National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon and welcome to this Plenary meeting. The first item is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Cabinet Office, and the first question is from Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Borrowing is considered as part of the budget process to determine overall capital spending as opposed to funding specific projects. Over £1.4 billion has been allocated to develop social housing this term and over £132 million of loans were issued to the sector in 2024-25 to enable delivery of more homes.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. It strikes me as being strange that you haven't considered using the borrowing powers that you have for purposes such as building social housing. You will be aware that I raised this issue last week with the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, Local Government and Planning.

Now, housing associations currently have to borrow a great deal of money at very high interest rates, and they are therefore finding it difficult to pay that money and interest back. We also know that the Government finds it difficult to achieve its targets of building social homes because of the inflation in house construction. So, something like £150 million would make a substantial difference to their ability to build homes in Wales. It is strange, therefore, that you haven't considered using these powers, considering the fact that, in using money to build social housing, you could pay that money back through inflation in rent. So, given that context and the housing crisis that we are facing, will you consider using your powers to borrow money in order to provide it to housing associations or directly to build social housing in Wales?

Apologies if I wasn't clear in my original answer. I think there might have been something lost in translation there in the sense that the Welsh Government borrows and we always look to borrow the maximum amount, but we look to borrow towards our overall capital projects. So, we don't borrow for specific projects; we borrow to enable us to have a larger capital budget from which to draw on for the whole range of projects and initiatives that we support on the capital side of things. For that reason, for the last financial year, we borrowed the full £150 million. In the end, we only ended up borrowing £125 million due to year-end changes. And it's been the late changes to our capital budget that have enabled us to think differently about our approach to capital in recent years in any case. So, for the most recent years, I've been over-programming the Welsh Government's budget by £100 million because of those late year-end changes. And that did enable us in 2022-23 to borrow the full £150 million and, in 2023-24, £125 million. And that, as I say, was in response to the fact that we get, quite often, large amounts of capital at the end of the financial year, which makes borrowing something that we don't need to do in the end. So, we always plan to borrow the maximum; we don't borrow for specific projects.

But, that said, I absolutely recognise the importance of ensuring that the registered social landlords sector does have access to low-cost loans for development. And that's one of the reasons why we've used borrowing routes to support registered social landlords to deliver more homes. Last year, for example, we issued £62 million of low-cost loans to registered social landlords across Wales. So far, another £16 million is approved to issue in this financial year. And this loan funding across 2023-24 and 2024-25 will deliver 220 additional low-carbon homes for rent in the social sector and bring 22 voids back into use in this term of Government, as well as accelerating the delivery of seven new-build sites, delivering a minimum of 86 social rent homes in the next term of government. So, we always seek to borrow the absolute maximum and spend our capital to the best effect, but then, also, we look to innovative ways to support the sector as well.

The housing crisis is one of the biggest challenges we face as a nation, and every year that passes without drastic action is another year of homes becoming more unaffordable and more unavailable, unfortunately. And whilst I agree that urgent action is needed to rapidly accelerate the construction of social housing and private housing too for those on middle and low incomes, I do not think that leaving more debt to our children is the way we deal with the shortage of housing we have right now. The Welsh Conservatives put our housing plan before the Senedd in February, which covered many bases, such as measures to speed up planning approval and to make the use of more than 100,000 vacant, unoccupied dwellings in Wales, including numerous unused public-owned properties and public-owned land. The Welsh Government should consider a support scheme to enable small and medium-sized enterprises to build social housing, whilst providing public-owned land for this purpose. This is something that has been championed by my esteemed colleague Janet Finch-Saunders, the Member of the Senedd for Aberconwy. In the late 1980s, SMEs were responsible for 40 per cent of all homes built in Britain, but recent figures from 2020 are closer to 10 per cent. So, could the Cabinet Secretary outline what financial support the Welsh Government is offering to small and medium-sized house builders for the purpose of building more social housing? Thank you.

So, this would be a matter for my colleague the Minister for housing. She would have more access to the particular detail that you require. But I think the point that you made about land for housing was very pertinent. In 2023-24, loans of nearly £40 million were awarded to RSLs, and they'll be able then to facilitate the delivery of up to 2,254 homes, of which 82 per cent will be affordable homes. And a total of £89 million has been invested in our land for housing scheme since its inception in 2014-15. That funding is recycled when the loans are repaid, to provide for new loans. To date, £287 million of loans have been made, which facilitate the delivery of up to 8,000 new homes, of which 81 per cent will be affordable. And crucially, to date, interest charged on the loans for affordable housing has been at 0 per cent, with a commercial rate charged for the market housing unit. So, as I say, we are trying to find innovative ways to support the housing sector, and I think I've given a couple of examples of those, which are being led by my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for housing, this afternoon.

We have a clear policy and strategy for acquiring, managing and disposing of property assets. The principal aim is to maximise overall value from our assets. Our property portfolio is an important resource for supporting economic growth, health and well-being, as well as protecting and enhancing the environment and biodiversity.

Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. When the Welsh Government is planning major development, major infrastructure improvement, for example, to our rail network, does the Welsh Government look ahead and consider acquiring land that's alongside such development, which would be more useful following the development that's planned? Does the Welsh Government consider that its powers of compulsory purchase are adequate, or are there issues around the cost and the time involved? And do those issues extend to local government partners as well? Would the Cabinet Secretary like to see improvements to the use of those powers?

Thank you for the question this afternoon. Perhaps it helps give me an opportunity, then, to clarify my role in relation to the acquisition, management and disposal of property assets. So, my role is very much in terms of the corporate asset management strategy, which I'm responsible for. And then, of course, it's my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for economy who's responsible for the Welsh Government's economic portfolio and the strategy that relates to the acquisition of properties in that space. So, perhaps I'll ask him to write to John Griffiths with a bit more detail in respect of the strategy for the acquisition of land alongside railways, and the approach to the compulsory purchase, and the way in which we work with local government on that, because, I'm afraid, it's not in my portfolio area and I want to give a proper answer, which I'm not able to do today.

Cabinet Secretary, a significant number of properties were snapped up by the Welsh Government, and Ministers were looking to build the M4 relief road, which I'm sure everyone can remember. Thirty properties, in fact, were purchased by the Government, with an extra six inherited from a predecessor body; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that's 36 properties in total. Now, Labour's properties shopping spree cost the Welsh Government, and, ultimately, the Welsh taxpayer, more than £15.4 million. As we all know, the much-needed infrastructure project was axed—wrongly, in my personal opinion—back in 2019. Five years on from that decision, just seven of the properties owned by the Welsh Government have been sold. So, given that the project has been shelved, I think that most people will find it baffling that the Government hasn't done more to shift these properties. So, Cabinet Secretary, what exactly is the Government's plans for these properties? And if the intention is to, indeed, sell them all, what proactive steps is the Government taking to market them, dispose of them and make a profit in the interest of Welsh taxpayers, so that this money can in fact be invested elsewhere? Thank you.

Well, our policy and our strategy for the disposal of surplus property is clear that, when a property is no longer required to deliver against a policy area, it should be offered to other departments and then more widely to public sector partners before being marketed commercially. And that ensures that we're delivering the best possible value for money against all policy areas. So, that's our overall approach. 

But in specific relation to the sites acquired for the M4 proposals, I do know that advice will be shortly submitted to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, and also the Cabinet Secretary for North Wales and Transport, for approval in respect of the future use of those properties.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Peter Fox. 

Diolch, Llywydd, and good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. Cabinet Secretary, at Stage 2 of the Local Government Finance (Wales) Bill last week, I sought to protect the single-person 25 per cent discount. For all of the issues with council tax that are well-rehearsed, the one positive constant for so many was the reassurance that the single-person discount would help recognise the financial pressures for many people living on their own. Many of these people, as we know, are often widows or widowers, who will find life hard enough. The single persons discount is fundamentally important to so many. With this in mind, Cabinet Secretary, why did Labour MSs vote against enshrining the single-person council tax discount in law?

The first thing to do is to recognise the importance of the single-person discount, and just to reassure anybody who takes an interest in the Welsh Conservatives' social media or, indeed, is watching this afternoon, the single-person discount isn't going anywhere. We have been absolutely clear that we will restate the single-person discount at 25 per cent in regulations, as is the appropriate way to deal with discounts under the framework of the Bill that we now are scrutinising. 

It's also important to recognise that point about a person's council tax being a combination of two things. So, it's partly about the property, but then also partly about the occupants of that property, because we are acutely aware that, in many circumstances, people might be in a high-value property but might be a single person, on a single salary, for example. And that's why around 0.5 million households in Wales have access to the single-person discount, and it's not going anywhere.

Well, I'm pleased you've said that. It's a shame that couldn't have been cemented at Stage 2 last week. Cabinet Secretary, I raised with you previously the explanatory memorandum for the Bill, where it mentions twice that the Bill will allow Ministers the power to allow councils to disapply or reduce discounts. This means that local authorities will have the discretion to maintain the offer of the single-person discount or not. I know that, at the time, I think you disputed that the memorandum allowed for that discretion to be afforded councils. It is on page 90 of the memorandum, and it's highlighted there in bold. So, Cabinet Secretary, with this provision remaining in the Bill, can you rule out any council eliminating the single-person council tax discount under your plans that effectively allow them to do so?

So, the approach to discounts, disregards and exemptions, as set out in the Bill, in terms of the powers for local authorities, just simply restates the existing position in terms of the ability for authorities to make changes. Equally, a local authority can reduce a household's liability to zero if it thinks it is the appropriate thing to do. So, I'm confident that local authorities will continue with the 25 per cent, as we will set out in regulations following the passage of the Bill, which I hope will be passed through the Senedd with support.

Well, thank you for that. It still doesn't give me confidence that some authorities won't disapply it. Now, I can't understand why they would dream of that, because it is so fundamentally important, as we all seem to agree. And that's why it seems ironic that we would look to create legislation that undermines that thing that we all feel is so valuable. 

Cabinet Secretary, it seems that your colleagues in UK Labour are appearing to rule out council tax changes in England, recognising the uproar that this would likely produce. Do you think that UK Labour were spooked by the completely understandable reaction to your plans to hike bills for thousands and thousands the length and breadth of Wales, and the public resistance to this? I know your plans are being moved forward to 2028, and I'm sure that is probably due to pressure from your UK parliamentary colleagues, but are you in Welsh Labour reconsidering your position, recognising the impact your plans would have on so many people, despite the Bill still moving forward?

So, just to be clear, the purpose of council tax reform is not about hiking bills for people across Wales, it's about making sure that council tax is fairer. Council tax at the moment is based on property values from decades ago, and I think that all of us would recognise that that inherently is unfair, and that the system does need to be modernised. But in doing so, we have to look at ways in which to make the system even more fair. So, one of the things that we looked at in our consultation was to look at not only the pace of reform, but the scale of reform. We looked at, for example, introducing higher bands at the top end of the property values for those who can most afford it, but then also, crucially, an additional band at the very bottom to ensure that those people on the lowest incomes, potentially, who are living in the least valuable properties, are protected as well. So, this really is about making council tax fairer. 

Now, based on the Institute of Fiscal Studies figures, which looked at the previous proposals that we've put forward, the majority of properties would either see no real change in their bills, by which I mean around positive or negative £50 a year, or they would see a decrease in the bills. So, I think that this, really, is about making council tax fair. I don't think that we can ignore the fact that it is not a progressive tax, and it does need to be addressed. And, actually, I would disagree that there's been an uproar about the council tax proposals. Actually, they've been warmly welcomed. They've been warmly welcomed by those organisations who care deeply about social justice, for example Citizens Advice, dealing every single day with people who are struggling the most. They recognise that council tax reform is one of the ways in which we can support and protect the most vulnerable people, which, surely, should be in all of our interests. 

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Heledd Fychan. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The Labour general election manifesto contains the following line on powers over post-EU funding: 

'Labour will restore decision-making over the allocation of structural funds to the representatives of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.'

Could the Cabinet Secretary explain what is her understanding of the term 'representatives' in this context? 

My understanding is that which the leader of the UK Labour Party presented to our Welsh Labour conference, when he said powers would be restored to the Senedd and to the Welsh Government. So, we absolutely expect to be taking the decisions in respect of the allocation of funding in future. It's important to recognise that, prior to the situation we find ourselves in now, where it's Whitehall departments seeking to distribute a reduced amount of funding following the exit from the European Union, of course, we operated within that EU context. We had the Commission setting out the parameters in that kind of sense. So, I think that a UK-wide framework is something that we should absolutely be looking to. 

And I think that there's been very good work that has been undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which sets out a way in which we could deal with regional economic development funds in future. And it's something we've engaged with a lot. Prior to leaving the European Union, we undertook a huge piece of listening work and engagement work with organisations, from business to farming, and communities, and everywhere in between, setting out how we might look at investment of replacement funding in future. And, unfortunately, the UK Government's approach to structural fund replacement has been completely different. But we absolutely see us getting back into that space, really, where we have the opportunities to make a real difference for people right here in Wales. 

Thank you for that response. But I'm sure you'll agree with me that terminology is crucial here. 'Representatives' does not say 'the Welsh Government'. Would you agree that it's unfortunate that that's not the wording, and seek clarification on that? Because, obviously, every word is analysed and 'representatives of' is not how some people interpret it, including the shadow Secretary of Wales, who presents a very different vision, one in which the UK Government continues to exercise control over how post-EU funding is spent in Wales. She's been very clear in interviews that she has no intention of righting this wrong. So, I do think 'the representatives' is problematic in your manifesto, because, despite what you've said today, and despite what the First Minister has said, in terms of those commitments, that's not what's actually in the manifesto. Can I ask, once again, for your clarification? Who's correct in terms of that interpretation, yourself and the First Minister, or is it the shadow Secretary of State? And if the latter is the case, who will have the final say if there is a difference of opinion on where funding is allocated in Wales? Will it be the Welsh Labour Government or the UK Labour Government?

I had the opportunity to meet with the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury this morning and we were talking about what happens following a potential change in the UK Government. What are the top priority areas that we want to have really early discussions on? And the future of EU funding, as we still call it, was absolutely up there as one of the things that we need to be having those early discussions about. I was talking about the work that the OECD has done, our approach to that kind of framework and so on. So, I think that we do need to have those very, very early discussions, assuming that there would be, hopefully, a change of Government, to perhaps provide a lot more detail and a lot more clarity to people, which I know is very much desired.

Thank you. So, you're confident, then, that 'representatives' means Welsh Government and that the shadow Secretary of State for Wales is incorrect. That's my interpretation. 

Another glaring omission in a manifesto that already promises so little for Wales is a commitment to replace the unfair Barnett formula that leaves us short-changed year on year. There is an acknowledgement that these funding arrangements are outdated, but no clear commitment. And this issue assumes even greater significance when we consider the fact that the likes of the IFS have sounded warning signals for several weeks that the incoming UK Labour Government is not being straight about the implications of their agenda on UK public finances. Indeed, Labour's spending plans for Government fully align with two central tenets of Tory fiscal policy: that debt as a proportion of gross domestic product should fall within five years, and that there will be no increases in taxation. A sizeable hole in the UK's public finances is therefore baked into Labour's agenda for Government, which can only mean one thing: more public spending cuts. 

I know, Cabinet Secretary, that we share a common goal of wanting to restore Welsh public finances to where they should be, which includes a desire to see this Senedd properly funded according to the needs of our population, but will you write to your UK Labour leader as a matter of urgency to clarify how his spending cuts might affect Wales and call on his Government to ring-fence Wales's block grant funding through the next UK parliamentary term?

I don't think anyone's under any illusions—any new Government is going to be inheriting an extremely difficult situation, and still dealing with the fallout of Liz Truss's disastrous mini budget, for example. That's one of the reasons I'm so pleased to see the Labour manifesto including a commitment not to undertake a large fiscal event without having up-to-date Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts. It seems obvious to most of us, but not obvious to the Conservatives, and we're all still living with the results of that now.

Fair funding for Wales is obviously going to continue to be absolutely beyond a top priority for us as a Welsh Government. It's something that we will continue to press for. Our own vision is that set out in 'Securing Wales' Future', whereby we would have a UK-wide agreed new approach to funding, which would be, again, needs based and so on. I know that we have some nuances in our differences, but actually we share a lot of common ground in terms of how we would prefer to see Wales funded in future, and we'll continue to make those arguments. 

We are committed to ending all forms of homelessness and are investing almost £220 million in homelessness prevention and support services this year. This includes over £7 million specifically targeted at early identification of youth homelessness and assistance to help young people develop the life skills to live independently.

The End Youth Homelessness Cymru report, 'Youth Homelessness Through the Lens of Neurodiversity', launched at the Senedd on 17 April, states:

'Too often we overlook young people who have a mix of adversity and neurodiversity in their lives.' 

As its conclusion notes:

'At the core of neurodiversity is the understanding that not one person is the same...when we take for granted that everyone else thinks the way we do—that is when problems arise.'

