the position of the Welsh Government. That is why we are trying to make sure that we avoid people having to go to hospital in the first place. We're giving far more care in the community. We've increased the number of people working in the NHS by 14 per cent in the last few years. That is not a small number. We're trying to increase the numbers of community nurses to make sure we can support people and avoid them having to enter hospitals. The fact is that we're investing in things like reablement, so that we can get people out as quickly as possible as well. There is a huge amount of investment going into that connection between the NHS and care. And, of course, the delayed transfers of care—I'm very pleased to say that those are coming down. Have we got further to go? Of course we have. The demands on the NHS are quite extraordinary. But I am pleased to see that things like the development of the Royal Alex will help with taking pressure off Glan Clwyd.

I'm disappointed that you didn't have the opportunity to watch that programme. I would encourage every Member of the Senedd to watch it to see for themselves the scale of the challenge. You didn't acknowledge that there is a crisis in our NHS. It's a word that not just I am using, but other people are using too. There was a nurse from Ysbyty Gwynedd who was interviewed. They said that the NHS is in crisis, that corridor care is a daily occurrence—it never used to be—and that staff now feel ashamed of the substandard quality of care that they're being forced to provide.

And it's not only these examples and the examples in that programme. Earlier this month, Nadia Wainwright of Henllan was in Glan Clwyd Hospital in the emergency department after her partner fell ill. She told about her horror at witnessing an elderly woman die alone, in distress, on a trolley in a corridor, with no dignity, in front of other patients. Eventually a sheet was pulled over the face of that old lady while other patients were waiting for treatment around her. It's not good enough. It really isn't good enough. I'm afraid that people are now frightened to go into these hospitals for treatment.

Can I ask you, First Minister: will you take the opportunity today to apologise to those people who are experiencing these problems, not just in north Wales, but around the whole of the country, in this undignified way, and to the staff who are being pushed to breaking point? Because it's not only those people who are being stripped of their dignity and having their safety compromised, those staff are suffering too.

Every day I worry about people who have been failed by the NHS in Wales. I think about the people who are putting their heart and soul into trying to support people in our NHS—over 100,000 people who are working day in, day out to try and improve the lives of people in our communities. But, yes, I worry about the people who are not getting the care that they need and deserve. The pressure on the system is quite, quite extraordinary. But I must say, I also think about those nurses in Ysbyty Gwynedd, and I think about the expansion in the number of nurses that we've seen since we have been in Government. It's been quite extraordinary the way that we have increased the funding going to the NHS on the scale that we have.

But we have been, for a very long time, starved of funding. That is the reality of the situation. We have suffered 14 years of austerity, and now what we've got is the taps being turned on, the additional money. We've had the biggest uplift in funding we've had since the Senedd was established, and now we can put that additional funding in, which is why those waiting lists are coming down.

I recognise the pressure on the NHS is intense. I recognise that many people are suffering. But I also recognise that, actually, across Wales, every single day, hundreds of thousands of people are being supported by our NHS, and I do think that it's important we talk about the good as well as the challenges in the NHS.

First Minister, I gave you the opportunity to apologise to staff, patients and their loved ones. I gave you the opportunity to acknowledge that there's a crisis in the Welsh NHS. It's very clear that the action that you and your Government are taking is not working. You're never going to fix a problem unless you recognise and acknowledge that it actually exists.

Patients are telling you that there's a crisis. Staff are telling you that there's a crisis. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine is telling you that there is a crisis. The Royal College of Nursing is saying that there's a crisis, as is the British Medical Association. Each one of those organisations has called for a significant surge in bed numbers to restore safety and dignity in care and to prevent people from dying in hospital cupboards and on corridors in front of other people. Do you accept that it is time to pull the ripcord, declare a health emergency and surge those bed numbers, so that the NHS has the capacity to deal with these situations? The NHS has been magnificent at being able to increase capacity in the past during times of national emergency. We saw it during the COVID pandemic. So, will you declare this health emergency before more lives are needlessly lost as a result of this situation?

The fact is the waiting lists have come down seven months in a row. This was a priority for us, and we are delivering on it. Now, you might want to deny that, but that is the situation. And the fact is that's happened because we put additional money in. And where did we get that additional money from? From the UK Labour Government. And do you know what, Darren? You had an opportunity to vote for additional money to go into the NHS, and you chose to vote against. So, when you go and speak to your friends in the NHS and you're saying, 'Yes, of course I'll pay for this, that and the other', you tell them that you're not going to be spending our money on that because you're going to be rebuilding the M4. That is a problem for you. You need to be straight with the people of this country. You need to be honest. You keep talking about what you're going to do, but you keep promising these additional cuts that you're going to be giving everywhere. The fact is, when you're in Government, you have to make some really difficult decisions. We've made those difficult decisions, and we have prioritised the NHS, and we are very proud of that.

I'm sure we were all delighted to see Wales turn a corner on their difficult record on Saturday, at last. We have encouraged the WRU to make sure it listens carefully to the views of clubs, players, fans and all those with an interest in proposals to change the professional game. The future of the game is a matter for the WRU, and we all want to see Wales thrive again as a successful rugby nation.

All those living in Swansea and in the surrounding area are pretty united around the fact that the Welsh Rugby Union have made a complete mess of this reorganisation of Welsh rugby, reducing the number of rugby regions from four to three. This past week, you will have seen a set of leaked minutes from a meeting between the Welsh Rugby Union and Swansea Council confirming that their plan is to close down the Ospreys rugby region by the end of the 2026-27 season. Now, this has been horribly dealt with all the way through. Fans have been left completely in the dark, have had to work out what was going on through leaked memos and internal discussions that are going on, and it's completely unacceptable. I do think that if any other cultural organisation in Wales was due to close and constituents were being treated in this way, the Welsh Government, rightly, would be calling it out. I understand that the Welsh Government can't just come in and run the rugby union and tell it what to do, but it does have a responsibility to call stuff out when it's wrong, and this is utterly wrong on the part of the Welsh Rugby Union, both in the decisions that it's making and in the way that it's going about doing them. So, First Minister, if you agree with me and my constituents that the way the Welsh Rugby Union has handled this situation is wrong, will you join me in calling it out?

Look, rugby is a passion, we all support it, we all want to see the sport thrive, but the fact is the WRU is not a Welsh Government sponsored body, it's an independent organisation. The Welsh Government does not have any powers to intervene, even if we wanted to, in how the organisation is run or the decision that it makes, or to direct the WRU to take any particular course of action. Of course, we encourage WRU to engage, we encourage them to be transparent and we would recommend that they undertake a very wide consultation.

Of course, a number of us in this Chamber look at the internal machinations of the WRU and despair. Tom is right, the reality of the situation within the Ospreys is that we are looking at a proposal that will have a significant impact on our communities, both economic and social. Now, back when I was younger playing rugby, it was thanks to the Ospreys that I had the opportunity to go and train in the WRU National Centre of Excellence. I know that's hard to believe when you look at me now, but those opportunities led to some of our players at the Welsh team getting to where they are now—people like Owen Watkin, who played for the Ospreys, and then moved on to play in the WRU for the country at some point.

Now, there is a role, I think, for Government here in having those conversations with the WRU. We know the Welsh Government does fund the WRU in some ways. There is a leadership role, I think, that people are looking for from the Welsh Government in this instance, that signal of where things need to go. So, I would echo Tom's calls on this. If you agree with me, my constituents, that, actually, the situation with the Ospreys gone is a huge, huge loss to a region that has already suffered massive economic hits, then not step in, but have those conversations with the WRU. Find those alternative ways forward, because we're not just losing a club here, we're not just losing a cultural institution, we are losing a massive economic driver for our region.

Well, I'm aware that there is a legal situation being undertaken by Swansea Council, so it is important to tread carefully on this. But what I will say is that the Welsh Government recognises that professional clubs are not just sporting institutions, they're also significant local employers and contributors to that wider economy, including tourism and hospitality. They're a supply chain, if you think about the transformation of the town on a match day. So, I do think that they need to take account of that economic and community impact, and any future model has got to respect the deep connections between teams and their communities.

The proposed reorganisation will inevitably lead to the loss of jobs. The Ospreys, according to the Western Mail, employ over 100 people. It's an employment issue. And when the Ospreys play, then sales of food and drink increase around the ground. It's a Swansea economy issue, not just a sports issue. Has the Welsh Government raised the economic impact of the closure of a Welsh rugby region? Sports clubs generate huge local loyalty. You cannot tell a team supporter there's another team that they can support down the road. As we saw in Mid Glamorgan, fans are not movable pieces—they either stay home or watch something else, such as the premiership on tv. If we want people to be supportive of Welsh rugby, then we need to keep it going.

I think it's important that we engage with the WRU on the overall health and sustainability of the game. I think we can do that, both on a ministerial and official level. We have done that, and I thank Jack Sargeant on his leadership on this. The discussions have covered the community game, the health and well-being of players, concerns around concussion and, for example, the development of the women's game.

If there are any job losses, redundancies, in any context, like with any other organisation, the Welsh Government will work with key stakeholders, such as Working Wales and Jobcentre Plus, to ensure that people who are impacted will receive the information, advice and guidance they need. But I don't think we've seen the end of this story yet, and it is important for us to allow the process to be taken to its conclusion, but that conclusion is something and a decision for the WRU.

We've got cross-party support on this, First Minister. There is a great deal of concern around this issue. These rugby clubs are the absolute heart of the community in places such as the Swansea valley and Ystradgynlais, where I represent. They are places that people go to for mental health support, for friendship, for the ability to connect with other people, for a social opportunity. They are some of our most disenfranchised and disconnected communities, and they have sought a way of connecting with each other, and it's through rugby clubs. They may not play rugby, but they go to the rugby club in order to connect with each other, and yet we see this threat on the horizon, this threat to their lives, their well-being and their communities. And they have been massively hit by so many other things.

Along with others in this Siambr, and we've got the cross-party support here, I would implore you, as the Welsh Government has stepped in on other cultural issues and other sports issues, that this is the time to now step in and ensure that the Ospreys and those regional teams stay as they are in order to support those communities, and not, frankly, to say, 'We don't care for you anymore, we're backing off.' Please do not back off. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I be clear? We have never said, 'We don't care for you anymore.' That is not the position of the Welsh Government, but it's not the position of the Welsh Government nor the responsibility of the Welsh Government to make decisions on behalf of the WRU. They are an independent organisation, and it is important that they make those decisions. What we do, however, is recognise, for example, that rugby clubs are at the heart of so many communities, and that's why one of the Government's commitments in its programme for government is to promote equal access to sports and to support young and talented athletes and grass-roots clubs. The fact is that we've invested almost £60 million in sport and leisure facilities, and that goes both to flagship national facilities and grass-roots-level resources.

So, I want to take this opportunity to thank all of those people who are working at that grass-roots level, who are keeping our communities alive, who are the social glue for many of our communities. There are volunteers, coaches, organisers, local champions—all of these people are absolutely fundamental to so many of our communities, and I want to thank them today.

I know the real frustration patients feel when they have to find a parking space for hospital appointments, and the real annoyance people felt when they had to pay for parking at hospital—remember those days. The Welsh Labour Government is proud that, unlike in England, we offer free parking at our hospitals. But we also recognise that often there simply aren't enough parking spaces, or the parking spaces are being used by people who have no business being there. Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board is responsible for the management and operation of its car parks, and they need to do what they need to do in order to sort the situation out.

Thank you. The Maelor hospital, like the majority of hospitals, do struggle to provide enough parking for patients, for staff and for visitors, and it is a really important issue in my constituency, and many constituents have contacted and continue to contact me on the matter. I recently attended a meeting with officers of the health board to look at specifics around car parking at the Maelor, and, due to a lack of available spaces, people park on pavements, they park on pathways and they park on double yellow lines, and that means, for wheelchair users or pushchair access, it's absolutely non-existent, and of course it's incredibly dangerous for people who are visually impaired. So, one suggestion was to replace the double yellow lines currently in place, but which are completely ignored, with double red lines. And the reasoning for this is the health board would then be able to hold to account the drivers who park on those double red lines in a way that they can't with double yellow lines. So, would the Welsh Government support such a move, and could consideration be given to providing a small amount of money that would be required for implementation?

Thanks. I know how frustrated people are. I've heard this loud and clear, that people trying to get to park in Wrexham Maelor is becoming a really big issue. And I agree that measures need to be introduced to improve the operation and management of car parking at the site. The health board recognises that this is an issue. I'm very pleased that you've been able to speak to them directly.

Now, double yellow lines indicate no parking at any time, whilst double red lines prohibit stopping for any reason. But the real issue is: would it change behaviour, irrespective of what colour lines they are? I think the more important thing is for the health board to consider enforcement measures in respect of illegal parking. So, the colour of the lines wouldn’t make any difference; it’s about enforcing the rules that are there at the moment. They could come to an agreement with a local authority, they could use their own staff, or they could contract out enforcement. But that is a decision for the health board, and the Welsh Government, of course, would consider any funding requests from the health board against other competing priorities.

We'll continue to take a whole cross-Government approach to improving health outcomes for everyone in Wales. Issues like poverty, education and housing all contribute to health issues and outcomes. Our priorities are clearly set out in our strategic programme, 'A Healthier Wales', which is regularly being updated and refreshed. This sets out our commitment to tackle health inequalities across Wales, and we're adopting the eight Marmot principles on a national basis to further drive better health and well-being for all.

Diolch. First Minister, after 27 years of Labour-Plaid governance in Wales it’s embarrassing that we're having to go back to basics as much as we are. People can't access NHS dentists, they're waiting far too long to see a GP, and many are still sitting on waiting lists for unacceptable amounts of times. The current situation is certainly nothing to be proud of.

Reform will ensure that people get the basic, decent healthcare, free at the point of delivery, that they deserve and they work hard to pay for. You've failed as health Minister, you’ve failed as First Minister, and fixing the figures won't hide the fact that my constituents know, and I know, that you've let us down on your management of the NHS. First Minister, do you agree with me that your Government has run out of ideas, and it's time to hand over the baton to a Reform Government that people in Wales can trust to get things moving again?

Well, it's quite, quite remarkable. You know what? We have delivered quite remarkably, I think, in terms of the numbers of people who've been helped in the NHS over the past five years. If you just look at what we've done in relation to dentistry, 0.5 million new NHS dental appointments because we changed the contract, and that has made a difference, I think, to the people in Wales. On top of that, 2.75 million appointments every month in a population of 3 million people. These are not small numbers. There are huge numbers of people who are being helped and supported.

And you talk about people being out of ideas. I tell you what: you wait until our manifesto comes out. We have already set out the key elements in terms of the promises we're making to the Welsh public. But I tell you what: Reform nicked all of their ideas directly from the Conservative Party. Because you know what? You're more or less interchangeable. You all come from the same party in the beginning. So, let's just be honest about what the NHS can expect from Reform in future. I tell you what we can believe in future is that you would be interested in privatising aspects of the NHS. There's no question about that. And we know that your leader has, in the past, proposed that there should be a health insurance premium. Now, I think that the people of Wales need to listen to that, need to hear that, and need to take this issue seriously, because, in a few weeks' time, they will be going to the polls and they will be making decisions that really impact on their lives, and I'm telling you, if they vote for Reform, let me be clear that there could be trouble ahead.

A couple of years ago, all our inboxes were filled with people asking about NHS dental treatment, and I'm aware that there are still pockets where access to NHS dentists is difficult. But NHS dental practices have been taking on new patients as a result of the dental reform programme. Since April 2022, over 0.5 million new NHS patients have received a full course of NHS treatment, including over 112,000 patients in the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board area. A further 54,000 appointments have been delivered for new patients to receive urgent care. These are big numbers.

Big numbers indeed, First Minister. Thirty-five dentists have quit the NHS contract across Wales in the last 12 months, 10 of them in the Aneurin Bevan health board, which covers Caerphilly. This is before the new dental contract even comes into force next month. The single biggest issue raised with me by constituents is dentistry, with many being told that they must go private to retain their regular dentists. For most people, this is a big extra cost that they will struggle to afford, if, of course, they can afford it at all. And I can understand the genuine good intentions behind the new contract, but are you concerned that this new contract may be unworkable before it has even arrived? What has your Government done in the final weeks of this Senedd term to avert this growing crisis? Because, with respect, your figures don't tally with my e-mail inbox. They really, genuinely, don't. And I'm sure that there are many Members here who feel likewise. Thank you, First Minister.

Well, let's be clear that the new contract hasn't started yet. But what I can tell you is that, at a time when the cost of living is really impacting on people, it will work out cheaper for patients and it will be fairer for dentists. Now, I recognise that, sometimes, there is a gap between people leaving and then the recommissioning. Because the money stays in the NHS—let's be absolutely clear about that. I think it's only about 6 per cent of dental contracts that have been handed back. So, I'm advised that, of the 25 contracts operating across Caerphilly borough, two have handed their contracts back. And the amount of money that's going in there is £10 million. Re-procurement takes time. I think it is important that we make sure that that is re-procured. It will happen; there will be a service available for those people in your constituency.

We all hate seeing litter on our streets, and the increase in fly-tipping is something that we absolutely need to clamp down on. That's why the Welsh Labour Government has provided funding to help local authorities go after fly-tippers and support those communities fed up with litter-strewn streets. Now, we've given more support to local councils to try and catch the fly-tipping culprits, with new cameras. People can access litter-picking equipment from over 200 litter hubs across Wales, and we're making sure that producers are also contributing to the solution.

You often point to Wales's strong environmental credentials and our high recycling rate, but many people looking at the state of our streets would struggle to square that with anything that they see every single day. Across north Wales, residents are increasingly telling me that their towns and urban areas, like Rhyl town centre, are simply becoming dirtier, with litter accumulating on pavements, overflowing bins and fly-tipping in back lanes and residential areas becoming far more common sights. This is also backed up by data from Keep Wales Tidy, which has tracked our decline in urban cleanliness.

We can rightly be proud of progress on recycling, but we can't claim to have a strong environmental record if people are seeing their streets and neighbourhoods becoming visibly filthier year after year. It's affecting community pride, local businesses and the image we present to visitors. So, can the First Minister outline what steps the Welsh Government is taking to co-ordinate with local authorities to launch a crackdown on the growing problem of litter, fly-tipping and general grime in our urban communities to ensure that the cleanliness of our streets actually reflects the environmental reputation Wales claims to have?

I think people should be angry about litter on their streets. It's completely unacceptable. We all have responsibility when it comes to litter. Do you know that 71 per cent of fly-tipping incidents involve household waste? Those are people that we know. So, we all have a responsibility to make sure that we are taking this seriously. Fly-tipping is a crime, and it's never justified. I'm really pleased that Keep Wales Tidy are supporting local authorities, particularly in north Wales, to improve and to create clean and green regions. If you just look at the Vale of Clwyd, I think there are 11 litter champions, seven community groups, and we've got four litter hubs there. This is carried out by thousands of volunteers, which is wonderful news.

But let me talk about enforcement, because one of the things that we've done is to make sure that local authorities will benefit from these 150 new trail cameras, and, of course, we're now working with the UK Government in terms of what they're talking about in terms of penalties, enforcement and the ability, perhaps, to make sure that the Environment Agency in England—. It may be that Natural Resources Wales would have additional powers to step in and to provide fines as well.

We'll all have noted the significant fine imposed on Dŵr Cymru last week after they failed in their duties to protect and support our water quality in the way that they should have. The Welsh Labour Government is dead serious about cleaning up our rivers and seas, and Welsh Water have a significant role to play in that, along with the agricultural community. The water regulator Ofwat's recent enforcement action provides a clear framework for accelerating progress.

Diolch, First Minister. As you said, last week, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water was told by industry regulator Ofwat to pay a record £44.7 million as part of the enforcement packages for serious and unacceptable breaches in how it has operated sewage works. They've agreed to investigate and carry out sealing works on parts of the sewer network to tackle groundwater infiltration, a significant contributor to the frequent spilling overflows. In the heart of Islwyn is the Abercarn welfare ground, home of the community's rugby, football and cricket teams, and it has seen years of sporting action lost because of human waste contaminating the fields. And it is a total disgrace. First Minister, what action can the Welsh Government take prior to the Bill that the Deputy First Minister underscored last week and what representations will Welsh Government officials demand from Welsh Water right now to live up to those obligations and finally end the severe sewage spills on this very important Islwyn community hub?

Well, I know there are lots of concerns locally in your area, including at the Abercarn welfare ground. Communities in Islwyn, I think, are entitled to high-quality, resilient and environmentally responsible services. Through our water reform programme and Green Paper, we're strengthening long-term governance to secure better outcomes for customers, environment and future generations. Welsh Labour have been absolutely clear that, if we are returned in May, we will introduce a clean water Bill for Wales, we will strengthen regulation, we will increase accountability and we will crack down on those polluting our rivers and our communities.

Formally.

Can I please request that we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales regarding extensions to the electrified rail lines and improvements to existing sections?

I'm a big supporter of rail electrification in the Valleys, and it's great that, finally, it's almost complete. I've spoken with some people who have some concerns on how consistently permanently earthed sections are used on some parts of the line. As we know, on some sections of the track, and at many stations, overhead cables remain, and I've been made aware of safety concerns in areas where it could be beneficial to earth cables. 

I've met with residents at Station Terrace next to Pengam station, where the cables are so close to their homes that they've been told they cannot access their roofs, or put scaffolding up to repair their homes, and even have trouble washing their windows because the cables are 'dangerously close'. I'm concerned about the way cables have been lowered at the footbridge at Pengam station, to pass underneath the footbridge. And some of these issues have been raised with Transport for Wales, but how many other issues exist?

So, it would be helpful to have more information on this, and a discussion, please, especially for the people near Pengam station who live so very close to this live track.

And it is important to draw attention to these issues. Obviously, the electrification of the Valleys lines is welcome—I know you welcome it—and it will bring great benefits. But, obviously, there is a transition and there are issues that are raised by the community. This is, of course, a Transport for Wales and department for transport responsibility in terms of stations, but, certainly, I would say that there's an opportunity for you to raise this with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales tomorrow in his oral Senedd questions. But, thank you for raising it, and I'm sure that he will be able to respond in terms of that particular point. 

Can I call for two statements today, Trefnydd, and the first from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care in relation to bed capacity in the Welsh NHS? Back in 1997, there were 15,500 beds available for the NHS to use. Today, that figure has fallen by a third, and stands at less than 10,500. It's no wonder that we've got a problem in our emergency departments, and in our hospitals, when you look at those figures. I'd like to know what the Welsh Government's strategy is to be able to make sure that we have appropriate bed capacity to meet the needs of people in Wales, especially given that we've seen the population grow, and that our older population, in particular, has grown significantly in recent years. 

The second statement that I would like to have is in relation to housing. It's been brought to my attention that there's a growing trend of claim farming that is taking place in Wales, in relation to litigation that is being taken out, with people being proactively contacted to complain to landlords—you know, fictitious claims—in relation to the habitable conditions of properties. This appears to be something that has reached Wales—it started in the big cities—and I'm very concerned that this is going to cause even further pressure in the housing market, meaning fewer properties will be available at affordable prices for rent. I'd like to know what the Welsh Government is doing about this particular issue in Wales, to make sure that we are protecting tenants, and protecting landlords. 

Thank you for both those questions. On the first question, of course, we have to reflect on the changing way in which we deliver our health and social care services, ensuring that people do not have to go into hospital unless absolutely necessary, and that those stays are limited to the time during which they need that treatment. Also, there's the fact that this is about making sure that there are good transfers of care—and you've heard already today that the delayed transfers of care are lessening, and there are good figures as far as transfers of care are concerned—and, also, that we need to keep people well in their homes. But, also, I would say—and I don't want to go back to my days, many years ago, of being health Minister—to reflect on day surgery and the different ways in which we are now treating patients. So, I think, obviously, this is something where I'm sure you would be welcoming Welsh Labour's manifesto commitments in terms of our development of hospital plans, which, of course, is going to maintain good bed capacity.

On your second point, this is something that I'm not aware of. Obviously, we work very closely with the private rented sector and Rent Smart Wales. It's something that I know the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government will be interested in, the point of any examples that you have that can be shared.

Could I have a statement on the progress of Hub Cymru Africa and its achievements? I was very pleased to attend the event at the Temple of Peace last week, to celebrate International Women's Day and the work of women in Africa, done in partnership with Hub Cymru Africa. The event also acknowledged the tremendous achievements of Claire O'Shea, who was the previous head of Hub Cymru Africa, and who, of course, was a frequent visitor to this Senedd, working to improve cancer care here with us.

Diolch yn fawr, Julie Morgan. I was very pleased also to attend that evening of celebration last week, entitled Wales, Africa and Women. It was well attended—over 150 people attended. It was organised by Hub Cymru Africa, which we are very proud to fund. The Welsh Government is very proud to fund Hub Cymru Africa, through our Wales and Africa programme. Hearing about the contributions of so many people there at that event, but also recognising women in solidarity, as part of global solidarity, as part of International Women's Day, I think you're right, it was really important. There was a tribute to Claire O'Shea, who sadly passed away from cancer in May last year—the former head of Hub Cymru Africa—and we remember her. Also, we heard about Claire's campaign, which is focusing on ensuring policy change through people's voices and campaigning to change the culture of dismissing women's voices in healthcare.

Diolch yn fawr, Mabon ap Gwynfor. Thank you for both those questions. I think, on the first question that you raised, it is important that we then clarify the position in terms of AI growth zones, particularly, as you recognise, and it has transpired, the issue about whether it's a free port, in order to enable Trawsfynydd to be an AI zone. I can't answer this point because, obviously, it is for the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning to clarify that point, but I will seek clarification, and also whether there can be an update on AI zones as well, affecting the whole of Wales because of their development.

On your second point, about blue badges, it is interesting, just for the record, really, today, to say there are currently 274,280 badges on issue in Wales as of 1 March. It is something where we've got a dedicated expert group working with our councils and the WLGA to explore ways to streamline processes, improve data sharing, and reduce the administrative burden for applicants like your constituent. This is hopefully helpful information. And, just to say, local authorities have been encouraged to use the not-for-reassessment route, where only proof of identity and address are required, when local authorities are satisfied that applicants will permanently meet the eligibility criteria. Much work has been done to look at this in terms of the blue badge work group meeting last week, which my officials held, and also training sessions for local authority staff to address this, to ensure that we can reduce the waits in terms of applications, and also say that we look at this in terms of eligibility and enforcement.

I call for a Welsh Government statement on early years support in Wales. One of my daughters works at Home-Start Flintshire. They provide indispensable early stage intervention and prevention support for families with at least one child under the age of 11. Families access this service because this is non-judgmental, non-statutory, strengths-based support. However, Flintshire County Council are replacing this with a council-run crisis service, and Home-Start are being forced to end their support for children aged over two. This council are also closing the Flintshire families disability service, operated by Action for Children, from 31 March. The council told me that this is to ensure they can continue to meet needs within the constraints of available funding. I'm a patron of Your Space (Marches), which provides essential support for children and young people with autism spectrum conditions and their families. They were forced to close last month. For the first time in their 32-year history, Cerebral Palsy Cymru are having to turn away babies who would benefit from their expertise and life-changing support. And on it goes. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language ignored warnings that this would happen. These families will now be forced to rely on statutory services, escalating to crisis at far higher cost to health and social services. I call for an urgent statement accordingly.

Thank you, Mark Isherwood, for those questions. There is no question that investment in early years is vital. The evidence is absolutely clear. I would say that's why we have invested particularly in the roll-out of Flying Start. It is critically important that Flying Start is actually now rolling out and that we've made the investment possible to do that. And also to recognise that this is something where the third sector and the specialist sector, as you say, have made and continue to make a huge contribution. Local authorities and health boards are supporting many of those organisations. But I do respond to your point that investment in early years is vital. I know that the Minister for Children and Social Care would very much agree with that and endorse it. But it is a budget—a budget that you didn't support—that actually gives more funding to local government to enable them to continue to invest in those services that are so vitally important for our children and young people. The investment in early years, there's no question about it, is key.

Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. I'd like to request a statement with regard to the effects of the war in the middle east. Firstly, this is a devastating war. We know that, in Iran, 1,300 people have already been killed to date—a massive effect, devastating for civilians in that region. I realise that that is not part of the Welsh Government's capacity, but we absolutely need to reach out and bring this to a close and a negotiated settlement as soon as possible.

I just really wanted to touch on the effect that it's having on people here in Wales—it's already been referred to in First Minister's questions—those families who are reliant on heating oil deliveries, many of them having them cancelled at very, very short notice. Elderly residents in particular are facing the real prospect of running out of fuel altogether. I'd therefore be grateful to hear what we're going to do in Wales to help those families, particularly those that are understanding that there's no heating oil to be had, or that it's doubled, tripled, quadrupled in price, and those who are running out as well. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr, Jane Dodds. As you say, the war in the middle east is extremely worrying in so many ways. I'm sure we all agree, and as the First Minister said earlier on, that there needs to be de-escalation and an end to the conflict as soon as possible, and we recognise that many people across Wales are concerned, are worried, and are experiencing the impact on their energy bills, especially those who are dependent on oil for their heating. We are pleased that the UK Government has enabled us to act quickly to help homes in Wales who use oil heating and has given £3.8 million towards doing that. We worked with the UK Government to make sure the money was based on the number of homes dependent on heating oil, not based on the Barnett formula. Also, that was a recognition that it affects a higher proportion of households in Wales compared with the UK as a whole.

Now, this is something where, of course, we have already in place mechanisms and support systems to help people who are experiencing fuel poverty with purchase of off-grid fuel through our discretionary assistance fund. We are acting now to increase support to those in financial crisis by temporarily uplifting the amount that can be provided while prices are inflated, using our own budgets this year, and I'll be saying more about this over the coming day. This increase, of course, will then enable our discretionary assistance fund partners—local authorities, and also the third sector, Citizens Advice, and others—to submit applications for support. But, secondly—and it was during the pandemic that we signed up to the partnership with the Fuel Bank Foundation, supported by the Welsh Government—we're increasing the minimum delivery support through their national heat fund scheme in Wales, to ensure that they can continue to support households that prepay their fuel and are at risk of disconnection, but also through the provision of fuel vouchers for deliveries of oil or gas for those not connected to the mains gas network. But I will be saying more about this over the coming 24 hours.