How, therefore, would you respond to the report's recommendation that local authorities should work with and support local neurodiversity-specific organisations, and consult them on the matters concerning local authority services and their accessibility for neurodivergent individuals?

Funding should be made available to those organisations to provide support and outreach to neurodivergent young people, where the report also states:

'Prevention is always more effective than having to deal with a multitude of individual problems which arise further down a young person’s path'.

So, again, that would probably be a question best asked to my colleague the Minister for housing, but I'll absolutely recognise the important messages that you've given there in respect of the importance of understanding neurodiversity and the importance of ensuring that staff are appropriately trained to communicate with people who are neurodiverse. And, equally, ensuring that young people have access to the right kind of property, based on their own personal needs as well. And for neurodiverse people, they might have particular needs, in terms of location or in terms of even the way in which a property is furnished, for example.

So, I absolutely recognise all of those really important points that have been made, and I would hope that, through some of the investment that we've made, such as our youth homelessness innovation fund, we might be able to explore issues such as that. So, we're currently funding over 20 projects, providing new and innovative housing and support approaches to young people, and that's very much about meeting young people where they are, recognising their needs, and appropriately responding to them, rather than trying to expect young people just to fit in with what we have available for them.

I have met with the Wales Tourism Alliance and other stakeholders on several occasions about the visitor levy, through consultation events and the visitor economy forum. Officials meet monthly with stakeholders from the tourism industry, including the Wales Tourism Alliance, to discuss the implementation of a visitor levy.

I think if you were to be absolutely honest with us here today, it is fair to say that those organisations are not actually just taking it as read that this is going to come through and that they're happy with it. Indeed, your own tourism survey response on bringing forward this initiative, we know, was widely criticised, and the figures actually said, 'No, we don't want the tourism tax', but you press ahead.

Now, the WTA chairman has said:

'Not only will it make the industry less competitive, sending out a perception that Wales will be a more expensive destination to visit, but businesses are already struggling to bounce back...from the pandemic.'

Wales is still down 13 per cent on 2019 when it comes to visitor numbers, and now 70 per cent of visitors say they will consider going elsewhere if there is to be a tax. Is this tax really going to help Wales's economic value recover?

All along you've mentioned your consultation, but as the WTA has said:

'Rather than proposing a new tax',

we as well as those organisations are saying,

'the Welsh Government should be focusing on financial support to help the sector.'

Plaid Cymru and Welsh Labour—

You need to come to a question now.

—have slashed the 75 per cent business rate relief. That's another knock. What is it about the Welsh Labour Government that you will not work with these businesses? What can you say, Cabinet Secretary, that will bring my constituency tourism businesses some hope?

Well, the first thing to do is to recognise the concerns of the sector, particularly the Wales Tourism Alliance. And, as I say, I've met with them. I'm in frequent correspondence with the WTA, but they are also very much engaged with the monthly meetings that we have, in terms of working through the practicalities of what a visitor levy might look like here in Wales. It's also important to recognise the breadth of the consultation that we've undertaken. So, local authorities, for example—some are very interested in a tourism levy and what that might mean to enable them to support sustainable tourism. And the point of the tourism levy is to have sustainable tourism in Wales to ensure that people have the opportunity to contribute to those areas where they've stayed.

The international evidence, and even looking across at Manchester, for example—I just don't think it bears out the concerns that the industry will be very negatively effected in that kind of way, because the evidence does suggest that these areas, not only continue to thrive, but also have additional funding to invest in their tourism offer. And many of us will have had the opportunity to travel to places where we've paid the tourism levy, and I don't think any of us would say that that put us off and would make us not return to those areas in future. Wales has an awful lot to offer tourists, and we absolutely welcome them. I think sustainable tourism is really, really important to ensure that that offer is still there for the years to come as well.

As part of developing and delivering any Welsh Government grant scheme, grant managers consider how schemes would be administered to ensure the purpose of the grant funding is effective and as efficient as it can be. Administration arrangements should be proportionate and appropriate to the level of risk.

Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. A number of organisations in my constituency have benefited from Welsh Government grants over the years. In my discussions with them, they've always welcomed improvements to the administration of the grants process, which has made things far easier and sped up access to much-needed funding in the Cynon valley. How is the Welsh Government ensuring that best practice is being disseminated to partner organisations so that other funding programmes can also be improved?

This is a really important issue, and I've taken a lot of interest in grant administration since I came into portfolio. We of course now have our Welsh Government grants centre of excellence, which is always looking to support officials here to find ways to improve the grants process to be more efficient and effective, but also we want to use that centre of excellence's expertise and knowledge to share with local government, for example, so that they're able to pass on that kind of knowledge and share that knowledge, and learn from local government as well about the issues that they're facing in administration. One thing, also, that we've done fairly recently is introduce what's called the longer duration of funding and benchmarking policy, and that was in recognition of the concerns, particularly from the third sector, that grants would be sometimes, or often, based on a one-year basis. That just didn't give them enough time to put the right staff in, and to keep those staff for longer terms and so on. It couldn't let them plan ahead. So, for those reasons, we've introduced a situation where grant managers can offer grants for up to five years now, and also they can roll those grants over, subject to appropriate benchmarking and so on.

So, I think that we have been able to at least change the policy to make the system better. What we now need to see is that policy that we've changed feeding through, really, into changes in the administration of grants, but then also to try and encourage local government in the first instance to provide grants to the third sector on that same basis, so for local government to be looking at, potentially, five-year grants and rolling over grants based on benchmarking and so on. So, we have written previously to local government on that, and I've mentioned it to them in several meetings. I think we're still early days, really, in terms of the progress that we can make in this agenda. There's definitely more to go at. But I think that now we have the right policy in place to make those changes for the longer term.

We agree with the commission's finding that legal aid funding cuts threaten the existence of traditional high-street law firms, and that people are now forced to represent themselves in civil and criminal courts. This often results in unjust outcomes, inefficient use of court resources and additional pressures on other public services.

It certainly slows down the process when people are having to have it explained what is involved in a legal process. As it points out, this really does get in the way of people's right to justice, because how is it possible that women involved in a contested divorce, even without children being involved, are having to face up, possibly with no money to employ a lawyer, against somebody who will employ an expensive barrister?

Now, the commission report commended the Welsh Government for topping up the advice services to fill part of the gaping hole in these legal aid budgets, but it also pointed out that if justice were devolved to Wales it would be a lot easier to align advice services with legal aid. So, perhaps you could raise that with the new incumbents in the Treasury after 4 July, where the top 50 most powerful people in the UK are concentrated. Whilst those powers remain reserved, what more can be done to improve advice services for those who face this power imbalance in the courts, based on the amount of money they're able to spend on lawyers?

The Commission on Justice in Wales identified that access to justice is, as you suggested, really severely compromised following the cuts that were introduced under legal aid, and, of course, UK Government is responsible for legal aid, but we recognise the gap that there is and the impact that that's having on people. So, through our single advice fund, we're able to provide support, and £11 million is allocated to that to ensure that the most vulnerable people in society do have that access to free advice and support to help them resolve their housing welfare benefit debt and money manage problems, for example.

I know Jenny Rathbone's a keen supporter of the Cardiff Speakeasy Law Centre, and I think that they have been able to access funding through the single advice fund as well. I think that's an absolutely critical fund for supporting people, but it's very difficult to make the kind of level of change that we would want to make, given what's quite a severe impact that the changes have had, and I know that the Public Accounts Committee report and the National Audit Office report have both, really, said that it's almost hard to understand the impact, because the analysis hasn't really been done, but I think they're both convinced, really, that the impact has been very negative on people and their ability to access justice.

The Thomas commission had mentioned deserts in terms of legal aid in rural Wales and in post-industrial Wales, and evidence shows that the erosion in the provision of legal aid that has seen since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act around 15 years ago has had a greater impact on Wales than any other place. So, in that context, is the Cabinet Secretary disappointed that there was a promise to restore the cuts in terms of legal aid in the previous Labour manifesto in 2019, and that same promise isn't there in the current manifesto? Doesn't that make the argument for devolving the power even more strong?

So, I look forward to having those further discussions in relation to the future devolution of justice here in Wales, and I think that the absence—as it is at the moment—of funding for legal aid certainly demonstrates one of the reasons. However, given the finance aspect of my portfolio, I am really keen that, when we have further things devolved to Wales, they're absolutely devolved with the level of funding that is required to sustain a decent service as a result of that, and that's something that I'm very keen to pursue through all of those discussions, which I hope that we'll be having very shortly with what I hope will be a different UK Government. But I did have the chance to meet with Lord Thomas—I think it was last week or the week before—to talk through some of these issues, and he remains very complimentary about the work that we are doing here in Wales through the single advice fund and seeking to plug those gaps. But I know that he was very aware yet of those deserts where people don't have access to advice and he was very keen for us to continue our work in that space and to explore what more we might be able to do.

I continue to make the case to the UK Government for increased borrowing powers for Wales. The Welsh Government has long supported a move to prudential borrowing. This would provide a more appropriate level of flexibility and enable this Senedd to approve the Welsh Government's borrowing levels, rather than HM Treasury.

Thank you for your response. The amount of capital borrowing devolved was last increased in 2019, which is a long time ago. Public services such as health, housing, education and public transport are the building blocks of our economy, and there is no way to grow the economy without providing proper investment in these. Gross domestic product debt after world war two was actually double what is now, yet the Attlee Government borrowed thousands—well, hundreds and thousands of pounds to invest; millions—to build hundreds and thousands of houses, to invest in housing and health, and they actually transformed the country, and we're still reaping the benefits today with our NHS service and our council housing programme. Wales desperately needs increased prudential borrowing powers to make transformational investments in these areas. With this in mind, Minister—Cabinet Secretary—would you commit to requesting full prudential borrowing powers of any incoming UK Labour—Labour Government—any incoming UK Government? Sorry, I was being presumptuous there.

Yes. So, we continue to make the case for prudential borrowing. We think it's not only important to give us the flexibility that we need to invest in infrastructure, but also to give this Senedd the opportunity to take a view and to vote through and to agree those borrowing plans as well. So, I think that there's an important point there. We're also really keen, at least in the first instance, to make some progress on ensuring that the borrowing powers that we do have are up to date at least. So, at the moment, we would like to see our borrowing powers increased in line with inflation since the time that they were set and then to continue to increase in line with inflation every year, because they're worth 23 per cent less this year than they were at the time that they were set.

Crucially, if we don't have the kind of general capital that we need to invest, then borrowing is really important in order to enable us to make the kind of investment that we would want to make, and capital is very, very much in short supply at the moment. Our budget is 8 per cent lower this year in terms of capital funding, and that's starting from a very low point in any case. That's one of the reasons why we have looked to innovative funding models; the mutual investment model, for example, has enabled us to undertake capital investment or infrastructure investment when we wouldn't have been able to before. So, I think that combination of trying to be as innovative as we can but then also having the tools that we need will stand us in good stead.

Just to finish by saying that I'm really pleased that the UK Labour Party has in its manifesto a 10-year infrastructure strategy aligned with the industrial strategy and regional development priorities. I think that discussions about that will be really important to understand what that might mean for consequential funding for us here in Wales.

Having endorsed the commission's recommendations in full, we allocated additional resources to this important agenda in the 2024-25 budget. Preparatory work is well under way, and I will keep the Senedd updated on key developments.

Cabinet Secretary, it's been five months now since the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales published its final report, and it's been more than three months since the Welsh Government published its response to the commission's report, accepting all of its recommendations, both individually and as a package. Now, the commission was quite clear on the urgency with which these recommendations need to be implemented, but we've heard nothing further from you on this for weeks now, so I'm concerned that you may be failing to take the action needed at the pace required. Now, we know, of course, that senior members of your party have consistently and explicitly ruled out delivering against the commission's recommendations, including on devolving policing and justice, railways and the Crown Estate, and on fairer funding for Wales. So, given that your party bosses in London are so openly hostile to them, will you outline, please, precisely how the Welsh Government is working to implement the constitutional commission's recommendations on strengthening our democracy, protecting devolution and securing further powers for Wales, and the timelines you're working to?

To just begin by reassuring my colleague that I am absolutely giving this the priority it deserves within my portfolio, one of the first things that I did was to seek those meetings with the former co-chairs of the commission, Professor Laura McAllister and Bishop Rowan Williams, to discuss the issues arising from their report. I've also met with Gareth Williams, who chaired the commission's expert panel, and also with Dr Anwen Elias, who was a member of the commission and has specific expertise on issues of democratic engagement, and also with Philip Rycroft, a former commissioner who's got expertise in inter-governmental relations.

I've been looking particularly at the first recommendations, which were specifically for the Welsh Government. The first, of course, was around democratic innovation, and the recommendation there was that we should draw on an expert advisory panel, so I'm currently making some final choices, if you like, in respect of that panel, which will help us move forward in relation to the space of democratic innovation. That really is about inclusive engagement and community work here in Wales, which is why the meeting I had with Dr Anwen Elias was so important in helping shape my thoughts as to how that particular recommendation might be met in future, because it does call for a new strategy specific to education to be a priority for the work. And I will obviously have to work very closely with my colleague the Minister for housing and local government, who has a specific and particular interest in diversity and democracy. All of these pieces of work do come together.

I've had some good discussions about constitutional principles, exploring what other countries have done in terms of their approach to constitution and governance principles in their nations, to understand what we might be able to learn here in Wales and what might be appropriate for us here in Wales. And, of course, a third recommendation for us as a Senedd was very much about Senedd reform and we've absolutely been making some good progress on that, as well. So, there is definitely progress happening, but I will seek to provide a further update to colleagues once I've finalised my thoughts around that advisory group, which was a key recommendation from the commission.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item will be questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs. The first question is from Sioned Williams.

Thank you, Sioned, for that question. We have a range of tools in place, including impact assessments, to help consider how projects might impact the local environment and, of course, citizens. Through the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, we can deliver for people now, protect the environment and leave a positive legacy behind for future generations.

Diolch. The Welsh Government has backed building a multimillion-pound cable car and zipline attraction in Swansea, which would, according to local people, trash a beloved and well-used green space in the city. The plan, by Skyline Enterprises Ltd, on Kilvey Hill, and backed by the Welsh Government to the tune of £4 million, will also cause a loss of wildlife, according to members of the local community. Kilvey Hill is a peaceful community woodland and those who are opposing the plans say that it would take away this very valued green space in a part of the city that is lacking in such spaces. The Open Spaces Society, Britain's oldest conservation body, has backed the local campaign to save Kilvey Hill from the possible detrimental environmental effects of the plan. So, how is the Welsh Government ensuring that their investment in this project will not result in detriment to wildlife and woodland and, more broadly, to the availability of green spaces in urban areas?

Thank you, Sioned. Being born and raised in Gowerton, I know Kilvey Hill and the area very well indeed, and I've walked up there and been in the neighbouring areas as well, when my sons have been playing rugby close by in the community.

It is important that local people's voices are heard, but from a Welsh Government perspective, which you rightly focus on, it's worth expanding a little bit on what we do in terms of our assessments. It's difficult for me to comment in detail on any individual application, because, clearly, this has to work its way through and Cabinet Secretaries, at some point, may be part of decision making on individual applications in different parts of Wales.

But in terms of the integrated impact assessment, there is a wide range of topics that can be considered with this, such as the local environment and questions about the impact on people's lives who may be affected by changes in the local environment. It looks at it through a number of lenses, including biodversity, natural resources, habitat and climate change, including decarbonisation and climate resilience. It does pose questions about the impact on communities and sustainable land management, and also, even—although not specifically or particularly in terms of Kilvey Hill—it focuses on issues to do with, for example, Welsh language impact assessments, equality impact assessments, children's rights, socioeconomic assessments, and so on. So, it's quite thorough. It does also look at what the impact will be on habitats, and whether that has a local application.

As I say, I can't comment in detail on a specific application, but I thank you for raising it here in the Chamber today, on behalf of local residents, and it is important that their voices are heard as well, on any scheme, not just the Kilvey Hill one, but any one throughout Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, it is not just the projects that the Welsh Government funds directly that we should be concerned about, but also those funded by grants and loans. For example, a registered social landlord in receipt of numerous Welsh Government grants is pressing ahead with plans to destroy a unique habitat, home to many species of rare flora and fauna, to build social housing. In order to mitigate the habitat loss, they propose to provide an alternative plot of land.

'Why don't they use the alternative plot of land for housing?', I hear you ask. Because it's more expensive to build houses there, so the rare species will have to find alternative accommodation instead. How can this be allowed to happen in a nature emergency? Therefore, Cabinet Secretary, will you commit to ensuring that any organisation in receipt of public funding, whether directly or in the form of a grant or loan from a public authority, practices what the Welsh Government preaches, and protects nature and biodiversity at all costs? Thank you.  