Trefnydd, I wish to request a statement on the impact of housing demand on green belts and special landscape areas. And this is a matter you'll know very well as the constituency Member, as the Vale of Glamorgan Council has recently consulted on their deposit replacement local development plan, and, as drafted, it would have a devastating impact on the Cwrtyrala basin special landscape area and the green wedge between Dinas Powys and Llandough and Penarth. Over 13 hectares will be bulldozed, creating serious flooding concerns. There is no specific requirement that ensures co-operation and contribution to local GPs and the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board. And you'll be well aware, Trefnydd, of the congestion issues already facing the residents of Dinas Powys. Will you liaise with the Cabinet Secretary to review whether it is right that, during a climate and nature crisis, green wedges and special landscape areas in an existing LDP can then be overruled by the next? Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr, Rhys ab Owen. As you've said, the Vale of Glamorgan Council has been consulting on the replacement local development plan and, indeed, I think the consultation concluded last week, and it's very important and right that people should raise their issues and concerns, as you have today. Of course, those will be fully taken into account, particularly looking at those issues that have particular relevance in terms of the green wedge and, indeed, issues around access to services. This is part of the planning process and, obviously, we await the outcome.

Trefnydd, I recently visited Stepaside school in Kilgetty, which serves a growing community with new housing developments within its catchment area. The school has maintained a stable pupil population of around 100 over the past five years, including a high number of pupils with ALN, and is housed in a building that's only around 30 years old and in a good state of repair. The children were happy, polite and were a credit to the school. But questions have been raised with me regarding the criteria used by the local authority to determine (a) the number of surplus places at the school, and (b) how any proposed closure aligns with the Welsh Government's Sustainable Communities for Learning programme and the rural schools code. I have written to the Cabinet Secretary for Education on this matter, but, given that dissolution is fast approaching, would the Trefnydd be able to confirm what steps are being taken to ensure that these concerns are addressed urgently and that a response is provided within the limited time remaining in this Senedd term? Diolch.

Thank you. I'm sure that the school would really welcome your interest and your visit, and isn't it rewarding when one goes to schools in our constituencies and sees the wonderful learning and teaching that we see? These are issues where we have clearly laid out guidelines, regulations and engagement, which is led by the local authorities, and I'm sure that that will emanate in terms of any plans that come forward in the coming weeks and months.

Trefnydd, may I have two statements, please? Firstly, may I have a statement on the quality of meat going into our schools? Following a recent Countryside Alliance investigation, we now know that in some council areas up to 99 per cent of schools are serving chlorinated chicken from China and Thailand. I'm also concerned that 5 per cent of pork consumed here in Wales is produced here, so what is going into our schools in that regard, too? Labour are making it impossible for farmers to compete and are driving them and their local supply chains out of business with high regulation. Our children deserve high-quality, nutritious food in schools and it's time to have a proper strategy to ensure Welsh food is put on Welsh school plates.

Secondly—it feels like there's no point in asking you this, actually, as you've clearly given up on wanting to ensure the safety and fairness of women and girls in Wales—it is absolutely insane, as I stand here, that women and girls have been waiting 335 days, 11 months, since the Supreme Court ruling that sex means biological sex, for this Government to address their protection. You're clearly trying to bury this before the election, but every day that you leave this, Trefnydd, you're putting women and girls in Wales at risk. We need a statement on this and we need it now. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr, Laura Anne Jones. This is something, in terms of the food that our children eat, that is really important to all of us, and to parents, governors and communities. I'm really pleased that the Cabinet Secretary for Education has undertaken a very rigorous review of nutritious food—access to healthy, nutritious food—in our schools. In fact, I was very pleased when Lynne Neagle visited one of my secondary schools when a pupil said that they would like to meet her to talk about the quality and quantity of food available for those on free school meals. There is hugely important engagement already to address this, but also I'd say that there's a close link here to our community food strategy, to the work that's being done by food partnerships, working with farmers, working with growers, and also piloting ways in which we can have local food in local schools.

On your second point, this is a matter for the Westminster Parliament, for the UK Government. The consultation has been undertaken by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and their draft code has been published. I have responded to it, and now we await the outcome of that consideration by the UK Government. It is certainly not in our hands; it is in their hands, in terms of that consideration and, of course, that will be a matter of debate in the Westminster Parliament.

I'd like to call for a statement this afternoon from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for climate change on plans for a deposit-return scheme. I support the principle of a DRS, and increasing recycling rates and reducing litter are goals we all share. However, the Welsh Government's decision to press ahead with a scheme that includes glass when the rest of the UK scheme does not raises serious concerns for businesses across Wales. The industry has consistently called for a four-nation approach, arguing that the current plan risks unnecessary complexity, higher costs and logistical challenges for producers and retailers operating across borders. We also now face the prospect of producers funding the infrastructure for glass-return points during the four-year transition period where no deposits will even apply to glass containers. This places a significant cost burden on the sector at a time when many businesses in the sector are already under pressure. So, can the Welsh Government explain the rationale for mandating the inclusion of glass despite there being no deposits, thus no incentive for people to return glass bottles, yet still requiring the industry to pay for the infrastructure, and what impact assessments, if any, has the Welsh Government made on the industry?

Thank you for that question, Gareth Davies, because it gives me the opportunity to say that the Welsh Labour Government is proud that we have led the way for years in recycling—the second-best recycling nation in the world is a seriously good achievement, and we want to do even better. The way to do that is with a deposit-return scheme that we've designed in Wales, and that's going to be a scheme, in what we've put forward, that reflects a sensible and pragmatic approach, where the requirements on glass bottles are phased, and this will ensure that the introduction of a deposit-return scheme can deliver benefits for Wales and also work alongside other parts of the UK.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Trefnydd, the last dental practice in Welshpool has announced that it will cease operating NHS dental appointments from April. It's also impossible now to obtain an NHS appointment in Newtown. So, this situation is forcing people to make three-hour round trips for basic dental care. The Welshpool announcement, of course, coincides with the introduction of the Welsh Government's new dental contract, which also takes effect from April. Now, I did hear the exchange earlier today, but the new contract is clearly not working if NHS dentists are not taking on or are abandoning their NHS contracts. Can I ask for a statement from the health Secretary on the expected take-up of the new NHS dental contract? That statement also needs to take account of, concern and outline how the Government will support communities that no longer have an NHS dentist offering NHS dental appointments. The question is: what are people supposed to do?

Thank you for that question, and I'm glad you also heard, obviously, the exchange earlier on with the First Minister. It is important that we recognise that there are changes. For example, in Powys, returned funding has been used to establish salaried GDS services, so that there is a contingency in place if contracts are handed back. And they've also employed a dental therapist to help ensure no children are waiting for access to dental care. Powys has a mobile dental unit. I'm sure you will, hopefully, welcome that access to a full range of NHS dentistry. Also, it is important to remember that the vast majority of practices are continuing, and we're confident that there are providers who want to take on the contracts that have been terminated.

You referred to Welshpool. Mydentist at Welshpool has sent out a letter to their patients, advising them, as you said, that their dentist will not continue in the NHS. But the practice has two NHS dentists, and both of these dentists sent out letters to their patients without informing the health board of the situation. So, it's not clear yet whether the practice will terminate the contract, but I think you will welcome, as I've said, that arrangements are being put in place by health boards to provide urgent emergency care. Also, those contract returns, as was said earlier on, provide that opportunity for health boards to rethink and redistribute dental investment in the way that I've described, with mobile units and with support for salaried dental services.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Baroness Hallett, chair of the UK COVID-19 inquiry, published her second report and accompanying recommendations on 20 November. This report examined the initial response to the pandemic by each of the UK nations, the decision making by the four Governments, the political and civil service performance, and the effectiveness of the relationship between and across the UK and devolved Governments.

Effective governance and clear decision-making structures were fundamental to the Welsh Government's response to the pandemic. They enabled us to act decisively and transparently at moments of great uncertainty, and, as the pandemic moved and developed quickly, we were able to respond.

I turn now to the module 2 recommendations. When responding to any system-wide emergency, it's important for all Governments to access the best scientific advice. I wholeheartedly agree with Baroness Hallett that the abuse and the threats faced by many scientific experts during the pandemic were completely unacceptable. Recognising the vital contributions made by scientific experts and the importance of their role in future emergencies, the Welsh Government accepts the recommendation to develop a standard term of appointments for scientific advisory groups.

Exercise Pegasus, the UK-wide pandemic exercise we took part in during the autumn, was a valuable opportunity to further develop and test our 'five harms' framework, which was first used during the COVID-19 pandemic. We believe that this can become a wider tool that considers those at risk in a health emergency, strengthening our decision-making abilities and prioritising keeping the people of Wales safe, in line with the inquiry's recommendations. We've made important progress in this area, but we accept there's more to do. A UK-wide review of Exercise Pegasus is under way, with a final report expected in winter 2026. Early reflections highlight the need to access and share health data more rapidly during a pandemic, and we're working closely with Digital Health and Care Wales to progress this. 

The inquiry acknowledged the Welsh Government's COVID-19 taskforce was an essential part of our internal arrangements during the pandemic, and recommends a future response should continue to be co-ordinated centrally. Building on our response to the module 1 recommendations, we've established processes under our risk and preparedness committee to guide how taskforces should operate in future whole-system emergencies. This was also tested during Exercise Pegasus.

We welcome the recommendation that the UK Government should, as standard practice, invite the devolved Governments to attend COBRA meetings. In any pandemic or whole‑system emergency, decision making and co-ordination must be clear and transparent and must reflect, from the outset, that responsibility for devolved matters in Wales rests with Welsh Government Ministers. An effective response depends on close working between the four nations of the UK, founded on partnership, trust and mutual respect, and not on hierarchy or subordination. 

In developing our response to several of the recommendations, we've worked closely and collaboratively with the UK Government, the Scottish Government, and the Northern Ireland Executive. This will include developing collectively agreed arrangements and standing up a specific four-nations forum at heads-of-Government level. Dirprwy Lywydd, transparency was at the heart of our approach during the pandemic. We accept the inquiry’s recommendation to routinely publish technical advice during an emergency. From May 2020 onwards, we routinely publish technical advisory group advice papers, providing insight into the science underpinning key decisions.

To further strengthen accountability, improve preparedness and support our commitment to being open about the advice that informs decisions in any future whole-system emergency, in May 2025, we published our 'Wales Resilience Framework', which helps people understand the risks we face and how they're managed.

The inquiry also recognised the benefit of our tailored and accessible communications during the pandemic. We used every available channel to provide clear and up-to-date information to the public as the pandemic restrictions changed. We held 230 bilingual press conferences, supported by a British Sign Language signer. In 2020 alone, the gov.wales website received more than 25 million hits. We've put in place guidance, setting out the different formats required to support accessible public communications, and we're also working with the UK Government and other devolved Governments to co-produce a new set of principles to support crisis communications.

There was a recognition, I'm very pleased to say, by the inquiry of our cautious approach. It was something that was appreciated not just by the inquiry but also by the people in Wales.

I don't accept that we didn't work across the Government. There was so much cross-Government working. In fact, what was really interesting is that the inquiry itself recognised the strength of our decision making, because Cabinet was fully engaged throughout the pandemic. It was transparent, there was collective decision making, and it was across the whole of Government. Every aspect of life in Wales was being considered when we were making those decisions.

You asked what has been tightened up, what's happened. We've already set up a national resilience framework in Wales. That's been really helpful, not just in terms of making sure we're more prepared for a similar situation, but it has also taken on board the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower and the Manchester arena bombing situation. We've got to learn after every single event of this type.

We've got a new emergency response structure, and there's better accountability. The Wales resilience forum is something that I chair. And do you know what? The crisis management concept of operations has been tested 60 times since we've set it up. So, there's been a lot of flooding, there have been a lot of incidents where weather is affecting us, and they've stepped up and responded as a result of those new measures that have been put in place. So, not only have we already introduced these things, but they are actually being used. So, we will be more ready, I hope, in future.

I think there needs to be more co-ordination across the United Kingdom. It's not about more devolution, it's about more co-ordination, because, at some point, there needs to be a recognition. You can see, just today, we've got a meningitis outbreak somewhere else in the country. Now, it's not here, but we just need to be alert to it, and we need to learn from them. What are they learning? What can we be ready for? So, it is important that we learn, and that we have more co-ordination. And that's something that has been put in place as a result of the pandemic. We never followed the UK Government. Where it was effective and it made sense for us to work with the UK Government, of course we did. We never went our own way for the sake of it. Let me be absolutely clear about this: our thoughts were always about how we put the protection of the public first.

So, I think that Mark Drakeford and his leadership in the pandemic was something that has been appreciated. That leadership is something that I think we need to recognise, and I'm very pleased that the inquiry found there were no widespread allegations of rule breaking by the Welsh Government.

Thank you, First Minister, for your statement. I have to say, though, I'm not sure if you've read the same report as everybody else in this room, because I thought it was very embarrassing, actually, for the Welsh Government in terms of the findings in Baroness Hallett's report. It did make it clear that there was no real strategy in place being pursued by the Welsh Government during January and February 2020. It was discussed at that very first Cabinet meeting on 25 February, in spite of the fact that Frank Atherton, the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, had flagged up the importance of this many weeks before, saying that you needed to look at plans for isolation and ambulances in the event that this pandemic would take hold here in the UK.

The report goes on to say, and I quote, that

'Mr Drakeford, Mr Gething and the Welsh Government also failed to sufficiently engage with the risk until late February 2020',

and that the response at that time, then, in late February, was, and I quote, 'too late', given how much prior warning had been given. It went on to say that there was an over-reliance on the information coming in to the UK Government, and that both of those individuals—First Minister, you've just praised his handling of the response—were failing adequately to consider the specific circumstances here in Wales. And let's not forget the health Minister, Vaughan Gething, at the time, neglected to read the Welsh Government's own pandemic preparedness strategies when he became health Minister, and during his time in the role at the start of this pandemic. Mark Drakeford acknowledged, in giving evidence to the inquiry, that he didn't consider the seriousness of the pandemic and the virus until as late as March 2020, two months later than he and the Government had been warned. And yet, you've just claimed that you had effective governance and clear decision-making processes. It doesn't sound very effective to me, particularly at the start of the pandemic.

So, first question: did you read the report, or have you just relied on what was printed for you by your officials? Because, to me, it didn't sound like an acknowledgement of how serious the findings were in this report in terms of the statement that you just made. And we've got to be honest about these things or else we'll never learn the lessons, will we? So, there was no urgency. We know that Mark Drakeford, in spite of being warned about how serious it was, went off to Brussels in the first week of March for St David's Day celebrations, rather than attending Cabinet on the fourth, and this was after the first week's meeting on 25 February, saying that there were problems with the virus and we needed to be prepared.

This report also says that the Welsh Government, quote,

'failed to learn from the experiences of the first lockdown',

which then led to local restrictions being implemented too late and too loosely to control the spread of the virus. Your Government's approach of targeted local restrictions was also, of course, unsuccessful, and that is why there then needed to be a firebreak lockdown in October 2020. But that was two weeks after you'd already been given very clear evidence that you needed to do it two weeks previously by the scientific advisers, by your chief medical officer, and you were told that the reproduction rate was above one, and that you were at risk of breaching hospital capacity at that time.

You've already been asked about hospital capacity and it's been an issue of discussion today. It's insufficient to deal with day-to-day operations, let alone a pandemic. And it's no use trying to blame the UK Government for any dithering and delay. The report makes it clear that Scotland was taking action much swifter than here in Wales. [Interruption.] Yes, it does. It said it was swift in deploying. I can see you shaking your head. It actually cites the fact that Scotland was swift in deploying its stringent locally targeted measures to deal with those outbreaks, and that the numbers grew in Scotland far more slowly and they avoided, then, the need for a nationwide lockdown.

So, second question: can I ask you, do you agree with the report that the Welsh Government was too slow to react? And do you accept that that hesitation will have led to damaging consequences, even deaths, for people across Wales?

Now, in your written response to this particular report, First Minister, you said that, going forward, decisions relating to devolved matters must be taken by the Welsh Government from the outset and not by COBRA. So, third question: can I ask you why do you think it's always necessary to take a different approach than the UK Government? You've been celebrating the fact that it was a different approach, yet what you've not been prepared to accept is the need for more scrutiny of the decision making here in Wales. You've denied the people of Wales, you've denied COVID-bereaved families a Wales-specific inquiry into the Welsh Government's reaction and response to the COVID pandemic.

You need to conclude now, Darren, please.

Don't you accept that the only way we're really going to get to the bottom of these issues and to learn the lessons is to make sure that we've got a proper COVID inquiry for those people who lost their lives and those who suffered harm as a result of this pandemic?

First of all, of course I read the report. I've read almost everything I can in relation to the COVID inquiry. It has been an important time for us to learn from the past to make sure that we don't repeat mistakes, but also to make sure that we recognise and honour the people who suffered during the pandemic. And that's why I have spent a huge amount of time on this issue.

I think it is important for us to recognise that it's not true that we failed to learn lessons. We learned significant lessons all the way through the pandemic. I remember the Cabinet meetings where we were asked: what did we learn last time? What did we do wrong? How can we do this better? We did it time and time again so that we weren't repeating the mistakes at the beginning of the pandemic.

I think it's fair to say that there were times when we might have wanted to lock down for a bit longer. And the real problem we had was that we couldn't; we weren't given the money by the UK Government. We weren't given the assurances that we could give the support to people during that time. And lo and behold, when England wanted to lock down, they found the money. And that was one of the real issues, I think, and something that also is recognised in the inquiry.

They also recognised the firebreak was effective, actually. The problem with it was that it didn't go on for long enough. And we knew that. We had a discussion about it. I remember it very, very clearly. We wanted it to go on longer and we weren't given the money, the assurances, because that was the money that had to come from the UK Government.

You talk about being too slow to react. Let me tell you that the officials were very much meeting regularly from the beginning. And of course there are decisions we'd have made differently. But let me ask you, Darren: are you honestly advocating that we should have followed the UK Government with the chaos that was going on in No. 10 at the time, with parties? People partying while people were dying. I don't want to make political points about this, but it's really important for us to recognise this is dead serious. This is dead serious. We have to learn from it.

As a Government, I can't tell you how seriously we've taken this inquiry. We have spent hours, hundreds and hundreds of hours, on this inquiry. We have spent millions of pounds trying to learn from it. We have listened to people. Seventy different people have been involved in giving statements. This is something we've taken extremely seriously, and I think it is important to recognise that there are people who suffered, that continue to suffer. Those bereaved families, they are still hurting. They are still counting the cost. There are children with mental health issues who are still adjusting, finding it difficult. People with long COVID. There are businesses that went under. All of these things are reasons why we have to take this inquiry seriously, and we are taking it seriously. We're learning what we can, and it is crucial that we learn those lessons across the whole of the United Kingdom, understanding that, at times, we will make sure that what's appropriate for us in Wales is what is done, and that at other times, of course, we have to make sure that, as far as possible, we co-ordinate. We recognise that's what we wanted to do, but if they are being incautious in their approach, then there's no way we're going to follow them down that route.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. I would like to thank my colleagues who are here today to discuss the Representation of the People (Absent Voting and Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2026, which I'm bringing before you today. These regulations are a small but important step towards both modernising and simplifying electoral processes for the Welsh public. Until now, Welsh voters could apply online for postal or proxy votes in UK general elections and police and crime commissioner elections. This means any online application must be followed up with a written application for Senedd and local government elections in Wales. Not only is this an unnecessary annoyance for the public and an administrative burden for the electoral teams, it creates unintended inconsistencies in voter records. It increases the risks that voters are confused at the method they will be using to vote in an election, and potentially lose their opportunity to vote entirely.

We want to extend the existing system to all elections in Wales. This will greatly simplify the application process for all voters, save electoral teams a substantial amount of time, and create certainty around voters' choices. There is a strong public appetite for this service. Immediately ahead of the 2024 UK general election, the ratio of online applications rose to 90 per cent. Not providing the system for Welsh elections is inconsistent with our principles of accessibility, encouraging participation, promoting simplicity and enhancing the citizen experience. Members may ask about establishing a separate online application process. In addition to the great cost, it would retain the current confusion and inefficiency for Welsh voters, who would still need to make separate applications.

To account for the move to online applications, the regulations introduce an identity verification process that primarily requires a national insurance number or alternatives where this is not available. It also aligns the postal voting renewal cycles with reserved elections. Voters will be required to reapply for their postal vote every three years, rather than renewing their signature records every five years. This adjustment ensures consistency and enables voters to submit a single application for all elections in which they intend to participate.

The regulations set out the process registration officers will need to follow during the implementation process. This will include contacting affected voters, updating red records and, in a small number of circumstances, requesting that voters reapply for their absent vote. The overall number of voters impacted is expected to be very small, and every effort has been taken to reduce disruption.

This approach is strongly supported by the electoral community. The Association of Electoral Administrators have previously responded that they strongly supported the proposals and that the current system led to electoral confusion and administrative burden. The Electoral Commission have welcomed the changes in several consultations and noted the ongoing confusion and the simplicity extending this system will bring. Diolch, Deputy Llywydd.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered its report on the draft regulations yesterday. The report contains 10 technical scrutiny reporting points and one merits scrutiny reporting point. I will highlight those that may be of particular interest to Members, and summarise the others.

Reporting point 2 highlights a series of cross-referencing errors within the text of the regulations, with sub-paragraphs and paragraphs being misdescribed. Reporting point 5 queries whether the Welsh Government has intentionally used the term 'record' in relation to the duty on a registration officer to keep a postal voters list. The committee’s report suggests that the term 'list' may be more appropriate. Reporting point 8 seeks clarification on the definitions of key terms that are not defined in the regulations themselves, such as 'register', 'anonymous entry' and 'elector'. And reporting point 9 notes that a reference to paragraph 16 of the 2025 Order is incomplete, because it fails to identify the Schedule in which that paragraph is found.

Of the remaining technical points, one relates to defective drafting, three seek further explanation about form or meaning, and two relate to inconsistencies between the Welsh and English text. I don't hold the Minister responsible for not knowing that the Welsh and English texts are saying things differently. I do, however, hold her civil servants responsible.

The Welsh Government has accepted all but one of the committee’s reporting points, and will consider making those amendments as part of ongoing maintenance of the 2025 Order.

Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, the committee’s merits scrutiny reporting point notes that the regulations increase the donation reporting threshold. Donations below £500 to individual candidates no longer need to be reported. The report asks the Welsh Government to explain why it has increased this threshold, which was previously £50.

The Welsh Government has set out that, currently, candidates must report all donations over the value of £50, even though those that are under the value of £500 will be disregarded from their election expenses. The Welsh Government therefore considers the change to be administrative, as it is not considered necessary for individual candidates to report donations that do not count towards their election expenses.

Diolch. And I would like to thank Mike Hedges and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their detailed consideration of these regulations. 

I think Welsh voters do have an expectation for modernisation and simplicity in the electoral process, and I think these regulations make the system more accessible and more transparent, which does build the essential trust we need to develop. And I therefore ask Senedd Members to support these regulations.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to begin by thanking the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the Finance Committee for their reports on this matter.

Dirprwy Lywydd, in 2022, the Senedd passed the Welsh Tax Acts (Power to Modify) Act. It provided the Welsh Ministers, subject to Senedd approval, with the power to amend the Act in a small number of specific and limited circumstances, the most important being to respond to changes to a predecessor tax that affects or may affect the Welsh Government's revenues. The Act has a sunset clause and an expiry date, which can be extended only once, and to no later than 30 April 2031. These regulations provide for that extension.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I agree with the Finance Committee that a better and permanent arrangement is needed to meet the circumstances currently covered by the Act. The committee recommends that a group be established in the seventh Senedd to take the development of the new mechanism forward. Today's regulations would give the next Senedd and the Welsh Government the time needed to develop and consider those new mechanisms. Of course, while these regulations extend the Welsh tax Act powers to 2031, an incoming Government could act at any time before that to replace and repeal the Act in the next Senedd term.

Before these regulations could be laid, the Act required the Welsh Ministers to publish the conclusions of their review of the operation and effect of the Act. That review was published on 13 February, and included an assessment of alternative mechanisms for making changes to the Welsh tax Acts. During my consultation with the Senedd, I made an oral statement on 16 September last year, I attended the Finance Committee, and Welsh Treasury officials met with the Finance Committee and individual Members, and I'm pleased that this engagement has continued since the publication of the review. I'm grateful, as ever, for all the contributions made as we collectively consider this matter.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the extension of the expiry date provided by these regulations frees the hands of our successors where otherwise they would be tied. It gives them the time needed to develop the new mechanisms for making tax changes, while continuing to protect the revenues available to the Senedd. I ask Members to approve these regulations.

As the Cabinet Secretary has already explained, these regulations propose extending the temporary regulation-making power contained in section 1 of the Act until 30 April 2031, the latest date permitted. Although the power has not been used, the Cabinet Secretary told us that extending the power to its maximum permissible period may help avoid placing unnecessary pressure on an incoming Government early in the next Senedd term. The Cabinet Secretary believes the current approach provides the most proportionate balance between scrutiny and responsiveness, given the existing number of devolved Welsh taxes. However, the committee is clear that this temporary framework cannot remain the long-term default for making changes to the Welsh tax Acts. The Welsh Government's own review of the 2022 Act highlighted significant concerns among Members about the limited opportunities available to amend tax proposals brought forward through secondary legislation. The review also recognised that a new version of the 2022 Act is unlikely to attract support within the Senedd, reinforcing our view that the current power is not a sustainable long-term solution.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered its report on the draft regulations last week. The report's single merits scrutiny reporting point highlights that the regulations push back the expiry date of the regulation-making power in section 1 of the Welsh Tax Acts etc. (Power to Modify) Act 2022 to 30 April 2031. The explanatory memorandum to these regulations argues that doing so will mean that the power remains available while the next Welsh Government and Senedd establish the approach they wish to take to making changes to devolved tax legislation. It also says that delaying the expiry of the power will give the next Welsh Government the continuing ability to quickly and flexibly make changes to certain tax legislation if the need should arise. The committee did not request a response from the Welsh Government.

The Cabinet Secretary has made reference today to the Welsh Tax Acts etc. (Power to Modify) Act 2022. When that Act was originally considered by the Senedd, concerns were raised that it wasn't appropriate for secondary legislation to be used as a vehicle to make changes to primary taxation legislation. Now, as my colleague Peter Fox made clear at the time, we believe that tax legislation should be set out in primary legislation, and using secondary legislation to make these changes raises fundamental questions about the Senedd as a legislature and its relationship with the Executive.

Now, I hear what the Cabinet Secretary says about minor changes, but these powers allow Ministers to amend significant elements of the Welsh tax framework without the same level of scrutiny that full primary legislation provides. While the Cabinet Secretary argues that flexibility is needed, the reality is that scrutiny is fundamental to good governance and to the proper functioning of this Senedd. Scrutiny is a core part of how any legislature holds the Government to account.

Furthermore, since the Act came into force in 2022, as the Chair of the Finance Committee has said, these powers have not been used. If the Government has not found it necessary to use them over several years, that raises serious questions about the need to extend them now. If changes to Welsh tax law are needed, then they should come before the Senedd in the proper way, through primary legislation, with full debate, scrutiny and accountability. As the Chair of the Finance Committee said earlier, we clearly need a much better model to deal with this in the future. Therefore, for those reasons, the Welsh Conservative group will be voting against these regulations this afternoon.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. In many ways, I don't disagree with the points that Paul Davies has made. As he said, these powers have not been used, showing, I think, that the Welsh Government has listened hard to the messages given during the passage of the Act that they should only be used sparingly and when it was absolutely necessary, and we've avoided the need to use them so far.

But the four purposes for which these powers could be used are absolutely serious ones. If the Welsh Government was in a position where we needed to act quickly to bring the Senedd into line with international obligations, we couldn't rely on a piece of primary legislation to do that. If the courts make a ruling that requires the law in Wales to be modified, you wouldn't want a piece of primary legislation to be brought in front of the Senedd, with all the delays that that involves, nor would you wish the Welsh Government to be losing money because we weren't able to act to resist a power for avoidance measures being taken.

Most importantly of all, and this is where we've come closest to using these powers, if the UK Government were to change one of the predecessor taxes—stamp duty land tax, landfill disposals tax—in a way that adversely affected the revenues available to the Senedd, I think a responsible Government and a responsible finance Minister would need to act quickly to avoid the loss of those revenues.

That's what the powers in the regulations allow for. Extending them for a period of five years simply allows an incoming Government an opportunity to put something better in place in an orderly way, not while the clock is ticking insistently in the very early period of a new Senedd term. That's all that this does. It provides the time needed to put a better system in place.

And I agree—I agreed with the Finance Committee—that a better system than this is needed in the long term. The Welsh Government has published different options for how a better system could be instituted. None of them are perfect. Each one of them has advantages and disadvantages. An incoming Government will want to think for itself about which of those options it would want to put in front of the Senedd, and if the regulations are passed today, that incoming Government will have the time to do that, with proper consideration and in an orderly way. The Finance Committee proposes that that should be done early in the term, and I agree with that too. But I don't think it is sensible to put an incoming Government, with all the things that they will want to attend to in the immediate aftermath of an election, under pressure to act on this matter when a bit more time, provided for in the original Act, can be afforded to them. That's all these regulations seek to do, Llywydd, and I hope they will succeed on the floor of the Senedd this afternoon.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the second supplementary budget for 2025-26 presents the Welsh Government's final spending plans for the current financial year. Supplementary budgets are essentially backward-looking and, as is usual, this second supplementary budget regularises a number of changes and allocations made during this financial year. It sets the limits against which the final outturn of the Welsh Government accounts will be measured.

In the second supplementary budget, the resources available to the Senedd increase by £427.9 million. That sum is made up of £370.6 million in revenue, £52.7 million in general capital, and £4.5 million of financial transactions capital. The non-fiscal resource baseline—and just to be clear with colleagues, that is money that the Senedd cannot spend, but which is cover provided for by the Treasury for non-fiscal purposes—that baseline has increased by £2.5 billion, primarily as a result of an increase of £2.4 billion in the student loan ring-fenced budget. This follows a change to the student loans valuation model, which brings the model in Wales in line now with the model used by the UK Government's Department for Education, and, indeed, that model is now in use in all four UK nations. Billions of pounds in non-fiscal cover has already been provided in both Scotland and England following the same exercise.