Thank you again for that follow-up question. Again, I can't comment in detail on a matter that's local, and I know that you understand that fully. But we would expect them—whether it was a registered social landlord or a local authority, or anybody else, frankly, bringing forward a scheme—to have to go through the full, proper planning process, the full, proper environmental impact assessments, and to engage with the community as well, in proper consultation and dialogue.

But at some point, as always, Llywydd, some of these may inevitably be lifted up to Cabinet Secretaries and the Welsh Government to look at, so I can't comment in detail. But you are right in what you say: the multiple impacts of developments do need to be considered at the pre-consultation stage, during consultation with communities, when applications come through as well, and ultimately, if they are lifted up to us, so that we can do our proper assessment as well, if any of these projects do come forward.

But I am adamant that, in all of these, the voices of local communities have to be heard. Also, we need to make sure that, from my perspective as Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, those issues of biodiversity, the local environment and climate resilience are also taken into account. So, thank you for raising it, again on behalf of local people. You have made sure that their voices are once again heard. 

In my constituency, I have seen how the programmes and projects that the Welsh Government supports can have a really positive impact on nature and on people, as people get more access to nature and green spaces in places where it's harder to find. One brilliant example is the Hirwaun school community growing project, where people of all ages come together to learn about growing their own food. Cabinet Secretary, what do you think of the impact that the Local Places for Nature programme has had on nature and on local communities? 

Vikki, thank you for that question. In looking at some of the difficulties in judging the merits of bringing forward various things, we are clearly doing a tremendous amount through schemes such as Local Places for Nature, and these are particularly impactful, very much on local communities. I have seen them in my own area, and you will have seen them as well. Some of the ones within the Cynon Valley at the moment echo the ones with me.

I have been to see the ones in my own patch, for example, Ogmore Vale fire station, where they've worked with the local community to develop planting around a piece of semi-derelict land. Tremendous. It means that people can go and sit there now and, on raised beds, can take their children, enjoy the flowers, enjoy the scents—a proper multisensory experience as well. And it's the fire station and a piece of formerly derelict land.

In the Cynon Valley, I know that Abercynon fire station has got a starter package doing a similar wildlife initiative. Trivallis has been working on a wildlife garden. Cynon Valley Organic Adventures has got a package of sustainable drainage for nature that it is working on. St Winifred's Church is working on a pollinator garden, and there's so much more. Ysbyty Cwm Cynon is doing a butterfly garden. Aberdare primary school is doing an urban garden. Caradog Primary School is doing a wildlife initiative as well.

There are so many going on, and I would encourage all Members to look to their own community, and how a little bit of funding and a bit of collaborative partnership working on the ground, through the Local Places for Nature scheme, go a long, long way.

Thank you, Sam. On 28 November, the Welsh Government published our agri-tech action plan. The plan sets out a vision to support the sector to be profitable, efficient and sustainable, while exploiting the potential of agri-tech.

Thank you for your response, Cabinet Secretary. Llywydd, of course, increasing the use of technology is absolutely essential to our farmers, to help them increase yields and keep doing the vital work in providing food for our nation. I'm pleased to hear of the work you shared there from 28 November.

I recently held a meeting with Ekogea Agri Ltd regarding farm slurry and potential agriculture biotech solutions, which I know my colleague Mabon ap Gwynfor has shared some detail with you on. They're a north-Wales based biotech and engineering company, and they describe themselves as providing circular solutions in the agricultural and energy sectors, particularly around slurry dewatering, and also around anaerobic digestion. It's companies like this, who have their own finance—they're not looking for money from Welsh Government, which I'm sure is welcome at the moment—and they're looking to invest around £2.5 billion over 10 sites over the coming years, but what they need is the licensing and permissions from Welsh Government to enable them to have this investment and see technology improve in our farming. So, I wonder what Welsh Government can do to expedite that engagement with companies like this here in Wales, so we can see its innovation being used to boost our farmers.

Sam, it's such a good question, because we need to stop looking upon agricultural products such as slurry as a burden and a problem to manage, and actually look at the potential that we can use them and turn them into useful products. I've had so many discussions with farmers on their farms, but also with those who are involved in these sort of initiatives, actually, to say, 'Well, how can we do it?', and sometimes without Government funding. Government funding is not the answer to everything; it's actually the innovation there. I have been pleased to hear about that potential, and I'd be keen to see how we can assist projects like that going forward, including with licensing and so on. So, I'm happy to have further discussions.

Just to say, in terms of agri-pollution and agri-tech, as you may know, we're continuing to provide support for innovative projects at the moment with Coleg Sir Gâr. We have the Tywi Farm Nutrient Partnership as well, the TFNP, which was a Smart Expertise funded collaboration between Coleg Sir Gâr and various industry partners, and it was looking at ways of not just reducing pollution and nutrient loss, but also recirculation of those nutrients on the farm—so, not having to take them off, not having to shift them. And also under Smart Expertise, the project was awarded a grant of £839,000, which was matched with equivalent private sector investment, and this is the way we need to look at it: how you can bring these forward together sometimes, with a bit of public funding, and a bit of the private investment as well. That has made progress towards the development of a fertiliser product with potential benefits for slurry storage. So, these projects have real potential to help farms manage their slurry in a way that is better for the farm business, reduces the environmental risks and creates opportunities—business opportunities.

We are considering, Sam, alternative measures to take forward, to see if we can take them forward as part of the four-year review of agricultural pollution regulations, including, by the way, those that relate to the use of innovative technology. So, we're actively considering how we take these forward.

I'm chair of the Senedd cross-party group on universities—

—so I'm particularly interested in how technology and innovation can support young people entering the workplace in the agricultural sector to help drive efficiency. So, how is the Welsh Government helping people work with the latest technology, before they start in the workplace, so that they're best prepared and have a competitive advantage? 

Hefin, thank you very much for that question. I'm glad you're focused, with your experience and your chairing of that group on this area, because there is great potential within agri-tech for students as well. If we have the latest technology and equipment available for students to use as part of agricultural courses, that is a real bonus. We're supporting their skills development, we're developing their practical experiences, and getting them to be able to see how to use these technologies on farms as they enter employment.

So, we have, Hefin, recently supported our further and higher education institutions, delivering agricultural or agricultural related courses, to invest in technology. In 2023, six institutions—five further education and one higher education—were offered support to purchase capital items that would benefit students in their learning. So, the grant value there was £211,000. Just out of interest, two of these institutions were based in north Wales, Llysfasi and Glynllifon, and FEIs and HEIs across Wales that deliver agricultural courses have been invited to apply for the support that's available in 2024. We've made a budget available of £360,000 and we'd encourage all Members—Hefin and everybody else—to encourage their local colleges and universities to apply for this. Hefin, I'm glad you focused on this, because there are real opportunities in those advanced skills within technology and agriculture.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Welsh Conservatives' spokesperson, James Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, it's been extremely concerning to read the reports in relation to Hybu Cig Cymru and the toxic bullying culture within the organisation. The chief executive officer has stood down, two senior executives are leaving and board members are on the verge of resigning. There have been no board minutes published since 2022, and no up-to-date financial statements or annual reports on their website since 2021. This is a very concerning position for HCC to find itself in. The body underpins an industry that's been valued at over £1 billion to Wales. Can you explain, please, the steps that you are taking, as the Cabinet Secretary, to address the concerns that have been raised about HCC and the culture within the organisation, as the Welsh Government is the sole member of the company and the ultimate controlling party of HCC?

Thank you for that question. Clearly, we are aware and we note the concerns over issues to do with the internal governance of Hybu Cig Cymru. What I can tell you is that I met only within the last week or fortnight with the chair of Hybu Cig Cymru to seek assurances, which stakeholders will be really focused on, on the performance of Hybu Cig Cymru for the red meat sector—is it doing what it needs to do, is it engaging with stakeholders, and so on. What I can say is that, at that meeting, I sought and was given those assurances.

I note, by the way, that HCC, I understand, is contacting stakeholders to assure them that the Welsh lamb campaign is due to launch next month to reach over 20 million target consumers in key regions. They're attending trade shows this month in the US as part of ongoing efforts developing the US market for Welsh lamb. That's part of a series of trade events that they'll be at. They're continuing to work proactively with processors and exporters to support the development of key Welsh lamb accounts at home and overseas. They're working on their research and development projects, including GrassCheckGB and RamCompare and so on. 

So, in terms of their day-to-day business and their performance, they're getting on with it. I've had those reassurances that performance is not affected, their engagement with stakeholders is not, but clearly, I'm aware, as you are, of the internal governance issues and I'm sure they're focused on resolving them.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. I know you realise, as I do, that it's a very critical time for the agricultural sector across Wales. Our farmers do want to produce the highest quality food and have that food exported to every single market that's available to them. Reports of our industry body being off the mark and not having any strategic vision are very damaging for the sector and it is undermining farmers' confidence in paying their levy to HCC.

It doesn't have a permanent CEO at the moment. We're aware that the current CEO, who was there, has stood down. A lot of people in the industry, as well, are very concerned about whether the board and the chairman of the board have got the power and the levers that they need to actually turn the organisation around. The industry is losing faith, Cabinet Secretary. I know that there are board members currently who are standing down. Are you making any interim arrangements to put people onto that board with the relevant expertise that they need to get this turnaround so that our farmers can have confidence in that body?

First of all, just to say—and I hope I was clear in my initial response—this is an organisation that is continuing to do its day-to-day business and is performing on behalf of its stakeholders. It's important, James, that we make that message very clear. There is a difference between what we have all heard said today on the floor of the Senedd about the issues of internal governance—. And they do need, of course, to deal with that, and they are dealing with that, and it is for Hybu Cig Cymru to work through that.

There is an interim chief executive, of course, in place, and has been in place since January. The chair, I met with recently. But as I reported to you in my initial response—although I could go further as well, and I'm sure that Hybu Cig Cymru would be happy to put some of this information out there as well—on their day-to-day business and their engagement, both domestically and internationally in promoting the interests of our red meat sector, they are doing it. They are not losing focus at all. They are very focused on doing this. In fact, we know from recent years and on an ongoing basis how important Hybu Cig Cymru is to the success of our red meat sector.

So, I can give you that assurance, based on the meeting that I held recently with the chair. There is an interim chief executive in place; as other appointments need to be made, they will be elevated up to me to make decisions on them. But I have had those reassurances on performance, and it's important to say that here publicly, rather than exacerbate what is a difficult issue in terms of governance.

I don't like to exacerbate it, Cabinet Secretary; all I'm trying to do is explain the situation that the industry finds itself in. People have lost a bit of confidence in HCC, and I think it's right that we try and rebuild that. Because what I and the Welsh Conservatives would like to see, Cabinet Secretary, and a lot of the industry would like to see, is a fully independent meat marketing board for Wales, run by farmers and processors, for farmers and processors, who can actually directly elect people onto their boards, and see our industry body being taken away from the hands of the Welsh Government. Because we need it to be fully focused on its responsibility to develop and promote our Welsh meat sector here in Wales.

Farmers and processors fund HCC through the levy—I know the Welsh Government put a little bit of money in to it, to actually keep it going. But a lot of farmers I'm speaking to, Cabinet Secretary, are telling me, 'Take it away from the Welsh Government, give it back to the industry, give it to the processors, let them directly appoint people onto that board, and, if they don't perform, they can take them away'. I think that's a better way for us to do that, rather than have the guiding hand of Government over it. Would you agree with me that it's a position we need to move to, similar to the way that Beef + Lamb New Zealand works, so that it’s industry-led and actually delivers for our farmers, and it doesn't have Government tending to control and being the sole party in it?

That's not the universal voice that I've heard from all farmers. I've certainly heard from many farmers and those in the red meat supply chain that welcome the work that Hybu Cig Cymru has done over many years, and want to see it continuing. But I hear what you're saying—you've got an alternative way forward. But it isn't the universal voice that I've heard from farmers. What farmers want currently is to know that Hybu Cig Cymru will do the job on their behalf and that their performance is up to spec. So, I think that, in this current situation, whilst you may have models of different ways forward for representation of the red meat sector, we need to ensure that the current Hybu Cig Cymru actually performs on a day-to-day basis, now and, as I outlined in my initial response, for all the work that they're engaged in, both domestically and internationally, to get us into existing and new markets, extend our reach into existing markets, expand into new markets, in the year ahead. They have a busy itinerary ahead.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you, Llywydd. Whether Hybu Cig Cymru is delivering its remit doesn't really excuse any problems or difficulties within the organisation. I wrote to your predecessor back in February of this year, expressing concern about the situation there. At that time, we were told that the Government wasn't going to intervene. This week, two directors have resigned from the board, and it's clear that the situation there is deteriorating. I've written again to you yesterday, asking you to take action to ensure that the problems, which are clearly, Cabinet Secretary, going from bad to worse within HCC, are dealt with.

There are absence levels, staff turnover levels also, that are concerning. You have said that they are focused on resolving these problems, but of course, that's what the Government's been saying for almost a year now. Don't you feel a responsibility for safeguarding the well-being of individuals within the organisation who are affected by these difficulties? We've heard already about the risk that exists of undermining the faith of levy payers, and, at the end of the day, the risk of having a negative impact on the brand and reputation of Welsh red meat. For how long will you say that this is someone else's problem?

Llyr, thank you for the question.

There are two issues you raise. One, again, is over the issue of the performance and the reputation of Hybu Cig Cymru. As I say, in the meeting that I've recently had with the chair, I've sought those reassurances, not only over the work that they are doing, and will continue to do, but over their performance for their stakeholders as well, and what their plans are for the year ahead as well in promoting the interests of the red meat sector.

Then, there is the second issue of the governance. Whilst I share, like any Member of the Senedd would, the concerns that the matters of not only internal governance but the, for want of a better phrase, dealing with internal matters of personnel as well are dealt with satisfactorily, fairly, properly and in a timely manner, we have to leave it to Hybu Cig Cymru to actually work through these issues and do them properly and assiduously. That is Hybu Cig Cymru's role.

So, whilst I'm very aware of them, it is not for me to step in and, in some ways, tell Hybu Cig Cymru what to do, or intervene in what are sensitive—I'm sure you'll appreciate—and delicate discussions with both current and former members. That is for Hybu Cig Cymru to do. Meanwhile, I as Cabinet Secretary am keenly focused on both the reputation and the performance of this organisation, and I'll continue to hold that focus on them.

I hear what you're saying, Cabinet Secretary, and I won't pursue this further, other than to ask myself at what point, therefore, you think action is necessary. When you have staff leaving in droves, where you have directors resigning, surely the red flags should be flying. But, no doubt, we'll come back to this at a later stage. 

I know you'll be aware that Mona Dairy has sadly gone into administration. This was exactly the kind of local, indigenous business that we all want to see succeed in Wales, of course, promoting local processing, capturing added value to the local economy. I'm sure you can tell us what the Welsh Government is doing to support the staff who've been made redundant, but what can you tell us about supporting the 31 milk producers who've lost hundreds of thousands of pounds in unpaid milk cheques? They're not asking for a handout from the Government, but they are asking that you consider some practical steps to help them keep their heads above water in the short term. Given the real threat these losses are posing to the survival of their businesses, would you, for example, consider paying their single farm payment in full, upfront, as soon as possible to help them pull through?

I also know, for example, that some of them were preparing applications for Government funding to meet the nitrate vulnerable zones infrastructure requirements, but now their element of match funding towards that fund has disappeared. So, would you consider holding some of the fund back for them, so that they can apply for that at a later stage, maybe, when they've hopefully recovered, or even, maybe, allow them a slightly longer timeline to meet the new regulations? What could you do, Cabinet Secretary, to help these farms survive? Because they did exactly, of course, what your Government wants to see, which is to back local Welsh processing. If they're left high and dry, then what signal does that send, and what hope is there for similar ventures in the future?

Thank you, Llyr, for this. I share your concerns, because the Mona Dairy is exactly the sort of enterprise that we want to see succeed in our rural economy, not only because of the impacts there locally, in terms of employment and so on, but also the wider supply chain issues that are so important to our dairy producers and to the wider food supply chain as well. 

We understand that the Mona Dairy owners met with the farmer suppliers on 11 June. The Welsh Government, by the way, was not part of those discussions. We're not, as you know, able to directly intervene in issues relating to payments, for example, in commercial terms, between producers and processors. You ask us whether we can have any flexibility. We're quite live to any way that we can help without making any commitments here today. But if there are ways in which we can help within the flexibility of the payments that we have control of, then you put forward an interesting proposal, but what we can't do is enter into issues to do with commercial arrangements. 

Of course, people will be aware that there were good reasons why the Welsh Government actually provided funding to Mona Dairy to be established. I think, Llyr, you would agree with this. So, we are hopeful, we continue to be hopeful—and I've spoken with the Cabinet Secretary for economy as well, who's been very engaged on this—that we are able to find a future here. But, meanwhile, we do have to deal with the very difficult issue of those who've been actually supplying milk here on contract. 

Simply to say as well, my understanding is that Meadow Foods have been involved in meetings with farmers as well, in terms of any assistance they can provide. South Caernarfon Creameries and others have been involved as well. There are some issues that remain—concerns that remain—around outstanding moneys that are owed to dairy producers and suppliers there as well. So, we're very aware of that. But look, Llyr, if there are ways that we can genuinely assist in one way or the other, we'll be alive to it, within the constraints that we have. But thank you for raising it with me.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Now, we know that the next UK Government, of course, is set to determine the overall budget for Welsh farming, and it seems increasingly likely that the UK Labour Government will bear the responsibility for making sure that your Government in Wales has the resources to achieve its ambitions for the sector. You rightly criticised the Conservative Government for their failure to keep to their word on 'not a penny less' in farm funding to Wales, leaving, of course, Welsh farmers hundreds of million of pounds worse off. Now, I reminded your predecessor last year, actually, that 'not a penny less' is not enough any more, is it, given the additional responsibilities that farmers will have to take on. You'll be aware, I'm sure, that farming and environmental organisations have consistently called for a re-evaluation of the budgetary allocation to support Welsh agriculture, seeking to restore its real-terms value, now they've estimated that at least £500 million would be needed annually to account for inflation and to meet the industry's goals for food, for nature and for climate. So, do you agree, Cabinet Secretary, that the promise of 'not a penny less' in funding for Welsh farmers is now no longer sufficient? And will you advocate for the £500 million in annual funding that the industry is calling for to the incoming UK Government—

Llyr, I'm not sure if you ended your sentence. 

I think that Llyr Gruffydd has frozen. I'm not sure whether there was enough of a— 

I think there was. There was. 

—question there for the Minister to answer. Yes. Yes, answer, and Llyr can watch the record subsequently. 

Llyr, my apologies if we lost you before you delivered your coup de grâce at the end there, but I think I heard enough of the question. Look, it is a source of deep regret to me that we're down by roughly, well, not far short of £250 million in terms of agricultural and rural support. And that's the agricultural support that not only goes to the farming community, but rural development and all the environmental gains that we also want to see within the rural community. It's not just sad; I think farmers that I've spoken to are extremely angry about that as well, because they were, indeed, promised 'not a penny less' and we've been shortchanged. But, on top of that, of course, that carries major implications then for our overall budget, which is roughly £1 billion down in real terms, and those are tough decisions in Wales, as they are across the UK. 

But you ask what will be the ask of a future Labour Government. I think Rachel Reeves has made it very, very clear indeed that she will be fiscally very responsible in going in, because we do not know what sort of disaster we will inherit until we walk through those doors, but we've got some idea already, Llywydd. But what I can say—what I can say—is that Labour will restore that decision making that we used to see. I'm looking across here at a former colleague of mine. There was a time, when we were within the European Union, when Wales was part of discussions on how we would actually use funding for rural communities and agriculture. Over the last few years, we've been locked out of that entirely, and locked out of trade deals—so, not just funding, but trade deals. Labour will restore that working relationship over our funds and the way that we, actually, work together as well. 

And the other thing, by the way, simply to say is that, in terms of trade deals, we need to, Llyr, get to a point where we have grown-up discussions between Governments around the UK, so we can represent the interests of Welsh farmers, not be locked out. And we will, as we've made clear within the manifesto, not be in the business of doing trade deals that beggar Welsh farmers, and we'll not be in the business of, for example, allowing chlorinated chicken or steroid-hormone-injected beef to enter the UK market. We've got high animal welfare standards, high environmental standards. That's why the domestic and export markets are so strong, and we need to maintain that.

Thank you, Peter. Our natural resources are under extreme pressure from climate change, the extreme weather we've seen and from population growth. So, we all have a duty to use water sustainably at all times. I will continue to work with partners to better ensure our use of water has the interest of this and future generations at its very heart.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. With climate change shifting our weather patters, which, in turn, is likely to drive periods of extreme heat and prolonged periods without rain—not that this year is fitting that picture at the moment—we need to seriously think about how we work toward finding more innovative ways to use and save water. Cabinet Secretary, every day, we all use on average around 80 litres of water, and it's usually clean, treated, drinkable water, which has cost an awful lot of money to produce, yet then we use it for flushing the toilet and things like that. Well, that's just counterintuitive, isn't it, really, if we're trying to save quality drinking water? So, Cabinet Secretary, is the Government giving consideration to how water-saving initiatives, such as grey-water use, rainwater harvesting, et cetera, for domestic use can be scaled so that more drinking water can be conserved? An emphasis on this would not only save water, but would develop more and new industrial opportunities and create jobs. We know that some of those initiatives have been in place for schools and things like that, and new-build, BREEAM-qualified buildings, but how do we do that more on a local scale?

Peter, it's such a good question, and, you are right, we waste so much water, because we often perceive that the value of water is so small. We'll go in that shower and we'll be in that shower for a good 10 minutes, and so on. You will know previously, Llywydd, I was part of a campaign when I was the DEFRA Minister to encourage people to spend just three minutes in the shower. The way we did it was we said to people, 'Just pick your favourite pop song and sing it while you're in the shower.' No 'Bohemian Rhapsody' and no 'Free Bird', Lynyrd Skynyrd, going on for 13 minutes—just a three-minute pop song.

But, actually, you're speaking to the converted. I have a water harvester under my garden; it's a massive submarine of a thing. But we do need to work across Government to see how we can make this more common because, you are right, there are companies who will specialise in this. But, for instance, when I go to have my once-every-five-years overhaul of this submarine that's under there—which does flush the toilets and helps with the cleaning of my clothes and so on, because it's good Welsh water, soft, clean, and so on; it doesn't scale stuff up, and so on—I need people in, but where do I have to go? Very often, it's to Gloucester or Bristol or somewhere else. So, we need to expand this so that we can show the true value of water. It's not that it just runs off our roofs and down, it creates cost and it can create problems as well. We also need to do a lot more on sustainable urban drainage as well, which I know Julie James, in her local government and housing role, is very keen on as well, so that we're not flushing into the old combined sewerage system—water and sewage—but actually we are making sure it goes into naturally processed water, like we used to do in the old days.

Water security is, of course, not simply a matter for us here in this Chamber, but is a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom. I'm sure we're all, on all sides of the Chamber, looking forward to the new Labour Government being elected in two weeks' time, which will provide an opportunity to work together in a more proactive and positive way than perhaps we've seen in recent years. Cabinet Secretary, I wonder if you could explain to me and, I'm sure, other Members here how you intend to work with the incoming Labour Government to ensure that regulators, that the water companies, that our Governments work together to ensure that we have both the supplies of drinking water that we require and also the quality and the standards that we all have the right to expect.

It's such a key question because water security, as raised in Peter's question, is a matter in Wales but it's also a matter across the UK. The co-ordination between agencies, the regulator, Governments, officials, environmental agencies as well, is critical to ensure that water security is delivered for all of us. We're often in the business today of looking, for example, at the issue of water transfers between areas as well. That grown-up way of thinking, I think, is the way to do it—that serious cross-Government, cross-border, cross-agency way of thinking. Back in 2018, an inter-governmental protocol for Wales and England was signed, so that we made sure that we would not have any serious adverse impacts on water resources or water supply or water quality within Wales through things such as transfers. Now, that's a very grown-up and serious way of doing inter-governmental working with this protocol. So, it sets out the ways we will communicate, consult, co-operate between Governments, how we manage any disputes, and so on.

But we also have, I have to say, within our own water resource management plans, a long-term framework by which we will balance supply and demand over the next 25 years. Those are supplemented by drought management plans, just to give Peter some reassurance, which set out how we'll respond to periods of dry weather—and we will have them—and we also have a drought management liaison group.

Now, all of this co-ordinated thinking within Wales but also across the UK is something we're going to need to do for all of our citizens from here all the way to the south-east, to the north-west and elsewhere. It's part of a serious, grown-up approach to government.

Yes, thank you, Russell. Our approach to eradicating bovine TB in Wales is set out in our TB eradication delivery plan, which we published in March 2023. In February, we also reintroduced pre-movement testing and extended the post-movement testing in the intermediate TB areas, which include mid Wales, to allay the risk of introducing new disease into the herds.

Thank you for your answer, Minister. Of course, bovine TB, as I'm sure you will agree, is a cruel, cruel disease in terms of farm stock, in wildlife, and also for farming families that have to suffer the emotion of culling their stock, but also those sleepless nights as they wait for TB results as well. I was reading with interest an article in the Farmers Guardian, and the title sets out how bovine TB continues to deteriorate in Wales, and we know as well that bovine TB slaughtering in Wales is up 17 per cent, and it's significantly down in England. Now, the UK Government has incorporated into their plans, of course, for many years the culling of affected wildlife, and the Prime Minister set out this week a future UK Government would continue with that approach. That's not an approach that you've adopted here in Wales, despite the unions calling on you to bring forward a specific trial of affected wildlife in particular areas. So, I would ask you, Minister, as you're new to position, to give this further consideration and to at least consider the limited trial of culling affected wildlife, as the unions have been calling for for some time.

Russell, thank you for that question, and can I say first of all that I share with you the concern that I've heard expressed first-hand, including on my farm visits recently to farmers and their families as well, who are living on the premises. This is not simply like some industrial premises way off and then they travel home. Their home is on the farm—it's on the farm that they are seeing the worst of this disease. And that's why, by the way, and I think it has been broadly welcomed, the TB advisory group, as their first piece of work after I met with them a few weeks ago, actually looked at the issue of on-farm slaughter, particularly for those with pregnant cattle, and so on. We've moved rapidly on that, and I know that's been welcomed. It's a sign that we are trying to listen and engage with farmers on this.

We've also, as you know, set up the TB advisory group now, under Professor Glyn Hewison, who's the Sêr Cymru chair at the TB centre of excellence in Aberystwyth University. That group, which looked at the on-farm slaughter, will now look at where we are in terms of our efforts to eradicate TB by 2041, which remains our programme of government commitment, and what more we need to do.

But just to say, Russell, because I know sometimes this can seem exceptionally bleak and dismal in our efforts to tackle this pernicious disease and the effects on the farming community as well, there will be differences in year-to-year figures, but long-term falls in TB indicators are interesting to look at. The new incidents have decreased from 1,185 in 2009 to 605 in the 12 months to March 2024. That's just short of a 50 per cent decrease in new incidents. As of 31 March 2024, there was 876 herds under restrictions—that's too many; we need to eradicate this—but that compares to 2,268 herds under restrictions on 31 March 2009. That's over a 60 per cent decrease. And on 31 March 2024, there were 614 non-officially TB-free herds compared to a peak of well over 1,000 on 30 April 2019. So, the work that farmers are doing, alongside veterinarians and others, in different parts of Wales with different facets of TB—because it is different from farm to farm and in different regions—is paying off, and I want to thank them for the hard graft they're doing.

But on the issue of badgers and how we deal with badgers, the programme for government makes clear here in Wales that we are not culling badgers—that's been clear for some time—and we know that the studies show that cattle-to-cattle transmission rates are far greater than badger to cattle. But—but—the vaccination of badgers may be an equally effective way of reducing TB in the badger population, and we've seen this in published field studies from, for example, Ireland. So, going forward, we will need to consider whether targeted vaccination of badgers in specific areas could be further utilised, and the best means to deliver this. And I say 'further utilised' because we currently have, Llywydd, an incident on Anglesey, and we know that it's come—. We're pretty sure it's come from cattle transmission, bringing livestock into the area. We know also that the dead badger survey has shown that there is no incidence of TB. However, we know that it could be now transmitted into the badger population, so one of the things we're doing around Holy Island is actually embarking on a four-year vaccination project. So, there are solutions to this, different ways of building up our toolkit to do it.

We know that the on-farm slaughter of cattle with TB is often traumatic and has a real impact on farmers and also their families. Following the establishment of the TB advisory group, the Welsh Government recently announced changes to help reduce the number of cattle slaughtered on farm, particularly those who are at the last stages of pregnancy. I've heard some very positive feedback from the Pembrokeshire pathway work that's happening in the region that I represent. Could the Cabinet Secretary give an update on how the work towards a TB-free Wales is progressing and how have the recent policy changes been received, and what will your next steps be?   

Joyce, thank you for that question, and I've met with farmers in the region and right across Wales, actually. And, indeed, I've been out meeting with farmers even this morning before I came here. I think the very rapid move by the TB advisory group to move on the issue of on-farm slaughter has, indeed, been welcomed, and they and the Animal and Plant Health Agency are on the ground now implementing those changes. And the changes are significant because this does mean now that farmers will be able to choose to delay the removal of a cow or heifer in the last 60 days of pregnancy, and animals that have given birth in the previous seven days, subject to the biosecurity conditions to protect other cattle in the herd being met. And equally, there can be limited flexibility to isolate and to delay the removal if within a few days to the end of a medicine withdrawal period, on a case-by-case basis.

But this demonstrates, I think, that we are taking a very serious-minded approach to listening to farmers' concerns, working with the chief veterinary officer, working with the on-farm vets as well and, crucially, with the farmer and their families, because they have deep concerns that I share, as all Members share, over how we deal with TB. But I think this shows one way—and there will be others—in which we can move forward. We still have that end game of 2041 to eradicate TB and we need to be absolutely fixed on that, and do it before if we can. 

The biodiversity deep-dive recommended actions to support meaningful delivery of the 30x30 target, including designing the sustainable farming scheme to ensure farmers are rewarded both for providing appropriate management of protected sites, and for actions that improve the prospects of nature in the wider landscape and freshwater habitats.

Thank you. Curlew is the UK's highest conservation priority bird species, forecast to be extinct as a breeding population in Wales within a decade without intervention. Evidence shows that curlew recovery would benefit around 70 species. How, therefore, do you respond to the letter, sent to you by conservation charity Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, working with farmers and land managers to deliver biodiversity and environmental benefits, and currently leading the collaborative Wales-wide Curlew Connections project, aiming to stem the decline of Welsh curlew, which concludes, 'We know that farmers are interested in improving the amount of wildlife on their farms, but we believe it must be done in conjunction with running a financially sustainable farming business and deliver multiple benefits, as farmers will tell you, they cannot be green if they're in the red'? And how would you respond to the submission by the Gylfinir Cymru/Curlew Wales agriculture sub-group to the sustainable farming scheme consultation, which includes the 10 per cent tree cover per holding requirement, and that the hedgerow tree element could have perverse outcomes for curlews?

Thank you, Mark. On the latter point, in the preparatory phase that we're now doing, we can take into consideration those wider impacts, as we aim to bring forward the SFS together with landowners and farmers. So, this preparatory phase gives us the opportunity to actually consider those wider impacts.

You specifically mention the partners out there who've put forward proposals of how to deal with it, well, we're keen to work with anybody who can help us with curlew recovery, and that includes, for example, through the nature networks fund. We've provided funding for a number of projects related, so, for example, in north Wales, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust has been awarded a significant sum of money, £999,600 to roll out the Curlew Connections Wales/Cysylltu Gylfinir Cymru project. So, that work addresses up to seven important curlew areas, including the Mynydd Hiraethog site of special scientific interest, the Migneint-Arenig-Dduallt SSSI, Ruabon/Llantysilio mountains and Minera SSSI as well. But I do share your disappointment in noting the latest figures from the breeding birds survey indices for the British Trust for Ornithology, showing the decline of curlew populations in Wales. We recognise the challenges ahead, so that's why we want to work closely with Gylfinir Cymru/Curlew Wales and others to make a significant investment to ensure their recovery. There's widespread public affection for this iconic species, and the ecosystems and habitats that it uses, so working together, I very much hope we can make the recovery of the curlew, and other species, a success story in Wales, through things such as the nature networks project and Natur am Byth. Thank you for the question.

Can I just declare I'm a member of the North Wales Wildlife Trust? Last Friday I was invited by North Wales Wildlife Trust to visit a newly acquired site—they want to use it as an example of how land can be managed in a profitable way for forming a nature conservation. And I then visited a place nearby where that was actually already happening, which is lovely to see. There was a diverse mix of land for woodland, upland and lowland areas, where they worked with a mix of habitat livestock and food; some were grown in allotments and some in orchards. And I also learned if land is managed less intensively with less outlay in the first place, working with nature, profit margins can still be the same.

So, how will Welsh Government use the time of postponing the SFS to provide information, support and advice to farmers, working with these organisations and example sites, so that they can see it is possible to change and manage land productively for both farming and the environment? In particular, could you provide any information on the planned roll-out and implementation of the INRS, the integrated national resource scheme? Thank you.

Thank you very much. I do my best learning by being out and about and visiting some of these projects, and you rightly flagged some of the successes that are out there. There's incredible work going on that not only manages to produce really good, nutritious, affordable, high-value products, but they're also doing the right thing by the environment and climate change and flood alleviation and many other aspects as well—and wildlife, as we were just talking about, and so on.