On the spending side of the equation, Dirprwy Lywydd, the second supplementary budget draws together £370.7 million in increased revenue spending, £55.9 million general capital increased investment, with a decrease to our financial transactions capital budgets of £24 million. Amongst the key allocations in this second supplementary budget is £125.8 million to cover the impact of public sector pay awards. Together with the £220 million agreed for these purposes in the first supplementary budget, these allocations have now all been baselined into 2026-27.

Support for the health service features prominently in the decision members are asked to make today. An additional £200 million is allocated to the health and social care main expenditure group to support front-line NHS services. This has helped manage unforeseen pressures, which, in turn, allows the NHS to maintain progress in reducing waiting lists and waiting times in 2025-26.

Beyond the health service, the second supplementary budget reflects the major extra investment we have been able to make in education during this financial year, with £60.5 million cumulatively in additional capital provided for the education portfolio.

Transport and the active travel agenda are also reflected in this supplementary budget, with an additional £70.2 million of capital funding allocated to the transport MEG to meet additional costs associated with rolling stock on the rail network. This will support work to demodify and decarbonise the Transport for Wales train fleet and avoid the need to provide more expensively for this same purpose in 2026-27. A further £25.7 million in general capital has been allocated to support in-year pressures and additional activity on the core Valleys lines transformation project, the single-greatest investment of its sort anywhere in Europe. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, despite the significant expenditure reflected in this second supplementary budget, the exercise remains essentially technical in nature. Behind the headlines lie allocations to and from reserves, revisions to the block grant adjustment, revisions to devolved tax forecasts and changes made as a result of the UK Government's supplementary estimates. This budget also regularises approved transfers within and between Welsh Government ministerial portfolios to align resources with the delivery of priorities, ensuring that resources are deployed effectively. What the second supplementary exercise does is to draw all those decisions—decisions already made—into one place, making them more visible and allowing individual changes to be seen in the wider context of managing the in-year budget. Following changes made at the second supplementary budget, there will be a total of £87 million left in reserves: £42 million in revenue, £30 million in capital and £15 million in financial transactions capital.

I'm especially grateful to members of the Finance Committee and its Chair for the careful consideration that lies behind its report and for its willingness to engage, not only with the considerable detail reflected in the documentation, but also the wider debates and decisions that individual strands reflect. The committee, Dirprwy Lywydd, made four recommendations, all of which are matters that, as the Finance Committee report says, will be for the new Government to consider.

This supplementary budget shows a significant increase of £3.2 billion to departmental allocations since the first supplementary budget, representing an uplift of around 12 per cent. As the Cabinet Secretary has indicated, £2.6 billion of this increase is a non-cash adjustment to the education main expenditure group, arising from changes to the UK-wide student loans valuation model. We recognise that this is not actually funding available for the Welsh Government to spend, however, we are concerned that such technical adjustments are often misunderstood as additional spending capacity for services when this is not the case. We therefore recommended that the Welsh Government improves the clarity of budget documentation by including clear explanations of large non-cash items to prevent confusion amongst stakeholders.

We heard from the Cabinet Secretary that Treasury oversight of student loan arrangements has tightened in recent years, with clearer and more stringent rules now in place. We understand that the Treasury will continue to fund student loan schemes, provided their cost remains in line with equivalent schemes elsewhere in the UK. As a result, the Welsh Government will need to closely monitor whether its scheme is becoming more generous than those in other parts of the UK, as divergence could result in substantial costs falling directly on the Welsh revenue budget. That is why we have recommended that the next Welsh Government reviews the long-term viability of the student finance model, with its interaction with wider education funding.

Deputy Presiding Officer, although throughout the Senedd the committee has repeatedly highlighted the long-standing concerns about the limitations of the fiscal framework, we remain disappointed at the slow progress in securing improvements to borrowing limits to the size and operation of the Wales reserve, and to the annual draw-down caps that continue to constrain the Welsh Government's fiscal powers. We are particularly frustrated by the Treasury's reluctance to remove the Wales reserve's annual draw-down limits entirely, especially given that equivalent limits have already been abolished for the Scottish Government. In our view, there is a clear and compelling argument for Wales to be afforded the same degree of fiscal autonomy and we recommend that the next Welsh Government continues to pursue reforms and provides regular updates to our successor committee on progress.

Notwithstanding our frustrations, I want to place on record our thanks to the Cabinet Secretary for his personal efforts in seeking to secure lasting improvements to the fiscal framework. The next Welsh Government will need to continue pressing this case with the same determination.

We welcome the recent agreement between the Welsh and UK Governments to undertake a joint consultation on devolving powers to introduce a vacant land tax. Members will know that progress on that has been extremely slow in practice, despite the powers being provided in the Wales Act 2014. Nevertheless, the agreement is a meaningful step forward and we urge the next Welsh Government to maintain momentum, ensuring that the consultation is completed swiftly after the Senedd election.

I'm pleased to contribute to this debate this afternoon. Now, the second supplementary budget for 2025-26 brings together decisions taken since the first supplementary budget and provides some clarity on how the Welsh Government is responding pressures across Welsh public services. As has already been said, this supplementary budget reflects a substantial £3.2 billion increase in departmental allocations, though it's important to remember, as the Cabinet Secretary said, that £2.6 billion of it does not constitute new spending power. As the Cabinet Secretary also said earlier, it's a non-cash adjustment to the student loans valuation model, aligning Wales with updated UK-wide accounting requirements. Therefore, whilst the figures appear to be large, this is not new money for schools or front-line services, and it's essential that we understand that.

Alongside this adjustment, there is some important targeted investment. For example, the budget provides £363.5 million to the health and social care MEG, which includes the targeted use of an additional £200 million to address health board overspends, Welsh risk pool pressures and funding to address the 'Agenda for Change' banding dispute. This continues the work begun in the first supplementary budget, where previous allocations have already delivered additional out-patient appointments and improved treatment capacity.

We, of course, welcome the allocations made to support essential maintenance across schools, colleges and universities, and allocations to the transport portfolio, which will help modify and decarbonise rolling stock and maintain momentum on key rail infrastructure projects. These allocations are very much needed and will make a difference in our communities. However, significant structural issues in these portfolio areas remain, and so, whilst significant allocations have been made, we do not believe they go far enough.

Now, the Finance Committee's report into the second supplementary budget also raises concerns about the shortfall in funding to compensate public sector organisations for national insurance contributions. The committee made it clear that it's disappointed that no progress has been made in this area, despite the Welsh Government's efforts to pursue the issue, and I understand that the Finance Committee will continue to monitor this matter.

Finally, this supplementary budget proposes variations to the budgets of the Senedd Commission and the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. Now, the Senedd Commission has returned funding following a rates refund, and the public services ombudsman has also reduced its budget where commitments have fallen away.

Therefore, in closing, Dirprwy Lywydd, can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his overview, and the Finance Committee for its scrutiny of this supplementary budget? Whilst this supplementary budget makes some important allocations, it fails to address the real pressures building across our public services, and so we will be abstaining on this motion. Diolch.

The second supplementary budget is an important, but minor, event in the budgetary cycle, but it is also very important that we debate it. This supplementary budget reflects budgetary changes since the first supplementary budget in October. The supplementary budget regularises allocations to and from reserves, transfers within and between portfolios, and includes adjustments to the Wales budget to reflect the impact of UK Government fiscal events. The Finance Committee again recommended that the Cabinet Secretary work with the UK Government to reach a conclusion on the issues with the fiscal framework, particularly regarding uprating borrowing and limits to the Wales reserve in line with inflation, and removing the annual draw-down limit from the Wales reserve. I again ask why cannot the Welsh Government have the same ability to add and remove money from reserves to borrow prudently as local authorities the length and breadth of Wales have. It makes no sense whatsoever that Swansea Council have got the ability to do that and the Welsh Government does not.

The supplementary budget also includes adjustments to the budget for the Senedd Commission and the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, as considered by the Finance Committee. Audit Wales did not submit a supplementary budget.

The Finance Committee noted the significant pressure facing the higher education sector in Wales, and welcomed the £25.5 million to support the higher education and further education sectors with invest-to-save capital transformation and capital maintenance. This funding is unlikely to mitigate the huge financial difficulties facing the sector, given the issues facing it appear to be much more revenue based than capital. Additional revenue support for higher education for next year would give institutions such as Swansea University an opportunity to reappraise their proposed changes in staffing.

There is one thing in the supplementary budget that I want to highlight. The supplementary budget allocates £2.6 million of non-fiscal resource to the ring-fenced student loans budget. This reflects a change to the student loan valuation model, aligning the approach in Wales with the model adopted by the UK Government. This allocation relates solely to non-cash cover and is not available to spend. The new UK-wide model for valuing student loans, fully implemented in 2025-26, reflects lower than expected repayment levels compared with the assumptions in the previous model. I expect that to continue to be lower than expected repayments. This is not actual funding that would be received by the Welsh Government and, therefore, cannot be spent. I am concerned that this £2.6 billion non-cash adjustment may be misunderstood as additional spending capacity for education services, and I expect to have headteachers telling me, 'You've got £2.6 billion extra for education; why aren't we having some of it?' These types of adjustments should be explained more clearly in budget documentation to avoid confusion. As a result, the Treasury has had to provide a higher level of non-cash cover to all four nations to account for this change. While the adjustment involves a large sum, we heard that similar increases are being applied in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The student loan model does not work. It involves new graduates paying substantially more than graduates before the introduction of student loans. Most loans will never get paid and will eventually have to be written off.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for the budget, which raises numerous questions about decisions on tax and spend. I was interested in the allocation of £4.3 million revenue from reserve to support central services and administration staff cost pressures. At a time when our constituents are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis, I think it's reasonable to seek an explanation with regard to that significant increase. What pressures have there been, Cabinet Secretary, that weren't foreseen?

Further details are required in relation to other points, too. Seventy million pounds has been surrendered to reserves following an exceptional property sale, the money from which has been repurposed to support other priorities across the Welsh Government. Clarity as to which property has been sold and why that money was not retained within the budget line would be helpful. Thirty-seven point nine million pounds of general capital has been returned to reserves in exchange for the use of financial transaction capital underspends. In the midst of a housing crisis, Cabinet Secretary, where capital spend is generally needed to fund homes for the homeless, why was the capital not retained within the housing and local government budget line?

In terms of housing, I think it's very important to acknowledge that the Welsh Government has received around £850,000 from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for the Homes for Ukraine fund. Should some parties have their way, they would be refusing such sums and returning almost £1 million to London because they opposed Wales being a nation of sanctuary. Personally, I thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for accepting that very important payment and creating safe homes for victims of wars. Bearing in mind that social justice is already the smallest main expenditure group and that there has actually been a negative net fiscal resource move out of the portfolio, I'm convinced that not enough is being done to champion justice. You have probably heard me before, Cabinet Secretary, saying that I think one of the strongest arguments for devolving justice is to show that we're doing well what is already devolved within the justice sector.

Out of 78 recommendations in the Thomas commission, only three have been achieved, and a third of those are within the power and gift of the Welsh Government. Several haven't happened because of a lack of investment by this Welsh Government. I've heard the Cabinet Secretary on several occasions quite rightly ask where do you find the money for such projects, but Peredur Owen Griffiths, the Chair of the Finance Committee, has already made the point. I think there are two more components of Welsh Government financing: firstly, a levy on energy exported from Wales to benefit the poorest in our country; and, as Peredur has always said, the long overdue vacant land tax. As I see it, a lack of positive and expedient co-operation between the Welsh and UK Governments is holding us back from raising more funds for Wales and the people of Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

The recommendations of the Finance Committee are all ones that I think quite rightly will form part of the agenda of an incoming Senedd Government. The committee is quite right to point to the need to look carefully at our system of student support, but that is exactly what the Ministers are doing in this field. They have already a call for evidence, in which information will come to the Welsh Government to help to shape future iterations of student support.

On the fiscal framework, I think we ought to recognise the fact that, after all those years of Conservative Governments that declined to make any changes to the fiscal framework, the current UK Government has uprated the figures in it, not by as much as we might have wished, but to the same level as Scotland enjoy. Very importantly, they have now agreed to an annual uprating of those figures in line with inflation, so they won't lose their real value in future. And while there is not yet a commitment to a permanent abolition of draw-down limits, there have been no draw-down limits this year, and there will be no draw-down limits next year, and my hope is that by the time we've had two years of that experience, the Treasury will learn that there's nothing to be afraid of in allowing the Welsh Government manage our own resources in that way.

I'm grateful to Paul Davies for his contribution, Dirprwy Lywydd. I noticed that Mr Davies spoke for one minute and 50 seconds before he said anything I disagreed with. [Laughter.] So, if anybody's keeping records on the floor of the Senedd, that might be worth mentioning, and there was lots in what Paul Davies said that the Government would recognise and agree with.

Heledd Fychan raised a number of specific points. She pointed to the challenge that the next Government will face in managing a budget of nearly £28 billion. I think what the second supplementary budget demonstrates is just how much detailed in-year activity goes on and how much a finance Minister has to be on top of all those decisions that happen across the 12 months. It's not just a matter of bringing a budget to the Senedd and then thinking the job is done. That's a really important part of what happens, but then you've got a whole year in front of you to manage those decisions, to make sure that the money is put to best use.

On the borders question that Heledd raised, the money that's gone back to the UK Government is because we are no longer pursuing border posts in south-west Wales, and that is because of the ongoing discussions that the UK Government is having with European nations in the hope that an agreement will avoid the necessity of that. We've already built a border post in Holyhead that is mothballed, and we were keen to avoid wasteful expenditure. So, that money has gone back on the understanding that if it becomes necessary, that money will come back to Wales again.

The second supplementary budget reflects only decisions made by the Welsh Government, no other Government. I thank Mike Hedges for the points that he made. He's always kept a forensic eye on the student loan scheme. I hope he will be pleased that the capital money that we've been able to provide to higher education, and, indeed, in part to further education this year, while it isn't revenue in itself, it's all been for the sort of invest-to-save schemes that Mike has always championed on the floor of the Senedd. So, it's not been provided for general capital purposes; it's been provided for those capital investments that release revenue back into the budgets of those important institutions.

And finally, to the points raised by Rhys ab Owen, Dirprwy Lywydd, I think you'll find, Rhys, that the money in relation to the social justice portfolio is simply money being moved to other portfolios because responsibilities have altered. It's not a loss of money to those purposes. Thank you for what you said on Ukraine, with which I entirely agree. The money that has come to reserves comes as a result of a sale of land in Newport—that is, to a major new investor in Newport. Very large receipts are very unusual. There are much smaller capital receipts all through the year in an organisation like the Welsh Government—£70 million in a single receipt is unusual, which is why it's highlighted specifically in the documentation for the supplementary budget. The £4.3 million to central services is partly a recognition of some new responsibilities. That budget does not only cover Welsh Government staff; it includes some payments to commissioners. It includes, because of my responsibilities, the whole of the budget that I hold for the Welsh language.

We have to live within our means, just as any other organisation has to. Fewer people work for the Welsh Government today than worked for us in 2010. We are entirely unique in the United Kingdom in having reduced the headcount of people who work for us as a Government. There have been major increases in headcounts in Scotland and in the UK. Nevertheless, we have to live within our means, and there is a plan, with our civil service colleagues, to make sure we do that over a three-year period, and this additional investment allows us to make further progress on that journey.