So, this preparatory phase that we've announced for the SFS does give us the time now to actually work through how we can make that mainstream in different types of landscapes and different types of farms right across Wales, whether it's upland or lowland or dairy, or whether it's intensive or extensive—all the range of farming. And drawing on some of those lessons I think will be key. We have—just to give you an update—chaired the first round-table. We will have had three meetings of that ministerial round-table in the SFS by the time we get to the Royal Welsh. There's an official level group that is working really hard underneath us to bring forward the evidence of what will work, and I'm confident that when we have reflected, nuanced the way we can take this forward, we will deliver on those multiple benefits for both food production but also for the environment and for climate change and nature and biodiversity as well. So, thank you for the question.

Thank you, James. Budgetary pressures for 2024-25 are very well documented and no organisations are immune to the extremely tough budgetary conversations and decisions that need to be made. NRW is considering its remit and critically reviewing all activities, whilst ensuring that its people focus on delivering its priority functions and statutory duties within its current budgets. 

Cabinet Secretary, following up the question that I asked the First Minister a couple of weeks ago about capacity issues, I'd like to specifically enquire about the impact these may be having on land management agreements. I've had a number of meetings and correspondence with landowners in my constituency who say there are delays in bringing land management agreements forward; they're not being signed, and NRW aren't acting upon them. They had been told by staff there that they simply do not have the legal capacity in the organisation or any expertise to do this any longer. Can you confirm if this is the case, because I did have it on good authority that NRW are not signing them because of capacity issues, and I do not think that it is good for our environment or good for sites of scientifically national interest if our land management agreements are not being signed? So, I'd like to know what you're doing about this, Cabinet Secretary, because the Welsh Government cannot keep giving Natural Resources Wales more and more work to do, and then turn away while Rome is burning. 

Thank you, James, for that supplementary question. Just to make clear again, NRW is not alone in facing budgetary challenges, and there are well-rehearsed reasons why, across all Cabinet Secretaries, Ministers, across all portfolios, from local authorities to our agencies and others, they are under significant strain, but having said that, following NRW's baseline review—and I was a member of the climate change committee that had the chair and chief executive in front of us assessing this over the last couple of years—we know the work that they've done on a baseline review to make sure that they're fulfilling their functions and their remit properly. NRW have received an £18.5 million uplift to its baseline budget for 2023-24; it's maintained its baseline budget for 2024-25 at the same level, which was allocated in 2023-24; and my officials are still working with NRW with the necessary support while we consider its remit and reviewing its activities.

But you are right in what you say: it is stretched, but let me say, as I always do—I pay tribute to the people who work within NRW because they are busting a gut, whether it's in a marine environment, a riparian environment, terrestrial environment, to do the right thing, and they're passionate and committed individuals. And when we sometimes look at the stretch that they are under, which is a real stretch, they are expert and professional people, they're doing all they can to use the resources available to direct their delivery to front-line services, but they are stretched, undoubtedly. But I want to thank them for the work that they're doing. 

When you raised this previously, I think the First Minister responded to you and asked you whether you could write with any further information. If you could do that—. I haven't seen it yet; you may have written. But if you could do that, I'd be interested to receive it, and then I can respond to any detailed instances that you can illustrate.

Will the Welsh Government amend its planning rules to ensure that rural communities have more of a voice in terms of the decisions that impact them?

Thank you, Cefin. We are committed to creating a national forest for Wales and bringing the benefits of woodlands and trees to our local communities that are at the heart of our vision. We continue to fund community tree-planting initiatives through the creation of Small Woodlands/Tiny Forests in Wales, the woodland investment grant, and the woodland creation grant also.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. A few months ago, I was in a meeting in the Llanboidy area in Carmarthenshire to discuss a farm that had been purchased by a company to plant trees, and the local community were concerned about the impact the development would have in the loss of fruitful agriculture land, the impact on the landscape, the impact on the economy and the local environment. Now, we know that another farm in the area has been purchased for similar purposes, and the same concerns have been expressed once again.

Now, if you want to build a house or a shed, you'd have to go through a detailed planning process and ensure a voice for the local community. Now, with forestry, the consultation process is far weaker. Now, although I welcome the recent steps to strengthen the EIAs, there is a feeling that the planning system should provide more of a right for the local community to have their say on significant afforestation schemes. The planning system needs to be used to prevent or manage how much land is purchased for the purpose of greenwashing by major corporations. We know, for example, that, in Australia, Ministers have the right to veto forestry projects over 15 hectares, or where over a third of the farm is afforested. So, with concerns about greenwashing continuing in rural Wales, how can we strengthen the planning system to ensure a stronger voice for local communities on developments that impact them directly?

Diolch, Cefin. One of the challenges that we face is, when it comes to the sale and purchase of land in Wales, whether that's farmers or other landowners, we don't have the ability to directly intervene. They're making commercial decisions. It's difficult to see how we can influence, for example, farmers' decisions if they decide, and there aren't many of them, to sell land to others, including those who are not from the local area, whether it's for woodland or other things.

But if you have specific proposals, by all means forward them to me in detail, so we can look at them. I'm happy to discuss with my fellow Cabinet Secretary who covers the issues of planning as well. But what we are focused on is providing, for example, support to farmers to stay on the land, including the new woodland creation offer, which works for farmers. We will not fund woodland projects that are unable to demonstrate they meet the high standards required by our schemes, and this includes UK forestry standard and also holding meaningful community consultation. But the issue of planning and the issue of standing in the way of commercial decisions of landowners is a tricky one, as you've highlighted. We definitely don't want to see greenwashing. We want to see communities meaningfully engaged in decisions that affect everything they can see as far as the eye can see as well. So, perhaps there is more to do in this sphere. I'm interested in ideas that you might bring forward. We'd always have to look at them in terms of practicality and whether they can be made to work. But there is a real challenge here, Cefin, as we've seen. If a landowner decides to sell, and makes a commercial decision to do it, that is a tricky issue for local people, who sometimes are bystanders to that decision.

Question 8 [OQ61274] is withdrawn. Question 9 finally, Natasha Asghar.

Thank you, Natasha. Welsh Government provides a wide range of direct and indirect support. Our grants for investment in on-farm improvements, equipment and technology, the learning and development on offer from Farming Connect, or the advice from our own farm liaison service, for example, demonstrate our commitment to supporting a sustainable future for Welsh agriculture.

Thank you so much for your response, Cabinet Secretary. As we all know, an economic impact assessment commissioned by the Welsh Government at the end of last year predicted 5,500 job losses and an 85 per cent drop in farm business income as a result of changes to support payments for farmers in Wales. I know last month you announced that the basic payment scheme will be available in 2025 and the proposed SFS transition period will start in 2026. This came alongside the very welcome confirmation the scheme will not be introduced until it's ready, but I wondered if we could get a commitment from you today, here in the Chamber, that you will not move forward with the sustainable farming scheme until an impact assessment is in fact undertaken. And do you not agree, Cabinet Secretary, that the SFS should ensure and prioritise growing the number of jobs and income in farming, as farmers need and deserve jobs and business security just as much as everyone else? Thank you.

Natasha, thank you for that follow-up, and it is an important question. When we chose to put out there in full public transparency the economic impact assessment previously, we did it in full knowledge that actually it was two years out of date and didn't reflect the consultation as was, but it was a decision by Government to put whatever we could out there, to try and help engage the debate. Actually, it probably skewed the debate a little bit, because we were working on out-of-date scenarios. But we do need to do that before—. When we have—. In the preparatory phase we have now, which is working through the detailed design—. When we have that detailed design, then we need to do that impact assessment based on what the scheme will actually look like, because that is right and fair to the farming and land management community generally.

One thing to be aware of as well, as I've repeated in this Chamber many times as well, is that the farming sector, the agricultural sector, has not been immune from shedding jobs in the last 20 or 30 years. With all the criticisms of CAP policy within the EU, one thing it did was give a degree of certainty, but it didn't avoid the shedding away of jobs, the consolidation of farms, the loss of rural jobs, and then with the impact on the rural schools and communities and so on. So, what we need to do in the design of this is have something that will actually sustain those small and medium-scale farms in all parts of Wales. So, yes, I'm committed to bringing forward a proper impact assessment when it's ready, but I think we were right to actually publish it. Other Governments chose not to publish. We published. It was a case of 'publish and be damned', and in some ways we were, but it was the right thing to do.

You also mentioned the BPS. We took, I think, the right decision as we go into the preparatory phase to say we will—it's a risk, but we will— provide the certainty to go ahead with the BPS for the year ahead, as well as providing it at 100 per cent last year—which they didn't do, of course, in England—to give that certainty. But, going forward, what we need is a sustainable farming scheme that is ready to go at the point it is ready, and brings everybody with it, and every farmer who wants to opt into it can do, and it's worth taking just a little bit of time just to get that right.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

No topical questions were accepted today.

So, we'll move on to item 4, that's the 90-second statements, and I call on James Evans.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. This week is Wythnos Ffermio Cymru, Welsh Farming Week. This year's theme is 'securing the future of Welsh food'. This week shines a light on the incredible work of our farmers and the work they do every day. From sunrise to sunset, Welsh farmers dedicate themselves to producing the high-quality food we enjoy. They nurture crops, raise healthy livestock and manage the land, with the expertise passed down through generations. Their work goes simply beyond filling our plates. They are custodians to the Welsh countryside, protecting the land for future generations. They implement practices that produce world-class food that enriches the soil. They conserve water and promote biodiversity. This week, we celebrate their efforts. Social media is buzzing with #WelshFarmingWeek, showcasing the journey of Welsh food and the care that our farmers give to make that food end up in our tummies. On Thursday 20 June, an event will be held here in our Senedd, and this offers a chance for Members here to connect with those remarkable individuals, learn about their dedication to sustainable practices, and their commitment to securing the future of Welsh food. Let's not forget the 'Secure the Future of Welsh Food' campaign, and I encourage all Members to sign the NFU Cymru online petition and show everyone's support for our Welsh farmers, the stewards of our land and the producers of our delicious food here in Wales. So, together, let's celebrate Welsh agriculture and secure the future of Welsh food on this very special Welsh Farming Week.

Thank you, James.

Item 5 is the motion under Standing Order 26.91 seeking the Senedd's agreement to introduce a Member Bill, the British Sign Language (BSL) (Wales) Bill. I call on Mark Isherwood to move the motion.

Diolch. In February 2021, during the last Senedd term, and again in December 2022, during this Senedd term, the Senedd, this Welsh Parliament, voted in favour of noting my proposal for a Bill that

'would make provision to encourage the use of British Sign Language (BSL) in Wales, and improve access to education and services in BSL.'

With Members of all parties voting in favour of the motion each time, demonstrating a clear appetite for such BSL legislation across the Senedd Chamber, and with BSL signers, D/deaf people and communities across Wales continuing to ask me to bring forward a BSL Bill in Wales, I'm grateful for this opportunity to now seek the Senedd’s agreement to introduce this Bill. Following the initial ballot result allowing me to do this, initial consultation was sought, and support was received from several organisations and individuals, including BSL signers from across Wales, British Deaf Association Cymru, Sense, Deaf Film Club, Centre of Sign-Sight-Sound in north Wales, Deaf Gathering Cymru, Our Visual World and Llanelli Deaf Club, some of whom are in the public gallery today, so welcome—croeso.

In October 2018, calls were made at the north Wales Lend Me Your Ears 2018 conference for BSL legislation in Wales, looking at the 2015 BSL (Scotland) Act and their national BSL plan, published in October 2017, establishing a national advisory group, including up to 10 deaf people who use BSL as their preferred or first language. The BSL (Scotland) Act was passed on 17 September 2015, marking a new era in the deaf community’s campaign for the legal recognition of the needs of BSL signers across the UK. I was encouraged when Labour MP Rosie Cooper introduced her British Sign Language Bill in the UK Parliament, co-sponsored by Conservative Lord Holmes of Richmond, when this secured the UK Government's support, and when it was passed in March 2022 and gained Royal Assent the following month.

The UK Act recognises BSL as a language of England, Wales and Scotland, requires the Secretary of State to report on the promotion and facilitation of the use of BSL by ministerial Government departments, and requires guidance to be issued in relation to BSL. However, although the UK Act creates a duty for the UK Government to prepare and publish BSL reports describing what Government departments have done to promote the use of BSL in their communications with the public, the UK Act specifically excludes reporting on matters devolved to Scotland and Wales. The Act does not extend the reporting or guidance duty to the Governments of Wales and Scotland. On 20 February this year, the communities Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive outlined his plans for the development of sign language in Northern Ireland, including bringing forward a sign language Bill. He said he was committed to ensuring that members of the deaf community have the same rights and opportunities as those in the hearing community, and are able to access services in their own language.

Therefore, if my Bill does not proceed, Wales will be the only part of the UK that is not covered by specific BSL legislation. The purpose of this Bill is to make provision to promote and facilitate the use of BSL and its tactile forms in Wales, improve access to education, health and public services in BSL, and support the removal of barriers that exist for deaf people and their families in education, health, public services, support services and in the workplace. This is a language Bill that supports Welsh deaf leadership on all BSL matters in Wales.

This Bill aligns with the seven well-being goals of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 as they relate to the long-term needs of BSL users and signers of all ages. This Bill would also support existing commitments, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Regarding terminology, the British Deaf Association or BDA are calling for the term ‘BSL users’ to be replaced with ‘BSL signers’, and this proposed used of terminology would be included in the Bill’s consultation.

The Bill would also work towards ensuring that BSL signers are not treated less favourably than those who speak Welsh or English, and make sure that deaf communities have a real voice in the design and delivery of services to ensure that they meet their needs. Existing legislation does not meet the needs of the deaf community and BSL signers.

In evidence received by the Scottish Parliament’s Education and Culture Committee on the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, BDA Scotland stated that the Equality Act 2010

'accords rights to individuals to protect them from discrimination but it does not protect or promote BSL as a language.'

This Bill proposes to establish a BSL commissioner with the same powers as other minority language commissioners, such as those introduced after the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011; the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, and the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. This would show a significant message of support to the BSL signing community in Wales.

The BSL commissioner would formulate BSL standards; establish a BSL advisory panel; produce reports every five years in BSL, Welsh and English on the position of BSL over that period; provide guidance and a process for public bodies to promote and facilitate BSL in their respective domains; and establish a procedure for the investigation of complaints. The exact nature, status and responsibilities of the commissioner would be further developed in collaboration with stakeholders, including the Welsh Government, to ensure that both costs and benefits are addressed as the Bill progresses.

The Bill would extend the reporting and guidance duties applying to the UK Government in England to the Welsh Government in Wales, and place a duty on the Welsh Government to prepare and publish an annual BSL report, describing what Welsh Government departments have done to promote and facilitate the use of BSL.

The Bill seeks to place a duty on public bodies to report on their progress in promoting and facilitating BSL through the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 reporting cycle. Ensuring that BSL is fed into the well-being of future generations cycle would embed BSL into existing policy and legal frameworks within Wales. This would ensure cost-effective resource sharing by leveraging existing structures to create a more equitable society for Welsh BSL signers in the long term.

Sign languages are full languages with their own communities, histories and cultures. The World Federation of the Deaf, with a membership of 136 national deaf associations, emphasises the importance of fostering a positive linguistic and cultural environment, so that deaf children can grow up with a profound sense of belonging, identity and pride in their deaf heritages.

BSL, which is the most common form of sign language in the UK, is a rich, visual, gestural language with a distinctive grammar using hand shapes, facial expressions, gestures and body language to convey meaning. The BDA state that

'BSL is not just a language; it is also a gateway to learning...and the means whereby Deaf people survive and flourish in a hearing world.'

Despite the Welsh Government recognising BSL as a language in its own right in 2004, there have long been calls to give BSL full legal status in Wales. Deafness is not a learning difficulty, but deaf children are being disadvantaged by the continuing inequity in outcome. The National Deaf Children’s Society has noted that the additional learning needs—or ALN—code states that deaf children and young people, alongside those who are blind or sight impaired, are

'more likely to have ALN by virtue of the fact the impairment is likely to prevent or hinder them from making use of educational or training facilities and is likely to call for'—

additional learning provision. The need for BSL provision for families of deaf babies and children has also been highlighted, with families stating that they have limited access to support groups and other similar families, and are unable to learn BSL unless they can afford the high costs involved.

I have outlined initial costings for the Bill in its explanatory memorandum. The main potential areas of costs and benefits on the introduction of the Bill are around: establishing a British Sign Language commissioner and advisory panel, with supporting administration; formulating BSL standards; producing guidance and a process for public bodies to promote and facilitate BSL; additional costs for public bodies and Welsh Government to report on their BSL usage; annual reporting by the Welsh Government; establishing a procedure for the investigation of complaints; and producing reports on the position of BSL every five years. However, the principle of this Bill is to invest to save, applying early intervention and prevention measures to reduce cost pressures on statutory services further up the line.

If the Senedd agrees to allow me to introduce this Bill today, thereby ensuring that all four UK nations are covered by specific BSL legislation, my team and I will work with the Welsh Government, BSL signers, and public, voluntary and private sectors, to ensure that its development maximises policy impact and meets needs on a cost-efficient basis. I ask for your support. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. And thank you to Mark Isherwood for bringing forward this Member debate—I know it's something that you've long taken an interest in.

I am very aware of how important this issue is and the importance of ensuring full and equal access to services and information for British Sign Language signers here in Wales. As Mark Isherwood said, back in 2004, Welsh Government recognised BSL as a language of Wales. The Welsh Government is committed to improving the lives of disabled people. We recently commissioned and welcomed an audit of BSL policies and provision within Welsh Government, published by the British Deaf Association. Welsh Government recognises the need to take a fully intersectional approach to the audit’s recommendations and to considering how they can be implemented in the most effective way.

We are making provisions to promote and facilitate the use of BSL and its tactile forms in Wales, and to remove barriers and improve access to education, health and public services in Wales. Progress is being made. Wales is the first country in the UK to include BSL alongside English, Welsh and other languages in the curriculum. This supports learning and teaching for deaf BSL signers, as well as providing an opportunity for schools to introduce BSL to other learners. We were the first Government in the UK to ensure that our COVID-19 press conferences included the presence of a BSL/English interpreter.

Progress will lead to real and sustainable change. We acknowledge the importance of deaf BSL signers having a voice in the design and delivery of services, to ensure their linguistic and cultural needs are met. Our disability rights taskforce brings together people with lived experience, Welsh Government policy leads, and representative organisations. The taskforce's 10 thematic working groups have over 550 group members, including disabled people, parents and carers, and policy leads. We have been looking at every aspect of disabled people's lives, and aim to remove the inequities and barriers that disabled people face every day. Our working group recommendations show how crucial BSL is to inclusion and equality in Wales.

The taskforce is continuing to raise awareness across Government of the damaging effects on society of excluding disabled people. The upcoming disability action plan will put equality and inclusion firmly at the centre of our vision for Wales, and show how, together, we can transform society from a hostile environment to a place where difference is welcomed. Changing society’s perception and behaviour through policy is challenging. The disability rights taskforce is seeking to create genuine and long-term positive change for disabled people, through a co-produced plan, which will support progress towards ensuring that disabled people have access to the services they need right across Wales.

Welsh Government is committed to improving healthcare services in Wales, and improving provision for deaf BSL signers is a priority. Achieving the well-being of future generations goals must leave no-one behind. Across all Wales’s well-being goals, the experience of deaf people shows that more can be done, so that they can access employment opportunities, maximise their physical and mental well-being, recognising the unique deaf culture, and that they fulfil their potential.

Anti-discrimination and anti-oppression are at the heart of Welsh Government’s values. We seek to challenge and overcome institutional and individual prejudice and challenge social injustice. We have much to learn from deaf BSL signers from Wales, to learn and understand their history and continued fight for equality and representation.

The British Sign Language Act 2022 was adopted and supported by the UK Government. It has implications in Wales for non-devolved areas. However, we know that this does not go far enough. A collaborative and inclusive approach is more effective than legislation, which often does not go far enough and does not engage the right people. But whilst I fully appreciate the intention behind this proposed Bill, I do not think it is needed. We can, and have, made significant progress without a Bill. The Welsh Government did not need a BSL Bill to include BSL in the curriculum, or to ensure we have BSL/English interpreters at Welsh Government press conferences. We can, and we will, use policy levers to create effective change and equality.

I want to use our resources to make more direct and immediate positive changes for BSL users. We can, and we will, continue to work in partnership with deaf BSL signers, and also key partner organisations from Wales, to break down barriers and work in collaboration towards an equal Wales. We can, and we will, work together to create effective change. Working together, we can be the change that we want to see. Wales’s unique structure makes us able to collaborate and drive change in ways that others can’t. We are closer to our citizens, and they can tell us directly what they need. And I will be very happy to meet with you, Mark, to talk further around this, and also I am very interested in the discussions that you've had with the organisations that you referred to in your opening speech.

Wales is a country of pride, a country of inclusion, and a country of social justice. Equity and inclusion need linguistic justice—of Welsh, and of BSL. Welsh Government is committed to the deaf BSL-using community of Wales. Diolch. 

May I thank Mark Isherwood for introducing this Bill? I'm pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the important issues that he raises in the Senedd, because over the past few years, there's been increasing and long-awaited recognition of the important part that British Sign Language has to play in our society, alongside more specific efforts to promote the language and make it more visible in public life.

The fact that the Welsh Government’s daily briefing sessions on COVID were always signed was a positive step forward in this regard, and, as a party, we have consistently ensured that all of our major public activities, including our conferences and manifesto announcements and so on, make appropriate provision to meet the needs of BSL signers.

But we cannot be reliant on the goodwill alone of organisations on this matter, and the explanatory memorandum related to this proposed Bill is right to note the lack of statutory standards regarding BSL as a clear gap in our current legislative framework. More widely, this is an example, of course, of the wide-ranging social barriers that face the deaf community in Wales, which become clear, very often, very early on in their lives.

For example, I am particularly concerned about the fact that Wales has no accredited auditory verbal therapists, who provide specialist early intervention for deaf infants and children, to ensure that they can achieve the same educational outcomes as their hearing contemporaries.

The implications of this lack of support are clear. As mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, deaf learners are 26 per cent less likely to attain GCSE grades A* to C in the core subjects, namely English or Welsh and mathematics, than their hearing contemporaries. Analysis by Auditory Verbal UK has shown that investing as little as £800,000 over the next 10 years would be enough to ensure that every deaf child in Wales has the opportunity to access auditory verbal therapy, which would, in turn, lead to approximately £7 million of economic benefits, by improving quality of life and employment prospects, and by lowering education costs, and, of course, preventing injuries. Does the Member agree with me, therefore, that the issue of auditory verbal therapy should be a specific focus for the work of the proposed BSL commissioner?

I would also welcome the Member’s views on whether the BSL commissioner’s remit should include the ability to set and recommend targets for the Welsh Government and a timetable for closing the attainment gap that I mentioned earlier between deaf and hearing children. Plaid Cymru very much welcomes the way that the proposed Bill would place a duty on the Welsh Government to engage actively with the deaf community in a comprehensive process of co-production on the policies and services upon which they depend, by establishing a BSL advisory group to empower the deaf community across Wales.

The RNID has emphasised that one of the main concerns expressed by the deaf community is the failure to provide access to health and social care services. I myself have received casework where a deaf constituent had been unable to get an appointment with a doctor, while another had no way to communicate with staff while receiving treatment in hospital. This puts their health at risk, undermines their human rights and dignity and is a clear example of inequality. Do you, therefore, Mark Isherwood, agree that access to health and social care should be made a priority issue for the Government and the BSL advisory group under the Bill’s mechanisms?

Finally, does the Member also agree that the specific barriers faced by deaf people in Wales exist on a wider spectrum of social inequality that is deeply rooted in our society, and that we cannot tackle this effectively without investing appropriately and on a continuing basis in our public services? That investment could be greater if Westminster were to have a fairer system to fund Wales. 

There is clear cross-party consensus in this Senedd that much more could and should be done to cater for the needs of signers of BSL, and to strengthen the legal frameworks regarding relevant provisions in public life. Plaid Cymru is, therefore, happy to support the principles of this Bill, and we are also ready to collaborate constructively on a cross-party basis to forge ahead with the work that needs to be done to deliver those principles. Thank you.

I’m pleased today to support this British Sign Language (Wales) Bill, but also, in particular, I'm pleased to be able to support my colleague Mark Isherwood. I'd like to commend Mark for the work that he has done on deaf issues and disability rights over many years in this place, during 20 years as a Member here. It's true to say he's a champion in this place, in this Welsh Parliament, of those who have been, at times, marginalised. He's a champion in letting us understand the issues that they face. This is an excellent example, again, of Mark Isherwood raising these issues. And also, I was once told that passion about an issue or passion about a subject is often shown through perseverance. We've all sat here at times hearing Mark Isherwood persevere on these issues, and it's credit to him today that this Bill proposal is in front of us. 

I myself have been going through the Member Bill process in recent times. It's a really important part of the work of this Senedd. Fundamentally, we're here to create or stop legislation. Member Bills are a valuable part of the work that we do, especially Members who are not on the Government benches. I think Mark's Bill here today, the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill, deserves the time and respect as a piece of Member legislation.

Looking to the Bill itself now, simply put, this Bill has the potential to revolutionise the lives of deaf people all across Wales. All too often, deaf people face barriers in a multitude of areas, from the education system to a variety of public services, as has already been outlined in this place this afternoon. Also, as the explanatory memorandum outlines, many deaf BSL signers have a lower reading comprehension age than the general public. This is of course no reflection of intellectual competence by any stretch of the imagination, but is a direct result of linguistic exclusion, which is not acceptable.

This not only has a negative impact in terms of accessing services, but can also manifest itself in the longer term, especially through outcomes such as poor mental health and societal exclusion. That's why, importantly, a core aim of this Bill is that deaf people who use British Sign Language are not treated less favourably than those who speak Welsh or English. This is a hugely commendable goal and ambition of this Bill.

Just as an aside, my own mum at the moment is learning British Sign Language. She's taking those lessons in Wrexham, and she's reached a certain point in her learning where she's no longer able to continue that learning, because in Wrexham they're not able to progress with the more advanced levels of learning. It's struck me and my family that there's a chance to consider how we include deaf people and how we can play our part in learning BSL to make life simpler and more straightforward for people who are deaf, so that those barriers aren't there.

It’s simply not right or fair that deaf people are excluded from too many parts of life because of their disability. It has to be right for politicians and Governments that disability does not unduly exclude people from being their best. I believe that this Bill allows us in this place and the Government to include more people than we exclude. So, to repeat Mark's words, which he quoted from the British Deaf Association in opening this here today, BSL is

'not just a language; it is also a gateway to learning...and a means whereby Deaf people survive and flourish in a hearing world'.

I wrote that down because, for me, that's absolutely profound. We have a very real opportunity that Wales can seize with both hands to make a difference for those who are vulnerable in this way here in Wales. I would encourage all Members to support the passage of this Bill to the next stage. Let’s give progress a chance. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch to Mark for bringing this Member Bill before us today. I wish you well with this development. I wanted to make a couple of points in support of the Bill and the possible benefits of its introduction.

Recently, I attended a meeting with Welsh Women’s Aid and we discussed the barriers that stop women who are at risk of or are experiencing domestic violence from seeking help. One of those aspects was the lack of BSL provision. They said, in response to the ESJ committee inquiry, that approximately 22 deaf women are at risk of abuse every day. However, they continue to face significant barriers when accessing support. There is often a lack of material available in BSL and there is often difficulty finding translation for terms related to violence and abuse.

These communication barriers cause additional obstacles for survivors wanting to access help and support, making it more difficult for them to leave perpetrators and access safety. There must be fully resourced translators for all services to ensure that they are available immediately and a survivor is not left waiting due to the lack of translation provision in their chosen language. Surely, if this Bill does nothing else, this is an important reason for its introduction, and I hope Mark and the Cabinet Secretary agree with me on that.

Another point I wanted to raise was in relation to the future generations Act. We need this Bill to promote and facilitate BSL in Wales, ensuring a link between the BSL Bill and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, so that BSL plans and reporting requirements are fed into the reporting cycle to reduce the burden on public bodies and ensure alignment. What gets measured gets done, so putting a duty on reporting is so important in creating a culture where the use of BSL is embedded.

And finally, providing BSL interpreters as we have here today should be a standard way of working in this Senedd. Parity between Welsh and English is enshrined in law, so why not add a third Welsh language, BSL? Diolch yn fawr.

Can I take this opportunity to thank my colleague Mark Isherwood for bringing forward this incredibly important British Sign Language Bill? I echo my colleague Sam Rowlands's words that Mark has been a true pioneer and supporter of disabled rights. His passion as well as support for BSL have been evident here in this Chamber for decades.

The overarching aim of this much-needed Bill is to break down the barriers facing deaf people in many aspects of society. As my colleague Mark Isherwood said in his initial introduction, British Sign Language is the most common form of sign language here in the UK and helps build a sense of community and belonging for deaf people by using hand shapes, facial expressions, gestures and body language to convey meaning. The British Deaf Association states that British Sign Language is not just a language, it is also a gateway to learning and the means whereby deaf people survive and flourish in the hearing world. Being able to use BSL is a truly fantastic thing, and I firmly believe children should be taught the basics, at the very least, whilst at school. Whilst this would create a future generation of BSL users, opportunities for adults to equip themselves with this skill should also be more widely offered to people across Wales.

Many moons ago, I actually attended a basic BSL course at the Charles Street learning centre in Newport, which was a hugely exciting as well as beneficial experience for me. I did learn basic things, and I am going to actually try and show you here in the Senedd today, as well as to our wonderful guests here in the Chamber, who, as well as those beyond the Chamber, will be able to perhaps assess me. I learned basic things such as 'hello' and 'you can name me'. [Signs in BSL.] You may have to zoom in on the camera. I remember saying my name, which is 'N-A-T-A-S-H-A', and that's about it, I'm afraid. I may be able to say 'thank you' at the end of my speech, but that's all I pretty much remember. I have to give credit to all of the BSL learning centres across Wales, and, ultimately, across the United Kingdom. There have been a lot of repeated calls for BSL to be given full legal status here in Wales, and although the Welsh Government recognised BSL as a language in its own right a decade ago, in my view more can be done and more should be done.

The Bill here today sets out to improve access to education, amongst other areas, for deaf people, and that is incredibly important, as we know that deaf learners generally have a lower educational attainment compared with their hearing peers. Not only that, but, in fact, deaf children are around 26 per cent less likely to achieve A* to C grades in core subjects such as English, maths and science than children who can hear. I'd like you to all remember that many deaf BSL signers have a lower reading age than the general population as a result of linguistic exclusion. This in turn can lead to social exclusion as a direct result of this, which can adversely affect employment, education and healthcare.

There are also issues within health settings when it comes to BSL, with a shortfall of interpreters, especially when it comes to emergency and unplanned care, having a major impact on deaf people accessing public services. If you can all recall a time where you have been to A&E or have needed emergency medical care, now try and imagine being deaf and needing a BSL translator or interpreter and support at such a difficult time.

To put it simply, Deputy Presiding Officer, this Bill will put the voice of deaf people at the heart of the design and delivery of services to ensure that their needs are met in day-to-day life. I am really proud to be standing here today and to support Mark Isherwood’s Bill. I hope all Members here in the Chamber and beyond will see the huge benefits this will bring and vote accordingly. Thank you.

I call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate.

Diolch. As people watching and attending in the gallery might not be aware, the person who opens has to close and summarise the debate held, so I've been scribbling down lots of notes, which is why I wasn't quite ready when you first called me.

The Cabinet Secretary in her response said the Welsh Government's very aware of how important this issue is, and that Wales is a country of social justice, but the Bill is not needed. That's a contradiction. The people in the gallery, the people across Wales, have been telling us year after year—in the cross-party group on disability, which I chair, for example; in the cross-party group on deaf issues, for example, which I chair; at meetings and conferences I have attended, and elsewhere—that we've got to have this, that we cannot be the only country in the United Kingdom that hasn't got a statutory provision in this respect, that we have to impose and require duties on Ministers that apply in other parts of the United Kingdom. To do otherwise would be a gross betrayal and a failure of social justice delivery, a failure to recognise the barriers that BSL signers encounter, a failure to understand their needs and work with them to help them meet those needs.

The Cabinet Secretary referred to the audit of British Sign Language in Wales by the British Deaf Association—I'm aware of that, I've been closely monitoring it for years, engaging with the BDA and questioning your predecessors on this for years. Throughout that process, the BDA have repeatedly stated to me—and I know the predecessor Ministers, because they've told me—that they still need an Act as well. The audit is not an alternative to an Act. She said that Wales is the first UK nation to include BSL in the curriculum and we applaud that, and I, in the past, regularly raised questions about that, as did Members of all other parties. But as we've heard from a number of speakers, deaf pupils continue to be disadvantaged by continuing inequity in outcomes and that will continue unless we provide the specific BSL interventions required to break that cycle of underachievement amongst children who otherwise do not have learning disabilities, do not have learning difficulties, except for those created by the barriers that we still allow to happen, we still allow them to encounter in school and elsewhere in society, and that is not acceptable.

She referred to the disability rights taskforce, with over 550 group members—550 group members are looking at generic solutions, and when I meet them individually, they tell me they're getting concerned that the talking is going on and we need to be delivering on outcomes. We cannot simply, under the umbrella of generic approaches and continuing to raise awareness, fail also to address the condition-specific needs of different demographic groups and communities across Wales, in this case BSL signers and deaf communities.