Dirprwy Lywydd, with those explanations, I hope Members will be content to allow the supplementary budget to be passed this afternoon.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the change in debate from February to now. Due to late-stage amendments, I chose to delay the date to enable Members to consider a more complete version of the Bill. I would like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the Children, Young People and Education Committee for the consideration they have given to the legislative consent memoranda on this Bill. I will formally respond to the LJCC's queries raised yesterday on LCM No. 5, but will clarify now that the UK Government agrees that the amendments within LCM 5 require the Senedd's consent, and that it is our view, and the UK Government's view, that the amendments in lieu are reserved matters. Additionally, there are no additional amendments under clause 39 other than the one referenced within the LCM.

Dirprwy Lywydd, this Bill is wide-ranging and complex, and I know there may be some concerns about what the provisions will do and how they will impact families in Wales. I want to address these points today and set out why the provisions we have requested are essential. Members will be aware that the majority of the Bill applies to England only. I've requested a small number of clauses apply equally to Wales, and this is because they clearly align with our agenda and ambitions. These clauses provide clear opportunities to make positive and crucial changes for children in Wales and remove several loopholes in current legislation. These changes relate to child employment, deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment and wilful neglect, and, vitally, children not in school.

The majority of clauses relevant to Wales relate to children not in school, and I want to focus on this today. Ultimately, these measures put children first. They're about safeguarding and ensuring that all children receive their right to an education, regardless of where that takes place. These are, and have always been, my main priorities since taking up this role, and I strongly believe they should be at the heart of everything we do. The Bill includes clear registration requirements for parents and out-of-school education providers, and a new power requiring local authorities to provide consent before some of the most vulnerable children in Wales can be removed from school.

I've always been clear that I would take the first opportunity to ensure these additional safeguards are made, and this is what I have done. This does not mean these measures have not been carefully considered, or that these proposals are completely new. We have undertaken extensive policy development and public consultation in relation to home education in Wales over the last few years, and this has provided a substantial and informed evidence base. However, our measures to date have fallen short of introducing the legislation that is essential to address concerns that local authorities do not know about all home-educated children, or if they are receiving an education.

Although home education in itself is not a safeguarding risk, there have been instances in Wales where home education has been a contributing factor in the death of a child. Both the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the national independent safeguarding board called on the Welsh Government to introduce primary legislation for home education as a direct result of the child practice review into the death of Dylan Seabridge in 2011. Those calls for change have not gone away. A child practice review into the death of a seven-year-old home-educated child was published by the south-west Wales safeguarding board just last summer. Like Dylan, the child was home educated and weaknesses in our current system and processes were used to keep local authorities away. This included regular moves between England and Wales.

Members will be aware, too, of the horrific case of Sara Sharif in Surrey, whose death has been one of the determining factors in the development of the provisions. One of the opposing comments I have heard is that the Bill wouldn't have helped Sara because she was known to her local authority, that this was a system failure. That has not been disputed. What is clear, though, when reading the review into Sara's death, and the review into the death of the seven-year-old home-educated child in 2024, is not that they were unknown; it was that there was no direct legal consequence if a request to see the child was refused. The authorities were not able to visit them at home or speak to them to determine the suitability of their education. There are no powers to prevent these vulnerable children from being taken out of school in the first place because these powers are currently missing from the Education Act 1996. Parents don't have an absolute right to home educate. The child's rights should always come first. That is the difference this Bill will make.

I acknowledge the concerns about using a UK Government Bill to legislate for Wales, but I do want to assure Members that I have not taken this decision lightly. The Bill includes a number of delegated powers, including a power to make consequential provision, separate commencement powers for Wales, and powers to make secondary legislation through the Senedd to underpin the children-not-in-school registers. I strongly believe the measures on the face of the Bill meet our needs here, and I believe it is important that England and Wales do not diverge on such an important issue. Doing so would create safeguarding gaps in the system, resulting in fewer protections for children in Wales, with significantly weaker legislation compared with areas just over the border. Even if this was for a short period of time, the consequences could be catastrophic.

Whilst aligning with England on the provisions on the face of the Bill is the right thing to do, I do recognise the importance of ensuring the details of the measures and how they would operate are determined here in Wales. This includes the children-not-in-school registration requirements, their scope, and how they will operate. These details will be set out in regulations and subject to consultation. The measures will not come into effect in Wales until those regulations are finalised.

I know that some home educating support groups disagree with the provisions in this Bill, but this is not an attack on home education. The measures do not prevent parents from home educating, as long as they provide a suitable education for their children. This legislation acknowledges that education has changed over the years, and will address the gaps in the Education Act 1996 to better reflect that thousands of children in Wales do not attend school. It is important that England and Wales are aligned on these issues and that amendments to the education Act by way of the Bill are applied to Wales. We have worked closely with the UK Government throughout the development of this legislation, resulting in equivalent powers to make consequential provision being incorporated into the Bill.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the measures we are seeking in the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will have an immeasurable impact on our ability to ensure that children in Wales receive their right to an education and that they are safe. By seeking provision for Wales in this Bill, I am ensuring that there is not a safeguarding gap between England and Wales, and I firmly believe it will positively impact children, families and agencies supporting families across Wales. I recommend the Senedd supports this Bill and gives its consent. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm speaking today on behalf of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, as, unfortunately, the Chair is unavailable. We have considered the LCM and the subsequent three supplementary LCMs in our committee. We're reporting on them over two reports. However, due to time constraints, we were unable to consider and provide a report on supplementary LCM No. 5. 

I'll focus my comments on behalf of the committee on the provisions that relate to children who are educated other than at school. We heard different views about these provisions. We heard concerns from individuals and from Home Ed Cymru. These concerns focused on a range of concerns and criticism, including the levels of scrutiny applied to the Bill at both Westminster and the Senedd, the interaction between these proposals and Welsh-specific legislation and policy, a claimed lack of consultation with children and home educators, and their criticism over the potential lawfulness of the proposals and the level of data collection. We noted these concerns, along with the views put forward by the children's commissioner and others.

The Children's Commissioner for Wales called the LCM a significant move towards strengthening children's safeguarding in Wales. She did also call for a children's rights impact assessment to be published alongside the LCM. The current children's commissioner and her predecessor have, in fact, strongly urged action to be taken in this area, dating back many years, including a review of the Welsh Government's functions in this area and the setting of three tests that those successive children's commissioners believe policy should follow.

These tests are, firstly, that all children should be accounted for and none are invisible; secondly, that every child receives a suitable education and their other human rights, including health, care and safety; and thirdly, that every child is seen and their views and experiences are listened to. This final test is essential for the first two tests to be met. In considering the LCM and the supplementary LCMs, we agree with the Welsh Government's position that consent is required. We also agree as a committee that the Senedd should grant that consent.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee reported on the first three memoranda in September 2025 and the fourth memorandum last week. Regrettably, due to the short period of time between laying and today's debate, there has been no time to report on memorandum No. 5. We did consider in yesterday's meeting, and wrote last night to seek clarity on some matters, which I'll come back to later.

In the committee's first report, we noted the proactive engagement between the UK and Welsh Governments to develop devolved provisions within the UK Government's Bill. The committee made a general observation that the way to achieve outcomes that are in the best interests of Wales is to legislate by means of a Bill introduced to and scrutinised by this Senedd in Wales. This would have, for example, enabled this committee to give detailed consideration to all the regulation-making powers being delegated to the Welsh Ministers for use in the seventh Senedd, and to make recommendations for amendments to the Bill where necessary. This process would include considering the level of detail on the face of the Bill relevant to those powers and the extent of the powers being delegated, including how the Cabinet Secretary would intend to use them and an assessment of how they could be used.

The Cabinet Secretary told us that implementation of the Bill through secondary legislation would provide lots of opportunities for consultation and scrutiny in the Senedd. However, the Senedd and its elected Members will face voting on instruments subject to the approval procedure on an all-or-nothing basis, because secondary legislation is not subject to line-by-line scrutiny and is not amendable. Furthermore, the time available for scrutiny of such legislation by Senedd committees and Senedd Members is limited.

As a result, the committee said that, at the very least, it should have been possible to legislate in parallel with the UK Government, to enable Members of the Senedd to have a greater say on legislation relating to children in Wales. This is particularly the case given that these matters have been under consideration in Wales for over a decade. Nevertheless, the committee recognised and acknowledged the personal commitment of the Cabinet Secretary to the matters that are the subject of these memoranda and the comprehensive reasoning for the approach adopted.

In early February, we wrote to the Cabinet Secretary seeking clarification on a number of issues relating to memorandum No. 4. The Cabinet Secretary's response is included in annex 1 of our report on that fourth memorandum. In her letter of response, the Cabinet Secretary told us that a non-Government amendment was agreed in the House of Lords that did not apply fully to Wales, but impacted on a UK Government amendment that the Welsh Government supported. She explained that her officials were talking to officials in the UK Government, relaying the Welsh Government’s position and potential implications for Wales of the non-Government amendment. The Cabinet Secretary’s letter also explained that a fifth memorandum would be needed.

The Cabinet Secretary’s comments highlighted that the Welsh Government's use of a Bill progressing through the UK Parliament can cause the Welsh Government difficulties in handling that would not arise if it was introducing its own Bill to the Senedd. This predicament for the Welsh Government sits alongside the disadvantages placed on Senedd Members, stakeholders and citizens in Wales caused by this approach.

As I mentioned at the start of my contribution, we wrote last night to the Cabinet Secretary seeking clarification about the UK Government’s position on the provisions referred to in memorandum No. 5, about the consent being sought for clause 39 of the Bill, and, importantly, about the implications of the ping-pong of amendments between the House of Commons and House of Lords. The Minister partly answered that in her introduction. In particular, we would welcome some clarification about the impact for Wales of the amendments in lieu relating to online safety and for the legislative consent process in relation to the Bill.

First of all, I want to make it absolutely clear that Plaid Cymru takes the safeguarding of children across Wales extremely seriously. Making sure every child is safe and supported must always be at the heart of the decisions we make in this Siambr. Education is a fundamental right and the state has a responsibility to ensure that every child is safe and receiving a suitable education, wherever that education takes place.

At the moment, one of the challenges for local authorities is that some children who are not in school may remain unknown to them. Without clear information, it becomes much harder for councils to make sure children are safe and that families are able to access the support they might need. Provisions in this Bill, such as introducing a children-not-in-school register and clearer processes around deregistering children from school, are intended to address that gap. Measures like requiring parents to notify or seek permission from a local authority before deregistering a child are aimed at strengthening safeguarding, and making sure children do not fall through the cracks.

Home education in Wales has risen to 7,176 pupils in 2024-25, and organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have highlighted that, as these numbers grow, local authorities need clear information to understand children's circumstances and identify safeguarding concerns where they arise. Successive children's commissioners have also called for stronger provision in this area. The current Children's Commissioner for Wales, as we've already heard, Rocio Cifuentes, wrote to the Children, Young People and Education Committee last year supporting the application of this Bill in Wales.

But, Llywydd, it's also important that we recognise the concerns that have been raised, particularly by families who home educate their children. Families choose home education for many different reasons. For some, it provides an environment where their children can learn and develop in a way that suits them best. For some families, especially those with children who have additional learning needs, home education is sometimes not so much a straightforward choice, but something they feel pushed towards because the current education system isn't meeting their child's needs. Sometimes, it's because of the lack of Welsh-medium education support for children with additional learning needs. So, it's really important that we support those families as well, and that any changes introduced don't place disproportionate burdens on them.

I'd therefore welcome reassurance from the Welsh Government that home-educating families will be supported through these changes, and that the implementation of these measures will be proportionate and mindful of the different reasons families choose home education.

However, one particular concern raised by the home-educating community is that local authorities would have disproportionate powers to oppose the deregistering of children from school. So, could you, Cabinet Secretary, explain under what circumstances would local authorities have the powers to not consent to the withdrawal of a child from school, and your response to ease the concerns of many parents around this particular issue?

So, to end, Dirprwy Lywydd, ultimately, safeguarding has to remain at the centre of this debate. Every child in Wales deserves to be safe and supported wherever they are educated. And that is why, with that in mind, Plaid Cymru will be supporting this legislative consent motion today. Diolch.

I am concerned, Cabinet Secretary, that we just have 30 brief minutes to discuss this Bill and its potential impact on Welsh education. Only just a few short weeks ago, the First Minister said that Keir Starmer's name would not appear on the ballot paper for the Welsh elections, but here is your Government rubber-stamping his Government's policy and bypassing our scrutiny. It's astounding.

Now, Cabinet Secretary, I and my colleagues do agree with some parts of the LCM’s aims, including registration, safeguarding and support for children in care. But we must, and I repeat, must, have the time and the place to be able to ensure that this is fit for Wales. We must also have the time to consider the concerns of those against the Bill, and I also note that there have been opinions by several King's Counsels citing potential unlawfulness in a number of areas of the Bill. There is also the likelihood that legal action is possible against any nation, including Wales, who seeks to implement elements of the Bill. There are also concerns about the process of the application of the Bill to Wales, which we are unable to consider in one short debate. It has been raised with me that the scrutiny of the Bill in Westminster has been insufficient, with criticisms about the risk assessments released being, and I quote, not fit for purpose. Cabinet Secretary, do you wish to open Wales up to legal action by rubber-stamping this Bill?

I have many examples that would allude to the fact that areas of the Bill could actually be damaging for the safety of children, including comments from the British Association of Social Workers, and an open letter from experts in child protection, education and social work, including the Victoria Climbié Foundation, which outlines their concerns. I also note the concerns from the children's commissioner about the lack of a children's rights impact assessment of the Bill's impact on Wales, as well as the need for engagement with children, young people and families across Wales. Cabinet Secretary, what is your response to them? I'd really like to hear today.

What do you also say, Cabinet Secretary, to those who are highlighting that the policy of mandatory registration of home educators is in contradiction to your Government's previous statement to the Welsh Parliament that mandatory registration would be harmful to the well-being of children? Whilst the issue of registration in itself is not necessarily a harmful one, how does your Government feel about extensive data collection and tracking of Welsh children? We all know data collection in Wales is poor, so how would this be managed and funded in the long term? And given the significant reforms that you've just implemented with additional learning needs, Cabinet Secretary, do you believe that this Bill and the resulting LCM strike the right balance for children and young people living with ALN here in Wales?

I'd like to know what your opinions are on amendments that could have an impact on disability discrimination and the right to a private life as well. It has come to my attention that consent for educational placement will be placed in the hands of local authorities for no other basis than a child's disability, especially when a child has been investigated by social care in the past, no matter whether any risk was identified or whether the referral was vexatious. I've also received concerns that there is the potential for the state obstruction of choice when a child's mental health is at risk being in school. So, how do you, Cabinet Secretary, intend on ensuring that a balance is met, especially when 12 to 18 per cent of child suicides are linked to school-related issues? Again, Cabinet Secretary, where is the balance struck under the legislation between parents' legal duties on providing an education, safeguarding and protecting the well-being of their child and the Government's duties?

Turning to our own limited scrutiny of the Bill in Wales, I am deeply concerned that this Bill had last-minute Government amendments that we, as a democratic institution, were not informed of until it was reaching its end stages in Westminster last year. What was meant to be an England-only piece of legislation was somehow at the last minute also going to be applied to Wales. That's not good legal or democratic practice by your partners in Westminster. It also displays a lack of respect for you, frankly, Cabinet Secretary. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee have said, and I quote, this is piggybacking on a Westminster Bill. While I can understand your point about not having enough time to legislate, I further quote from their report,

'at the very least, it should have been possible to legislate in parallel with the UK Government to enable Members of the Senedd to have a greater say on legislation relating to children in Wales. This is particularly the case given that these matters have been under consideration in Wales for over a decade.'