As I said, if this Bill does not proceed, Wales will be the only part of the UK not covered by specific BSL legislation. Surely, cross party, that would be a matter of shame, especially when the equivalent legislation in the other parts of the UK, passed or going through the process in Northern Ireland, have all had cross-party support. At UK level in the House of Commons, it was a Labour MP that brought this forward, and I supported her for that. And like I said, this is a language Bill that supports Welsh deaf leadership on BSL matters in Wales. No matter how effective and efficient Cabinet Secretaries, shadow Ministers, civil servants and officials might be, they don't have the knowledge or awareness, or lived experience that people who can provide Welsh deaf leadership can provide.

The Cabinet Secretary said that the UK BSL Act has implications for devolved areas. Well, of course it does, because without that, duties applying to Ministers in the UK in England do not apply to Ministers in Wales in relation to the same devolved matters. So, BSL signers and deaf people in England and deaf children in England have provision and duties imposed on the Government there in this respect to report, to provide guidance, which would not apply to Welsh Ministers. That's not a partisan issue, that would again be a matter of disgrace for this nation and all parties in this place.

Sioned Williams said—

Mark, you're going to have to conclude now, we've gone through extra time for you.

Okay. Well, I thank Plaid Cymru for confirming their support. She asked a number of questions and I agree, I think, on all the points you raised, and most of them, I think, would be included in any consultation that would follow if we get the agreement to go ahead. Sam quite rightly said that the Bill has the potential to revolutionise the lives of deaf people across Wales. Peredur, thank you for raising the issue raised by Welsh Women's Aid—this is another barrier faced by women victims of domestic violence and abuse, if they also lack BSL provision when that is their primary language. Natasha Asghar said that we need to help build a sense of community and belonging and a gateway to learning for everyone—in this context, BSL signers and the communities they live and exist within.

So, I urge everyone to put down their partisan flags on this issue—this isn't part of any UK election. I've been calling for this, as have other people across Wales affected by this, for so very long. Let's let it happen. Let's agree to take this forward, and let's start allowing BSL signers across Wales to have a real voice in designing the legislation that will begin to help them better meet the needs that they have, and the rights that they should have in a modern twenty-first century Wales. Diolch yn fawr. 

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 6 has been postponed.

So, we will move on to item 7, the first Welsh Conservatives debate today, on the Chepstow bypass. I call on Natasha Asghar to move the motion.

Thank you so much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to open this debate and move the motion tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar. Far too many communities across Wales are forced to suffer with heavily congested roads and crumbling road networks on a daily basis. Today's debate focuses on Chepstow in my region of South Wales East, where poor roads and ever-increasingly clogged routes are issues affecting many communities.

We all know that congestion can lead to huge economic, social and environmental cost. Yet, unfortunately, it does seem that the Labour Government here in Cardiff Bay continuously fails to tackle the issue. Instead, from a public viewpoint, they would much rather roll out costly 20 mph speed limits, put the brakes on new road building, and pursue road-charging plans, instead of rolling up their sleeves and coming up with some serious solutions.

One way of solving Chepstow's nightmare would be to build a very much-needed bypass—something that the Welsh Conservatives have long been calling for. There are, undoubtedly, massive benefits that bypasses can bring communities, by boosting local economies and, of course, by ultimately easing congestion. And it is incredibly disappointing that the Welsh Government hasn't done more to make this a reality over the past 25 years.

Gloucestershire County Council has earmarked £500,000 in its budget to help the infrastructure project over the line, yet it appears that Labour-run Monmouthshire council has sadly failed to put its hand in its pocket. Previously, under the fantastic leadership of my colleague Peter Fox, and also followed by Richard John, Monmouthshire council had thrown its backing behind the scheme. In fact, there was an agreement between Monmouthshire and Gloucestershire councils back in 2022 to advance the bypass plans.

But sadly, since Labour took over Monmouthshire council, there has been very little movement. But then again, should we really be surprised? All we know is that the Labour Party does, unfortunately, loathe drivers. Thankfully, the Conservative Party, which is firmly on the side of drivers, unlike Labour, has committed to giving Monmouthshire council the funding to develop plans for the bypass.

This bypass is absolutely essential when it comes to removing congestion, and it will allow people to cut down their commuting time, instead of being constantly stuck in traffic. Part of the A48 in Chepstow, which includes Hardwick Hill, is one of the two areas in the country that has exceeded the nitrogen dioxide objective levels in the past. So, not only would a bypass alleviate the horrendous traffic situation, but it would also go a long way in helping improve air quality in the area, which is something that we undoubtedly all want to see, regardless of our party.

Reports of lengthy tailbacks and heavy traffic on the M48 Severn bridge in Chepstow have, unfortunately, become commonplace. And with more houses being built in the area, our roads will undoubtedly be placed under an extra burden. There is widespread support for a bypass, not only here in Wales but across the border, where motorists are often stuck in traffic jams leaving the Forest of Dean. People living in areas such as Lydney, Sedbury and Alvington can all see the benefits of a Chepstow bypass.

It would appear as though everyone can see the benefits of this bypass apart from Labour, and that can be seen from the amendments tabled by the parties here today in the Welsh Parliament. That, I would argue, shows the stark differences between our parties. We want to help drivers, whilst recognising the economic, social and practical benefits an efficient road network would bring to Wales. Unfortunately, Labour simply wants to force people out of their cars and onto public transport by making motorists’ lives as difficult as possible.

The situation in Chepstow has gone on for far too long, and decisive action must be taken sooner rather than later. Chepstow needs and deserves a bypass. The will to make this happen is there in certain quarters. I certainly can’t deny it. But we need absolutely everyone to be on board and work together to build this incredibly important piece of infrastructure. I really hope that Members across the Chamber here will support our unamended motion this afternoon, and I look forward to hearing all of the contributions in this debate today. Thank you so much.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for North Wales and Transport to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Moved.

And I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the amendment.

We have proposed amendments to the motion to try and encompass some of the wider issues in Wales's transport network. Our amendments also seek to address the barriers preventing local communities from making their own transport decisions. The transport infrastructure in Wales has been historically and systematically underfunded. Wales needs significant investment in transport infrastructure, but these upgrades require community involvement and a fair funding settlement for Wales. Westminster is denying Wales potentially over £4 billion in our fair share of real funding. Both Tories and Labour refuse to commit to giving Wales its fair share after the next general election, but Plaid Cymru's vision is for a Wales where communities are connected, north to south, east to west, through an integrated, accessible and affordable public transport network. We would use the billions we are owed to invest in a green, accessible and affordable public transport network to connect our communities, invest in our local economies and protect our environment.

We recognise the calls for a bypass in Chepstow. We also have concerns about congestion in Llandeilo and on the Menai crossings. Infrastructure projects must be more than just top-down decisions, they need to reflect the voices and needs of the communities that they intend to serve. The Menai crossing doesn't only serve the 70,000 residents of Ynys Môn, but is a key link from local to continental and global. All this should be taken into account when making infrastructure decisions. This Labour Government's current focus on modal shift alone is not enough to address this.

The Federation of Small Businesses have noted that, when transport systems are efficient, they provide economic and social opportunities and benefits. This results in positive multiplier effects, such as better accessibility to markets, employment and additional investments. Currently, in Chepstow and Llandeilo, air quality is being compromised, affecting people's health and well-being. When there are roadworks in Llandeilo, heavy goods vehicles already go on inappropriate roads, which is dangerous and doesn't align with the Welsh Government's current 20 mph policy promoting road safety. Perhaps if Labour or the Conservatives demanded fair funding for Wales's transport network, and the devolution of rail infrastructure, then we would be able to invest in these vital community transport projects ourselves. By involving our communities and securing fair funding, we can create infrastructure that not only meets present demand, but also paves the way for a prosperous and sustainable future. Diolch yn fawr.

I welcome this debate today because it gives another opportunity to shine a light on this serious problem in south-east Wales. Now, as many of you know, Chepstow sits at the gateway into Wales, but also a gateway for thousands of English commuters a day passing through Chepstow from Gloucestershire, via the A48, out of Wales, to access the motorway network. The density of traffic has increased massively over the last couple of years, and it's set to rise significantly as we see more and more housing developments completed and others being considered and taken forward across the border in the Forest of Dean and wider Gloucestershire. These huge volumes of traffic have to climb up the renowned Hardwick Hill through the town, and pollution monitoring equipment, as Natasha said, has been located there for many years, and shows consistently that the A48 at Hardwick Hill is one of the most polluted areas on the Welsh road network. This is having an extremely negative impact on the communities that this road runs through.

The congestion is added to by our own housing developments from along the Severnside corridor, stretching from Newport through to Portskewett, and, as a result, we see the A48 heading east through Pwllmeyric brought to a standstill most days, as traffic from all directions have to negotiate the Larkfield roundabout. So, we have this perfect storm of traffic issues in the area, but this can't be mitigated, as we have poor and undeveloped public transport in the area, and no infrastructural provision to enable people to reduce travel by car. 

Monmouthshire County Council, under previous control, started to consider long-term solutions and opportunities to do something to deal with this very real and growing problem. We engaged with the Forest of Dean and Gloucestershire and started conversations with the UK Government and Welsh Government. Much work had gone on into looking for solutions for the area, and I thank the Welsh Government of that time for its support of the Chepstow transport study, exploring options, including a potential bypass, which is widely felt to be the only real option to address things and allow Chepstow to thrive. 

This is not a new concept, but one that has been spoken about for decades. It is totally achievable and, indeed, developments over the years have been cognisant of its potential emergence. The transport study has been taken forward in line with the Welsh transport appraisal guidance process, which we know as WelTAG, and it has been followed, and two options for a bypass were considered at the WelTAG 2 stage, with a low-carbon option coming forward as a real solution that could be worked up as part of WelTAG 3, which requires a business case to be developed.

Now, sadly, we know the recent history, with Welsh Government putting a hold on road building schemes and the new Labour-run Monmouthshire council, who halted their work on it and poured cold water, sadly, on the progress of this scheme. However, we now have another chance to bring forward this, with the current UK Government committed to providing funding for Monmouthshire County Council to develop plans further for this much-needed bypass.

So, we now need Welsh Government to step back up to the plate and come back to the table and work with all stakeholders, including UK Government, Monmouthshire County Council, Forest of Dean and Gloucestershire, to make the bypass a reality. Please don't bury your heads in the sand on this; it's too important an issue. I encourage colleagues here to support our motion.

This is an obvious and transparent Conservative ploy to try and shore up what little support they have left in the Monmouth constituency ahead of the general election. An Arup review of the proposed bypass found 90 per cent of those likely to use it live in Gloucestershire, and therefore 90 per cent of the costs should fall on UK Government. Pre COVID, Arup estimated the cost at £150 million, and it's likely that those construction costs have increased by at least 50 per cent since then, and the actual cost would now be probably around £0.25 billion. And there's absolutely no evidence that the UK Government actually believes this would be value for money for possibly 30,000 Gloucestershire residents, and that's why I say this is an obvious and transparent election ploy.

And it seems quite likely as well, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the effect of such a bypass would be to shift congestion at the High Beech roundabout to the roundabout at Junction 2 of the M48. So, much better, then, to look at solutions to these problems, Dirprwy Lywydd, that are actually achievable and would have the effect that's required.

We know that things are improving in some ways. We have better train frequency now, thanks to Transport for Wales. There will be two trains an hour from Chepstow during most hours of the day, and we know that we need a more integrated service through the Severn tunnel junction to Bristol from Chepstow, and hopefully that will be developed as well, because there's a lot of recognition of the benefits that would bring. We need improvement at the High Beech roundabout, and this is something the Welsh Government is considering, and I hope very much that there might be an announcement before too long. And of course we need to divert traffic away from Caldicot to Chepstow, so that traffic that comes to Chepstow from Caldicot could quite easily be diverted, for example by a link road from the B4245 at Rogiet through to the M48. This is a proposal that has support from Monmouthshire County Council and also from the local councillors representing that area.

So, it's not as if there aren't potential solutions to ease these problems, Dirprwy Lywydd, but they must be achievable and they must be around integrated transport, which we know is the way forward for our transport problems here in Wales. That's why I support the Welsh Government's approach of working in partnership with Transport for Wales, Monmouthshire County Council and Gloucestershire County Council to consider options to improve the road network, to improve public transport provision and also, of course, active travel provision in and around Chepstow. That is the right way forward, the achievable way forward, and that, I believe, has a lot of local support. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for North Wales and Transport, Ken Skates. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I'd like to begin by thanking the Conservatives for bringing forward this debate today. I know the idea of a bypass for Chepstow has been circulated for many years—indeed, it predates devolution—and I've listened with great interest to Members' arguments for a Chepstow bypass. Let me say firstly I do recognise the transport issues in Chepstow and the impact that they're having on the daily lives of those living in and travelling through Chepstow.

Earlier this year, Members will be aware that the Welsh Government carried out a review of transport issues at High Beech roundabout, which John Griffiths has referred to, and that we worked with Monmouthshire County Council and with Transport for Wales on that review. And it concluded that there is a strong case for change to improve travel in the area. It further recognised that there is a lack of effective public transport in the area, meaning that people don't often have an alternative to the private car. And recent developments in Gloucestershire are also increasing journeys through the area, and they're likely to continue to do so. I think all Members in the Chamber today have acknowledged that. Both of these factors contribute to delays and queuing at High Beech roundabout in peak periods, and the congestion creates issues with noise and air quality, and it affects people's journey times as well. Addressing these problems is also important to enable future residential developments in Monmouthshire. 

Now, the motion tabled by Darren Millar focuses on a Chepstow bypass as a solution to these problems and I recognise that, in some cases, bypasses can and do provide the best solution to improve transport in the area. Now, whether that is the case depends on local circumstances and the evidence about the impact it would have on journeys and on emissions. To deliver solutions that will address the issues now and in the long term, Chepstow needs an integrated, attractive and sustainable transport system, and this means taking a more holistic approach to considering transport in the area, and we need to consider changes in the strategic road network, whether that be a bypass or changes to High Beech roundabout, alongside improvements to public transport. 

So, we'll provide funding to Transport for Wales this year to take forward a study into the issues in Chepstow and to identify measures to improve transport in and around the town. This work will take place in partnership with Monmouthshire County Council and, indeed, in partnership with Gloucestershire County Council over the summer months. And ahead of this work, we're already making improvements to transport in the area. Just as John Griffiths has identified today, Transport for Wales now has introduced an additional 12 services a day between Cardiff and Cheltenham, providing an hourly service on the route. And the service is being operated using brand-new class 197 trains, providing passengers with a hugely improved experience.

More widely, we've awarded £8.4 million to transport projects in Monmouthshire in this current financial year, including investments in bus infrastructure and, indeed, improvements to the A4136. And longer term, the south-east Wales corporate joint committee are currently developing a regional transport plan, which will take a strategic approach to improving transport across south-east Wales. And here I have to make perhaps the most important point: that decisions over transport should be made at the most appropriate level, and that collaboration across borders and across administrative boundaries is absolutely vital. 

That's why we're striving, through creating corporate joint committees and in devolving decision making on funding, to get the decisions that are right for local areas made by the representatives of those local areas. I look forward to reporting on progress in easing congestion in Chepstow, and I hope that you'll feel able to support our amendment today. 

I call on Tom Giffard to reply to the debate. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd, and can I thank everybody that participated in the debate today? We know that the issue of the need for a bypass in Chepstow has been a long-standing issue for a long time, and can I pay particular tribute I think to Peter Fox for the amount of work he's done both in this Chamber and previously as the leader of Monmouthshire council? We heard about that important work that was happening not just with Monmouthshire council, but in collaboration with Gloucestershire County Council, to take this project forward. I also know councillors in the Chepstow area, such as Christopher Edwards, Paul Pavia and Louise Brown, have been really been working hard on behalf of constituents in that area as well. Can I also pay tribute as well—we talked about Monmouthshire County Council—to Richard John, who succeeded you, and I know he was taking that plan forward? Now, these plans, unfortunately, have ground to a halt, with the election of a Labour council in Monmouthshire. Like the road itself, it is going nowhere.

So, can I turn to some of the contributions, then? We heard from Natasha Asghar in particular that this is important not just for people in Chepstow, but actually, about the economic viability of south-east Wales and the south-west of England becoming an economic hub as well. Air quality was another issue that was mentioned by Peredur Owen Griffiths, and I was glad he mentioned it, because Hardwick Hill is one of only two areas in the county that have exceeded the nitrogen dioxide objective level. So, it is a real, real issue there in that specific part of Chepstow.