End quote. I repeat, everyone: a decade. I find that astonishing.

Cabinet Secretary, this legislation primarily oversteps where we are able to legislate ourselves and where we should already have been given parliamentary time to do so. It's almost like we've been caught unawares here over this policy. Ultimately, however, it is the Welsh people and this institution who pay the price for poorly scrutinised law. Cabinet Secretary, where are the powers or mechanisms for accountability? Where are the independent processes to deal with complaints, appeals and arbitration or mediation if something goes wrong—and something can always go wrong? This may seem minor to everyone here, but when parents are being fined, it's pretty fundamental to have these processes in place.

Deputy Presiding Officer, let me be clear, I do have some areas where I do support this LCM, but on the basis that this is a last-minute request that has not received the proper scrutiny by the Senedd and it has received heavy criticism and concerns from numerous groups, organisations and individuals, I cannot, in all conscience, support this motion. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement on this, Cabinet Secretary. While, of course, we agree with some of what you've said today, Reform will be objecting and voting against today's LCM on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The purpose of this Bill is supposedly intended to improve child protection, strengthen support for vulnerable children and reform some parts of the school system in England, but here in Wales, the Bill impacts child protection and the safeguarding of young children.

Reform supports common sense, we support parental choice and we support children being protected by biological facts, but our fundamental concern regarding child protection and safeguarding of children here in Wales has to be the operation of child sexual exploitation by grooming gangs. Young children across Wales have been let down and they deserve justice. It is essential that we have a Wales-specific inquiry to report within the shortest possible time frame, but also, as outlined by Wellbeing in Education Wales, there have been no impact assessments on the measures of this Bill and how they will impact children here in Wales. We have seen a complete lack of full children's rights impact assessments of the Bill's implications for Wales—home education being one. There has also been no impact assessment on the effect this would have on councils, how it'll be costed and how it'll be funded.

Today the Senedd is being asked to give consent to this Bill without receiving a full rationale and impact of it, so how can it be voted for? In light of this, Reform we'll be voting against this LCM.

Today we're being asked to consider legislation that would profoundly affect the lives of children and families across Wales. Yet, originally, as we heard, this legislation was England-only and now Wales appears poised to piggyback onto a framework that was never built with Welsh families, Welsh services or Welsh realities in mind.

As we heard, the Senedd Cymru Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee has already highlighted the constitutional implications of using this Bill to legislate in devolved areas. This alone should give us pause. Yet, the Welsh Government are also doing so with a deeply problematic Bill, as made clear by evidence coming directly from numerous Welsh families. The Wellbeing in Education Wales preliminary report survey of experiences and perspectives of Welsh home educators published this month evidences that many children are educated at home, not out of ideology but because mainstream schooling has failed to meet their needs, particularly children with additional learning needs or neurodivergent conditions. The report highlights the misuse of existing powers by local authorities, institutionalised bias and discrimination against home education by council staff, and a lack of capacity of council staff to make such decisions. It describes families who turn to home education because school environments either no longer support their child's well-being or damage it entirely. It also outlines that many parents create learning pathways tailored to their child's needs. This is about the well-being of their children, recognising and meeting their learning and life skills needs.

Alongside this, the 'Fabricated or Induced Illness: Finding a Fair Way forward' report, which followed an expert consultation at St George's House, Windsor castle, last March, involving senior academics, clinicians, lawyers, directors of social services, the British Association of Social Workers, the Disabled Children's Partnership, families and myself, highlights another important reality. As my casework in Wales repeatedly confirms, safeguarding systems, while essential, are not infallible and families, particularly those involving neurodivergent children or parents, are often misunderstood within our professional systems. In a system that, at times, appears at breaking point, complex medical or developmental conditions can be misinterpreted and parental advocacy for a child's needs can too often be viewed through a lens of suspicion rather than support.

Evidence in the Wellbeing in Education Wales report states that, for nearly 90 per cent of children, increased monitoring would cause anxiety, undermine the home as a safe space and constitute a clear invasion of their privacy. These findings matter when we're considering legislation that proposes expanded monitoring, greater data sharing and broader state powers over family life. Some parents have described experiences where simply advocating strongly for a child's unmet needs increased the risk of being blamed or misunderstood by the very systems designed to support them.

A paediatrician sharing his experience of fabricated or induced illness noted they were involved in one genuine case of harm and 17 wrongful accusations, highlighting the prevalence of false allegations within safeguarding systems. Proposals that widen surveillance, increase information sharing and shift decision-making power further towards institutions therefore raise significant concerns.

Safeguarding children is essential, but safeguarding must be balanced, proportionate and grounded in trust—trust between families and professionals, trusting parents' knowledge of their own children, recognising that the state is not always omniscient. Sadly, this Bill completely misses the mark, assuming that the state knows better than parents, treating families with suspicion, not trust. It gives abusive or absent parents and authorities power over children's education, even when there's no risk. It undermines parental responsibility, discriminates against disabled children and threatens their need for privacy. Parents must be empowered to safeguard and educate their own children, not blocked by blanket bureaucracy.

Taken together, these measures raise serious questions about proportionality and lawfulness, and leave aspects of the legislation vulnerable to legal challenge, as we heard, with four King's Counsel opinions citing likely unlawfulness in a range of areas in this Bill and, for example, the British Association of Social Workers openly criticising key areas of the Bill for damaging, rather than protecting, the safety of children.

Welsh families know their children better than any database, any algorithm or any distant authority ever could. At its heart, this debate is about something deeper than legislation; it is about how we see the relationship between families and state. Do we support safeguarding or surveillance? Do we see parents as partners or as people to be watched?

Mark, you need to conclude now, please.

Do we view families as sources of care or as problems to manage? In a society that truly values children, do we start with trust or suspicion? These answers will shape not just our laws, but the nation that Wales becomes.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd, and can I thank Members for their comments? Can I thank Vaughan for his response on behalf of CYPE? And I'm grateful for the committee's support for this LCM. Just to assure Vaughan and the other Members who've raised child rights impact assessments, which I am fully committed to, there is a draft child rights impact assessment. We wouldn't normally do an impact assessment until the time when we're ready to present regulations and further consultation. There was also an impact assessment done by the UK Government, which included children's rights.

Thank you, too, Mike for all the work that LJC has done on this, and I do want to recognise the challenges that this has presented for the committee—I very much appreciate your work—and also to acknowledge the timings of the latest LCM and what that has meant for the committee. I have issued a letter to you, but you specifically raised the issue in the debate of the amendment on social media. So, that was a House of Lords amendment, which was tabled in relation to a social media ban for under-16-year-olds. When that returned to the Commons, that amendment was removed and replaced with an amendment in lieu, which will provide the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology with more flexible powers, which will be exercisable following the current live consultation. But I should say that it is the UK Government's and Welsh Government's view that, legally, those are reserved powers, so they are not areas where we have currently the opportunity to legislate.

Can I thank Cefin Campbell for his very constructive engagement on this legislation, and thank the Plaid Cymru group for their support for this today, and for their commitment to safeguarding, which I share? I was grateful to Cefin for highlighting the role of local government. Local government are very supportive of this legislation. They've issued a statement today. Whenever I meet local government, they tell me they need more powers in this space, and indeed the evaluation that we've recently published about statutory guidance confirms that the powers are not adequate.

You raised some points about how this would work in terms of the enforcement by local authorities. Obviously, that will be set out in regulation, but there are provisions on the face of the Bill that parents would have to seek consent from the local authority if a child has been involved in child protection proceedings over the last five years. There is also provision to seek consent for children who are in special schools, but, as Rhys has said, that already exists at the moment, that local authorities have that power that consent has to be sought to remove a child, so this just really regularises that situation. And I do acknowledge what you've said about that home education should be a positive choice. It shouldn't be something families feel forced into because they can't get their needs met in school. I acknowledge that we've got more work to do in relation to that, in particular in terms of ALN, and we've got some new guidance coming out on ALN and home-educated families shortly.

Natasha—I mean, what can I say, really? Nobody is rubber-stamping anything. I and my colleague Dawn Bowden have worked on this legislation for many months now. Officials have met with the UK Government on a weekly basis. The points that you and others on the Tory benches have made about the British Association of Social Workers you would know are untrue if you had read the briefing that I sent you. The clauses that the British Association of Social Workers have complained about do not apply to Wales. They relate to the child protection procedures in the Bill and things like the unique children's identifier. They do not apply to Wales.

You highlighted how long this has taken and, yes, it has taken a while to get to this point, but, for my part, when I was Chair of the committee, this was something that we raised regularly with the Welsh Government. As we've heard, the children's commissioner, the previous one, wanted this to happen. She called for primary legislation, and I have taken the first opportunity that I have had. I was in post in the March, and then we had the King's Speech in the July of the new Government, and I was very keen to take that opportunity.

Rhys, you made points on the social care provisions. I just wanted to assure you that this is just to make sure that if we do—. It's a very small number of children—currently around five—that would be in a position to use that accommodation, but we don't want to not be in a position, if a child really needs that specialist placement, to be able to place a child there. And I will follow up with you in writing on the points that you've made about the alignment with our legislation on profit and children's social care.

So, thank you for your flexibility, and thank you, everybody, who has contributed. I would be very grateful if the Senedd would support this Bill. We talk all the time here about children's rights. This is children's rights in action. We have got the opportunity to protect not just their right to an education, but their right to be safe. We cannot have any children falling through the gaps. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Llywydd. The three amendments in this group are all clarificatory in nature. Amendment 1 clarifies the definition of 'overturned on appeal' as set out in section 4 of the Bill. Members will be aware that if a Member is sentenced to be detained for a period of up to one year, then trigger event A is met, and that Member becomes subject to a recall poll. Section 4 currently provides that if a Member's conviction is overturned on appeal prior to that recall poll taking place, then the early termination provisions are engaged, and the poll is cancelled. The amendment seeks to put this existing position beyond doubt. This amendment makes it clear that if, on appeal, a Member's conviction is upheld but their sentence or order is varied or reduced to one that would not have met the threshold for trigger event A, then those early termination provisions are also engaged and the planned recall poll is cancelled. The amendment also makes clear that, in situations where a Member's sentence is varied or reduced, the duty placed on the courts of England and Wales to notify the Llywydd of such an event also applies.

Amendment 2 ensures that the definition of appeal in section 4 applies also to section 8, which deals with early termination. Amendment 4 includes the new definition of 'overturned on appeal' provided by amendment 1 in section 16 of the Bill. This ensures the same definition applies throughout that Part. 

As I set out in my letter to the Llywydd on 10 March, and copied to all Members, I have received the necessary Minister of the Crown consent in respect of the provisions in section 4 of the Bill that place the notification duty on the courts of England and Wales if a Member of the Senedd is convicted of an offence in England and Wales and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 20 in the name of my colleague Sam Rowlands, as permitted under Standing Order 26.65.

Amendment 20 requires recall guidance to be approved by the Senedd before being issued, and it requires that any resolution under section 5(8) of the Bill must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senedd. The legislation currently states that the Standards of Conduct Committee may not issue recall guidance unless a draft of the guidance has been approved by a resolution of the Senedd, and we believe that that majority should be at least two thirds of the votes cast. As my colleague Sam Rowlands made clear during Stage 2 proceedings of this Bill, this amendment, we believe, would strengthen procedures and would align with any proposed changes to Standing Orders in the Senedd. As the Counsel General said herself at Stage 1, and I quote,

'Changes to Standing Orders currently require a two-thirds majority, and so the Bill is simply reflecting the current parliamentary Commission's view of how that should happen.'

I appreciate that the Welsh Government didn't have a firm view on this, but given the seriousness of a situation that requires recall guidance, we believe that a two-thirds majority should be sought. Therefore, I hope Members will support our amendment.

Diolch, Llywydd. I would like to start by thanking Members for their very constructive engagement on amendments following the Stage 2 proceedings. As I have said many times during the passage of this Bill, I believe it's important to ensure, as far as possible, we reach a consensus on how these provisions should operate.

In respect of amendment 20, I do completely understand Paul Davies's position that the recall guidance should be approved by a two-thirds majority in the Senedd. In fact, as he said, that was the position in the Bill as introduced. However, having taken evidence at Stage 1, the Member Accountability Bill Committee concluded by a majority that a simple majority was a more appropriate threshold. I've accepted the committee's conclusion that a simple majority requirement aligns more closely with the processes in place to amend or revise the code of conduct.

As with the majority of the recommendations made at Stage 1, I worked with members of the committee to bring forward amendments at Stage 2 to give effect to that change, and those amendments were agreed by the committee. In the light of the views expressed by the Senedd at both Stages of this Bill so far, I will not be supporting this amendment to re-establish the two-thirds majority requirement.

Amendment 10 would place a requirement on the Standards of Conduct Committee to consider, including within the recall guidance, examples or types of conduct that may result in the committee recommending a recall sanction. I do believe this approach strikes the right balance. It creates an expectation that such examples will be considered, but it also ensures that the committee is not constrained in what they include in the recall guidance. The committee will be able to use its discretion when adjudicating on the individual circumstances regarding the conduct of a Member, including when recommending to the Senedd any potential sanction. I'm very grateful to Sioned for having worked with me on this amendment, and I will be supporting this amendment in the name of Sioned Williams. Diolch. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm grateful to Seanad Williams and the Counsel General for their contributions. I appreciate what has been said, but we on this side of the Chamber do not believe a simple majority is sufficient, given the seriousness of issuing recall guidance, and so I look to move amendment 20 tabled in the name of Sam Rowlands. We will also be supporting amendment 10 in the name of Sioned Williams.

Yes. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The Bill, on introduction, included provisions that would have allowed the Welsh Ministers to place functions on, or in relation to, any reserved bodies through the regulations that will be made under section 11. This approach required consent from the UK Government to be within the Senedd's competence, which I sought prior to introduction of the Bill. Following engagement with the UK Government, Minister of the Crown consents have been given on a slightly different basis, which will enable the Welsh Ministers to make provision that would place functions on, or in relation to, specific reserved bodies. Therefore, I have tabled amendment 3 to give effect to this approach, aligned with the consent that has been given.

It is anticipated that the regulations to be made under section 11 will largely replicate the functions currently placed on reserved bodies regarding the administration of Senedd general elections, as set out under the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025. On that basis, in developing the list of reserved bodies that are set out in this amendment, I have reviewed the conduct Order in detail and identified the reserved authorities that have functions placed upon or in relation to them.

I would like to place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for Wales and the officials in the Wales Office for their collaborative approach in the discussions that have enabled us to get to this position. I must make Members aware, however, that that the consent I have received is conditional on this amendment being agreed. If this amendment is not agreed, we do not have consent for the provisions currently in section 11 as introduced. Therefore, if amendment 3 is not agreed, a provision of this Bill would be outwith competence and I would not be able to move to Stage 4. I therefore ask that Members support amendment 3.

At Stage 2, the Counsel General opposed this amendment on the basis that it would be up to the electorate to decide whether a previously removed Member should ultimately be re-elected if they were to stand again. While I fully appreciate this reasoning, I believe it reflects a somewhat idealistic view, which assumes the electorate will be fully in possession of the relevant information as to the circumstances surrounding the removal of said Member. It does not give full consideration to the fact that the tolerance of transgressions that could lead to recall, particularly those that stem from misogynistic or racist views, is sadly becoming normalised by certain political viewpoints.

Unfortunately, as much as I would like it so, we do not live in this ideal world, and the reality is also that our media ecosystem, of which large swathes are controlled by billionaires and those who hold political interests that are hostile to accountability, and are not interested in supporting democracy, has all too often shown itself to be incapable of ensuring that voters are able to access the full range of facts. We also know that some right-wing political parties who have shaped their communication style in the image of their ideological kindred spirits in Moscow and Washington will have no hesitation in weaponising disinformation to muddy the waters in the event of their Members being removed.

Furthermore, the closed list system, which I would like to remind Members was not Plaid Cymru's preferred model of election in the context of Senedd reform, also means that voters will now largely base their decisions according to party rather than candidate preference, and as such the reality is that this system could make it more likely that previously recalled Members can re-enter the political arena with less individual scrutiny. I also believe the Counsel General's view undervalues how the recall mechanism can act as a strong deterrent against future misconduct and compel political parties to be far more robust in their vetting processes. As we have seen over the past few months, the consequences of complacency in this area can be disastrous.

I would therefore urge the Counsel General and her Labour colleagues to reconsider their prior opposition and ask all Members to support this amendment. 

I'm just speaking on this amendment. I feel it's so important that we focus in on what the consequences are in relation to recall. But I want to also begin by thanking the Counsel General for her time with me, and also, in the early stages, both Adam Price and Lee Waters for certainly starting my journey with this Bill.

I've stood many times in this Siambr and spoken about the crisis of trust we have in our politics, about the way that disinformation, deception and the erosion of trust are poisoning the environment in which our democracy operates. Just 15 per cent of people now trust politicians, making us all here the least trusted profession in the Ipsos global trustworthiness index. Forty-five per cent believe that politicians are more likely to lie now than in the past, and according to the Electoral Commission, only 62 per cent of young people in Wales feel that they have a good understanding of democracy, with less than half expressing any interest in politics at all. That loss of trust in politics mirrors the loss of confidence that we are seeing more broadly in our institutions and in each other.

We've spoken before about tin boxes and bonfires, about communities fracturing under pressure. This Bill is meant to respond to that crisis of trust, it's our statement that the Senedd will not tolerate Members whose behaviour undermines our institution. Because of that, every mechanism we create must have consequences, and that is what amendment 11 does. It gives the recall process the meaning that the public expects. Without this amendment, a Member removed by their constituent could stand in the resulting by-election within weeks, and we've seen that here in Wales. All the petitioning, campaigning and polling, all the effort that the public put in would be meaningless if the person removed could immediately return.

It is worth reminding ourselves why recall matters in the first place. Recall is about putting power back into the hands of the people between elections. It is about ensuring that when trust is broken, constituents are not left waiting years for a chance to act. It is a democratic safety valve, a way of maintaining confidence in the system when things go wrong. When the public discovers that we have built a revolving door where an exit should be, it will not just make the recall mechanism look weak, it will confirm every suspicion they already have that politicians like us design accountability systems with escape routes built in. And we only need to look beyond Wales, as has been said, and beyond our own recent history to understand what is at stake. The expenses scandal, Brexit, partygate, cash for questions, lobbying for money, the appalling treatment of members of staff and Members of the Senedd and other Parliaments—each one delivering a fresh blow to public confidence.

Amendment 11 is proportionate and principled. Four years—roughly the span of the Senedd term—during which a recalled Member faces the consequences of their actions. It isn't permanent. It's not punitive beyond reason, but it ensures that accountability is real. This amendment does not permanently remove anyone from public life. It does not prevent a recalled Member from ever seeking elected office again. It respects the fundamental democratic principle that individuals should ultimately retain and be able to stand for election. But it does ensure that the recall process carries genuine weight, something that cannot be undone immediately, and that is something that will mean something to the public. When we pass this Bill, we will be telling them we have created a meaningful system of Member accountability. I do not want to stand here and explain to constituents why a recalled Member was able to stand again immediately. Amendment 11 prevents that. It is a backstop against our own failure of nerve. I therefore urge Members of the Siambr to support it. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I do not support this amendment. I do not believe that a Member who has been recalled by their constituents should be disqualified for a period of four years, which would, in effect, prevent them from standing at the next election, as both the previous speakers have pointed out. A recall system is designed to fill the gap in the system that currently exists between behaviour that is so serious that it is right that a person is automatically disqualified and that behaviour that is appropriate to deal with by way of suspension or censure. I do not believe it is helpful to conflate the two systems of disqualification and recall in this way.

This amendment would also lead to an inconsistency with the disqualification regime. If the amendment passed, a Member who is imprisoned for less than a year and recalled by their constituents would not be able to stand for the Senedd for four years, but a Member who is imprisoned for more than one year and thus automatically disqualified would be free to stand once they are no longer detained. That cannot be right.

In any event, the core purpose of a recall system is to place the decision in the hands of the voters who returned that Member in the first place. It is right that such decision making then continues and remains in the hands of voters at the next election. I do understand the concerns outlined, but we live in a democracy. If a party chooses to select a candidate who has previously been recalled, and the electorate chooses to vote for that list of candidates in the knowledge of that, then it is a legitimate decision for the electorate to make.

Where there is behaviour that is so serious that we believe it is right that a person should be disqualified from being a Member or a candidate, then it is our responsibility to ensure that such behaviour is added directly into the disqualification criteria. Whilst I have sympathy with the point that both the previous speakers made about disinformation and so on, I still hold to the point that it is for parties to decide who they select as their candidates, and I would expect that all candidates will come under scrutiny from both the public, media and, indeed, the other parties standing in the election. Diolch.

This really is about maintaining confidence. I think this is the whole spirit of the Bill in front of us, the way that you put that, that the revolving door should actually be an exit, otherwise, it does confirm the suspicions that we know are widespread in society, and that cynicism that is undermining the very democracy that the Counsel General says that we need to hold firm to. So, I think that these two things are interlinked and there should be serious consequences, and that the accountability, as Jane Dodds says, must be real.

While appreciating the points about the discrepancies that the Counsel General outlined, we can put those right, we can align those discrepancies if we so choose. This is the Bill in front of us, and I think that we should take account of the arguments that both I and Jane Dodds have made as regards this amendment. So, I would ask Members to consider supporting the amendment. Diolch.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 21 in the name of my colleague Sam Rowlands, again as permitted under Standing Order 26.65. Now, amendment 21 inserts a new section into the legislation that requires the Welsh Government to review the recall system and produce a report on the operation and effect of the system. The amendment also requires the Welsh Government to include an assessment of the associated costs incurred and to consult with the Senedd and any other persons deemed appropriate. Once complete, the report must then be published as soon as practicable after being laid. We believe this is a necessary amendment in order to ensure the recall system's effectiveness, and I therefore urge Members to support this amendment.

As Members have heard, amendment 21 would place a requirement on Welsh Ministers to undertake a post-legislative review of Part 1 of this Bill, and I want to be clear that I agree a review of the new system should be undertaken once it's been utilised. However, the recall system and this Bill more broadly is, at its heart, a policy owned by the Senedd. Therefore, I believe it's most appropriate for the Senedd to undertake any post-legislative review, and as such I am unable to support this amendment. 

This is a point on which the Government has been consistent with regard to the Senedd reform programme as a whole, and there are provisions set out in the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024 that give effect to this. However, I would caution against fixing a time in which such a review should be undertaken. The timing of a recall poll is uncertain, and it's unclear whether the first experience of a recall poll would provide sufficient basis for a review. These are matters the Senedd can take into account at the time, to determine when it would be most appropriate to undertake such a review. I should also add that Members will be aware that the Bill already requires the Electoral Commission to prepare and publish a report on the administration of any recall poll, and so, in my view, any review undertaken by the Senedd should be mindful of that work. I therefore ask Members to not support this amendment. Diolch.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm grateful to the Counsel General for setting out her position. As I said in opening the debate on this amendment, we believe that it is necessary for a review of the system to take place, and so I look to move amendment 21 tabled in the name of Sam Rowlands.

Gwelliant 4. Is it being moved formally, Counsel General?

Move.

Diolch, Llywydd. The purpose of amendment 12 is to include within the Standing Orders of the standards committee a provision to enable the establishment of a sub-committee, sub-committees of lay members, to consider instances where a Member of the Senedd is alleged to have been dishonest. The best disinfectant to the deceit and dishonesty that has so badly corroded our political landscape in recent years is transparency, and what better way of securing the credibility of this legislation in the eyes of the public than to give them a formal legally defined role in scrutinising instances of deceptive behaviour in the Senedd. We can't allow the processes set out in this Bill to be perceived as a way of Senedd Members marking their own homework, and we believe this amendment as well as other similar amendments in this group that we will support go some way towards addressing this risk.

The purpose of amendment 18 is to include a requirement that a sub-committee formed for the purposes of section 30A(6)(c), that is a sub-committee responsible for carrying out appeals or reviews of committee or sub-committee proceedings concerning the conduct of Members of the Senedd—at least one person appointed as a lay member to this committee should be legally qualified. I'm grateful for the work of my colleague Adam Price on this particular amendment and for engaging extensively with the Government on an acceptable form of wording.

The context here is the need to deal with complex and sensitive matters in a robust and fair way for all involved. This could apply to cases of deception, but also to other cases and types of misconduct that could benefit from independent specialist expertise, not limited to legal expertise, to ensure that the process of appeals and reviews would be one that is comprehensive, transparent and sufficient to satisfy the seriousness, the complexity and need for a robust framework based on the tried and tested legal concepts related to the justice system, leading, then, to a fair and objective process that the public can trust.

Diolch, Llywydd. I think it would be helpful to Members if I first provide the context to my amendments in this group and the current position of sections 18 and 20 of the Bill before I set out what my amendments provide for. It's worth noting that there's a link between this group and group 8 that we will be debating later. That group deals with the eligibility for the role of the commissioner for standards.

During the debate on the relevant amendments at Stage 2, I agreed with the committee that I would look again at the disqualification criteria and in particular the role of county councillors and the community councillors and then discuss further with members of the committee. So, at the scrutiny of the Bill, my position has been that

my position has been that we should be seeking to achieve appropriate consistency between the disqualification criteria for lay members and the commissioner for standards. To allow the further consideration of the disqualification criteria to take place, during Stage 2 I requested that an amendment tabled by Lesley Griffiths on the disqualification criteria for the commissioner not be moved and therefore it was not passed.

Since Stage 2, I have reconsidered the criteria for the role of the commissioner and as a result the criteria for the role of lay members, with specific regard to the role of county and community councillors. I'd like particularly to say at this point that I'm very grateful to members of the committee—Sam Rowlands, Sioned Williams, Lesley Griffiths and others, and also Adam Price and Jane Dodds—for the extensive discussions we've had on this. I said at Stage 2 that I would look in particular at whether a distinction should be made between county councillors and community councillors who have held an executive role and those who have not. However, I have concluded that only disqualifying councillors on the basis that they hold or have held an executive role would not provide for the level of independence wanted for the role of a lay member. For example, it would not include those who have held the role of a leader of an opposition group on a council, which would also be considered inherently political. So, I believe that the right distinction to make is between the role of a county councillor and a community councillor. In tabling my amendments 6, 7 and 8 I have given effect to this approach.

This distinction for the disqualification criteria strikes the right balance because the role of a community councillor is the most localised of all elected representation and largely involves supporting local projects, including managing and deciding on how small grants are distributed. Therefore, it does not involve decision making with regard to significant political issues, such as the provision of social care or how large budgets are spent. Given the activities of the role, it attracts individuals who are civic minded, rather than necessarily party political. This approach also achieves the right balance between the need to ensure a sufficient pool of candidates for the role of lay member whilst ensuring the disqualification criteria delivers a minimum standard of political independence. In summary, amendment 6 permanently disqualifies those who currently are, or have previously been, a county councillor from being able to be appointed as a lay member. My amendments 6 and 8 provide for the ability for former community councillors to be able to be appointed as lay members. In reconsidering the disqualification criteria for the role of councillors I have also reconsidered, for completeness, whether former Members of the House of Lords should also be permanently excluded from taking on either role. I have concluded they should be excluded and therefore amendment 6 also gives effect to this.

Finally, I have also tabled amendment 5 which is consequential to my amendments 6, 7 and 8.

On the other amendments in this group, I support amendment 16, tabled by the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, to extend the deadline by which the Senedd needs to appoint lay members, given the rationale set out by the Chair.

I don't consider Sioned Williams's amendment 12 to be necessary. The purpose of the sub-committee, which can be composed entirely of lay members, is for the purpose of providing an appeal or review mechanism for the standards process. I do not believe the case has been sufficiently made that there should be a different approach to adjudicating on misconduct in the form of dishonesty by a Member compared with any other misconduct. The Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee and the commissioner for standards have both said previously that the committee does not wish to see a hierarchy of misconduct and therefore the process should be the same regardless of the nature of the allegations being investigated and adjudicated upon by the committee.

Finally, I do support Sioned Williams's amendment 18. I am very grateful for the discussion that I have had on this with Adam Price following Stage 2. I believe the amendment strikes the right balance between ensuring that the pool of lay members have the right skills while providing appropriate discretion for the Senedd in being able to determine the detail of its own arrangements, including the structure and role of the standards of conduct committee and any sub-committee established. In section 18 of the Bill, the Government has sought to maintain that discretion by only legislating where provisions are required in order to provide for an effective structure for what will be a statutory standards of conduct committee and suitable and effective arrangements for the appointment of lay members to it. Diolch.

I'd like to move to the vote. 

Gwelliant 5. Is it being moved, Counsel General? 

Yes it is.

Move.

Move.

Move.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and I move amendment 19, tabled in my name. I should say at the outset that I'm very grateful to the Government and to the Counsel General for their help and support in drafting this amendment. Members will be aware that when we debated these matters at a previous stage, we had a conversation—shall we say—about the ability both to define an offence but also whether it's appropriate to actually create an offence through secondary legislation rather than primary legislation. Members will be aware of my very deep concern that we could be creating an offence that we are unable to define, and all of us voting today, or at any time, on this matter would not be aware or know what we are actually voting for. That is not good parliamentary practice, and whatever the motives and motivations of people, which I very much agree with, it is not good to create law in that way. This Parliament, I believe, should hold the highest standards, not only in terms of the matters under consideration, but how we address the matters under consideration as well.

I'm grateful to Lee Walters and to Adam Price for the opportunity to discuss these matters with them. It was through these discussions—although I accept total responsibility for the amendment—that the idea came that perhaps we would look towards not simply addressing deliberate deception in the way that Adam Price described in our last conversation on this matter, but to look at the wider areas of behaviour and the wider ways in which candidates for office, candidates for a place here, conduct their campaigns and conduct themselves. In that way, it's very much addressing some of the issues that Sioned Williams addressed in previous contributions this evening.

What this seeks to do is to ensure that we have a standards process in place and a framework that not only exists from the point at which we are elected, but the point at which we are formally nominated. Normally, we are nominated for a period of four weeks, and throughout that period it is possible to envisage some of the issues that Sioned Williams described earlier. It is also possible to envisage behaviours that would lead to serious concerns and to censure, had those behaviours been exhibited by a Member