Can I thank John Griffiths as well for his inspirational speech, where he told us that everything was wonderful in Chepstow? I don't think local people would necessarily agree with that. What he called for were solutions that were actually achievable, but we've already heard that these proposals are achievable: this bypass is achievable, it was being delivered by a Conservative-led Monmouthshire County Council, and has ground to a halt with the election of a Labour one. And let me read to you, John, what Monmouthshire County Council themselves said in 2011, because you mentioned specifically about emissions: 'A bypass', quote,

'would significantly improve air quality within the AQMA and would also improve safety and living conditions for those living'

along the bypass route. So, I think it's important to acknowledge it ticks every box, if you like, of what John Griffiths was saying; the obvious answer here is a bypass.

And finally, can I—

Would the Member take an intervention?

Of course.

Would the Member agree with me that it's vitally important that the incumbent Member of Parliament, David T.C. Davies, is returned after this election, so that Chepstow doesn't grind to a halt, after the rhetoric we've heard from the Labour side, and David can go on championing the bypass for Chepstow, so that Chepstow can get the break it needs from the stranglehold of the Labour decline of Monmouthshire County Council?

Can I thank Andrew R.T. Davies? I was working to that; that was my big crescendo.

Can I remind all Members we are not electoral broadcasts here; we are here to debate the issue of the Chepstow bypass, and it's important we discuss those issues?

It is. It is absolutely important. Therefore, can I thank the Minister, or the Cabinet Secretary, Ken Skates for his buzzword response? We heard about committees, meetings, collaboration, but the answer's clear: we just need a bypass in Chepstow. And I don't think Chepstow residents will be necessarily reassured listening to the contribution from the Cabinet Secretary today, and the lack of seriousness from the Labour Party to take this issue forward, to drive Chepstow forward. And I hope they will reflect on the decision that they will have to make in just two and a half weeks' time between a Labour candidate who is determined to grind Chepstow to a halt, or David T.C. Davies, who will keep Chepstow moving.

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

Item 8 is the second Welsh Conservatives debate, on nuclear. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. 'Atomic Kitten', 'Pocket Rocket', Virginia Crosbie—one and the same, the woman who, over the past four and a half years, as the MP, who should be returned again, has worked so hard, with residents, business owners and the UK Conservative Ministers, to bring nuclear energy and thousands of jobs to Ynys Môn. The energy that she has put into this initiative could itself split the atom, and she has succeeded in her aims. Now, contrast that with the silly shambles of Plaid Cymru, who have claimed they don't oppose nuclear energy, but yet Liz Saville-Roberts, Plaid's group leader in Westminster, stated at the ITV Leaders' Debate: 'You know as well as I that Plaid Cymru's policy is no new sites for nuclear. That would include Wylfa and it would include Trawsfynydd.'

Ironically, here we have a political party in Wales whose ultimate aim is for independence, but wanting to scrap the actual nuclear deterrents that have kept our country safe for so many years. It is well known that nuclear isotopes now have a part to play in health treatments, eradicating cancer almost instantaneously, yet Plaid Cymru have supported Labour and the huge cut in funding to Cwmni Egino, and ultimately Trawsfynydd, where these isotopes could be manufactured. How can the people trust Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru on nuclear when you've cut funding for Trawsfynydd? And you've also chosen today to delete the line in the motion that reads, and I quote:

'Welcomes the UK Government's continued commitment to the UK's Trident deterrent.'

So, there was have it: clear evidence that not only Plaid Cymru, but Welsh Labour under Vaughan Gething, does not welcome the UK Government's continued commitment to Trident. In fact, if you look at the manifestos, it is only the Conservatives who have made a written commitment to deliver a new gigawatt power plant at Wylfa. Labour hope to pull the wool over the eyes of their voters. In Plaid's 2024 manifesto, it states:

'Plaid Cymru opposes the development of new sites for nuclear power stations',

however the leader of Plaid, Rhun ap Iorwerth, on our screens, has spoken out many times in favour of investing in nuclear energy. So, I do ask the party opposite, with only one Member on the bench—well, one: what is your exact position? Tell us, and tell us ahead of the election, so that the electorate know. Thankfully for us—

I think Rhun ap Iorwerth is indicating that he wants to intervene. Are you accepting the intervention?

Yes, I'll take one. Yes.

Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Not to school Janet Finch-Saunders, but just to make it very, very clear, and in fact what Liz Saville-Roberts said in that interview, Plaid Cymru's policy, quite right, is no new nuclear sites except Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, which are already nuclear sites with generations of nuclear tradition in them: something made clear in that interview that you are misleading people about.

No, absolutely no misleading on my part.

Thankfully for us, Conservatives have made great strides in bringing investment for nuclear energy into north Wales. In the March 2024 spring budget, our Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, announced that the Government would be purchasing the Wylfa site for £160 million. That is showing a commitment to not only future UK energy security, but also the future of Wales as an industrial leader in nuclear energy. They announced only last month that plans are now being drawn up to use Wylfa as the preferred site for a large-scale nuclear power plant, firmly cementing Wales as part of future nuclear energy production in the UK. This is excellent news for Wales.

A study by Oxford Economics, commissioned by the nuclear industry, shows that the UK's existing civil nuclear industry contributed £700 million to the Welsh economy in 2021, directly employing 800 people and supporting nearly 11,000 jobs. According to Prospect, the nuclear sector is crucial for meeting our future energy needs and enhancing energy security. It plays a vital role alongside the expansion of renewables and other technologies, whilst also providing highly skilled, well-paid jobs. Rolls-Royce have stated that each small modular reactor will create 400 to 500 local jobs during its operation.

Looking at the wider potential benefits, each nuclear sector employee contributes an average of £102,300 in gross value added to GB—nearly twice the national average. The UK Conservative Government have made it clear that they want these projects to remain localised, with Rolls-Royce shortlisting three potential factory sites, including Deeside in north-east Wales, aiming for up to 80 per cent UK content to maximise local employment and supply chains.

Additionally, the development and maintenance of nuclear power requires highly skilled professionals, necessitating the training of future engineers and scientists. And we want to see more women in these types of industries. This gives potential to higher education centres, such as Bangor University, and we're all very proud of Bangor University. They will enjoy access to on-site training and expertise—[Interruption.] Yes. This commitment would also signal Wales—[Interruption.] They're doing the Llywydd's job here. [Laughter.] In science, technology, engineering and mathematics, with apprenticeship uptake in decline for the past five years, and 43 per cent of vacancies in STEM roles, there is a desperate shortage of applicants, so it's vital that we encourage individuals to pursue and remain in STEM careers, whilst contributing to our local job growth and stability.

As usual, the Welsh Government are failing to recognise this potential. As the Cabinet Secretary for the economy and energy outlined only last month, the Welsh Government, assisted by Plaid Cymru, made a £1.5 million cut to the budget of its major nuclear project in Trawsfynydd. After investing over £2 million in 2023, and with the Welsh Government slashing this budget, we now face the prospect of losing momentum for here. It is only Virginia Crosbie and the Conservatives—

I am happy to allow a degree of party political debate in the context of this being a political chamber and this being a time of a UK general election, but I'm not content with it being personalised to individual candidates. So, if we can stick to the parties, and not the candidates.

Well, it is only the Conservatives who recognise that Wylfa and Trawsfynydd are ripe for investment, and are set to make north Wales the fission frontier of twenty-first century nuclear energy. That might be a bit much for the Welsh Labour Government and Plaid Cymru to take. It's what is needed on Ynys Môn, and I for one support those initiates. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be de-selected. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language to move formally amendment 1.

Formally, Llywydd.

It's formally moved. And Luke Fletcher now to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Plaid Cymru.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, let's start with nuclear weapons. They're deadly, they're terrifying and, in a flash, all of this could be over. Devices capable of ending human civilisation. Now, despite the supposed deterrence that these weapons provide, recent events tell a different story, don't they? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the middle east demonstrate that wars persist undeterred by the looming threat of nuclear annihilation. Instead of fostering peace, the proliferation of these weapons fuels global tensions. Now, the path to lasting peace lies not in an arms race, but in negotiation, non-proliferation and disarmament. We must redirect our resources towards building a safer, fairer world, a future where diplomacy triumphs over destruction, and human life is valued over the spectre of nuclear devastation. That's why Plaid Cymru opposes the Trident nuclear weapons system and its renewal, which is estimated to cost more than £200 billion, and why we are supporting the United Nations' treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. If additional defence spending is required, then it would be better used on conventional defence and to peaceful ends rather than weapons of mass destruction.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Thank you very much for taking the intervention. So, just so I'm clear, you would be in favour of the United Kingdom ridding itself of its nuclear weapons, but the likes of Iran and North Korea retaining those nuclear weapons in response. That's your position?

We've just said, right, that we'd be supporting the United Nations' treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. That requires work across the global community, doesn't it, to disarm. You can't expect every country in the world to disarm if nobody's willing to take the first step. So, working together, through peaceful means, is always the better way forward.

I'll move on to nuclear energy. Now, I really do worry that focusing and investing large amounts into nuclear comes with a significant and concerning opportunity cost. Nuclear power plants are notorious for being over budget and behind schedule. Hinkley Point C won't be operational until 2027, perhaps even 2030. So, that's more than 20 years after it was announced. We don’t have 20 more years to wait to tackle climate change and our energy problem. There are other ways to address the issue.

We have some of the largest tidal ranges anywhere in the world, with the Severn and Dee estuaries being among the largest. We have huge opportunities for offshore wind, and if we want to tackle the cost of energy, well, the cost of renewable energy is only going down, and will be by far the most cost-effective option in the future. And by the time the stations are operational, I, like many, would hope that green hydrogen production and storage capacity in Wales would be able to offset the need for nuclear energy's baseload power.

Now, the reality is that we will have no say on whether new developments go ahead, due to the devolution settlement, but what we can try and influence is the extent to which nuclear developments actually benefit communities in Wales. And in this, Llinos Medi and Plaid Cymru have for some time campaigned to ensure the Wylfa development is a community—

No mention of candidates, if that's okay, and just to draw your attention to your time as well, you're out of time. If you can complete your contribution.

Plaid Cymru have long campaigned to ensure the Wylfa development is a community-centred development, so that local businesses and local workers are served by the development and not the other way around.

I will end, Llywydd, just by pointing to the fact, as well, that unless we get to grips really with the skills strategy for our economy, then all of this is just conjecture, isn't it? We know that there is a severe lack of skills, not just when it comes to actually providing those skills for renewable energy, but as a recent Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee report highlighted, the same would be true for the nuclear sector as well.

I would like to begin my contribution by placing on the record my acknowledgement that my position on nuclear differs from the rest of my party, but I feel it's important to speak on the issue and for a variety of perspectives to be heard.

The people of Ynys Môn have spent more than a decade being promised the fruits of nuclear development by the UK Conservative Government. Just like the rest of the commitments made about Wylfa, the latest promise to built a gigawatt power plant on the island can safely be filed away as another fantasy from a desperate Government on its last legs. We have already wasted a decade, and we're looking at another decade at least before things are up and running. And it's staggering to think about all the time and the millions of pounds that have already been wasted on this project, and it's money that could have been spent investing in deliverable, climate-friendly energy production of the future, and increasingly cheap and true renewable energy, such as wind, solar, green hydrogen and tidal.

And we don't have to look far, when we see them already here in Wales, and plans for more, whether it's the Morlais tidal energy project, new offshore windfarms, or a possible north Wales tidal barrage. These forms of true renewable energy are making nuclear increasingly redundant today, let alone in 10, 15 or 20 years' time, when this might come into fruition, or is proposed to. To continue down the path is to continue to risk vast amounts of time, effort and money on a method of energy generation that, in itself, has a limited lifetime, and could well be completely obsolete by the time it's fully operational.

I simply do not accept that nuclear is in any way a renewable form of energy either, not only because it relies upon finite materials, but also because it means passing on to our children and future generations the job of dealing with toxic waste. And who will the partners be for any such scheme? You can be pretty sure they won't be publicly owned by the British or Welsh taxpayer; it will be yet another example of Welsh resources being exploited, so that wealth can be siphoned off outside of our country for the benefit of extractive shareholders, with no care for or connection to Wales. I hear that South Korea is being looked at as a partner, and EDF, but they're already tied up with building the other nuclear plant.

We have to be honest with ourselves about the world in which we're living—honest not only about the future of energy generation on a planet increasingly at risk of climate breakdown, but about the military threats posed by modern weaponry in an increasingly polarised world. As we have seen just recently in Ukraine, nuclear power plants are not intended for conflict zones, but we can never be confident that they won't become part of one. Nuclear power plants in war zones are uniquely hazardous in a way that renewable energy generation simply is not. So, instead of relying on a form of energy that is slow to plan and build, which can be a devastating military target, which isn't renewable, and which is astronomically expensive, let's build a country reliant on clean, safe and cheap renewable energy.

I celebrate the role of the nuclear industry and show my appreciation for the role that it plays in north Wales, providing over 800 skilled jobs, putting £700 million into the Welsh economy, and providing homes with carbon-neutral electricity solutions. I will briefly reiterate the benefits of nuclear energy, which are plentiful. 

Nuclear energy is clean and renewable, nuclear power stations don't pollute, they don't release greenhouse gases, they can be built in rural or urban areas, and they are a reliable source of energy that is not dependent on weather or the availability of gas. People have concerns around nuclear energy due to infamous incidents in the last century, but the International Atomic Energy Agency says that nuclear power plants are among the safest and most secure facilities in the world and that health risks associated with nuclear power pale in comparison to those posed by fossil fuels that fill our atmosphere with carcinogenic particulate pollution.

Greenhouse gas emissions associated with nuclear energy are actually lower than solar and wind power, with six tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions associated with nuclear, compared to solar energy's 53 tons. Data shows that nuclear energy leads to fewer deaths per terawatt hour of electricity than coal, gas, oil, biomass, wind, and hydropower—it's quite a list, that. In fact, the same data shows that nuclear energy is the second safest method of energy pollution we have, narrowly beaten by solar. The purchase of Wylfa by Great British Nuclear is also expected to bring an investment of £20 billion to Wales, as well as securing thousands of jobs for the region, and potential for further investment in the site is still on the table.

I will leave it to Labour and Plaid Cymru Members to explain to their constituents that they have to suffer blackouts in order to satisfy their own ideological peculiarities, as was the case in New Zealand when they started drilling as a solution to that, but I would urge those Members to follow that example by their leader, who enthusiastically embraces the benefits of nuclear energy in his own constituency and what that offers for Wales. I encourage the Welsh Government to work with the UK Conservative Government, which I hope will be re-elected on 4 July, to secure even more nuclear energy sites for Wales. I would just conclude by copying Janet's remarks in encouraging the people of Ynys Môn to vote Conservative on 4 July to ensure that this happens. Thank you very much.

The motion itself actually starts okay, talking about the economic benefits of nuclear energy projects. It's a principle that's been important to me, of course, in my years of supporting the development of the Wylfa Newydd project, before the Conservatives, of course, scuppered it in 2019. Wylfa Newydd would already be being built by now if it wasn't for the mess the UK Conservative Government made of things. There's the real irony in today's debate. And if I could say, there's a real sadness also in the tone from the Conservatives in deciding to mislead people about what Liz Saville-Roberts said when she said, in that same interview that you quoted, 'We have said that we support those two sites.' So, let's have a bit of honesty in this debate: just back yourselves.

The motion then goes somewhere I'm frankly amazed that the Conservatives wanted to take it. They choose to conflate nuclear weapons and the civil nuclear energy sector. I can imagine that people working in the nuclear energy sector now trying to win support for it will have their heads in their hands. Despite the common ground we may share on the potential for nuclear energy jobs, I clearly won't be supporting a motion that conflates that—

Sorry, Rhun ap Iorwerth. Janet Finch-Saunders is seeking an intervention.

Carry on.

Rhun, let's be honest, your main agenda, your ideology, is independence. Do you believe that Trident has actually saved our country over the last goodness knows how many years, including Wales?

As I say, I won't be supporting a motion that conflates nuclear energy with weapons and which backs the spending of £200 billion on nuclear weapons. I just don't think that should be the priority in terms of defence spending, or, crucially, a priority when we have so many children living in poverty and families blighted by the impact of Conservative austerity and the cost-of-living crisis. As I say, what were the Conservatives thinking?

On the Labour amendment, again, it starts well: we can agree on the reference to the kind of energy mix we need for the future. We can also agree on the reference to Wylfa and the need to fully explore options. There's one part missing, I think: that's the reference to the local voice. The reason the Plaid Cymru council leader—I was going to mention Llinos Medi here, but I'd better not—worked so hard in her role as council leader to get Ynys Môn ready for Wylfa Newydd was because she sees the local benefits. The reason she invested so much time and energy in that leadership role on Wylfa was that she could see the need to really work hard on protecting the community's interests. The amendment omits that local reference, so we'll be abstaining on it in order to to get to our own amendment, which does, whilst focusing on the potential for high-skill jobs at Wylfa that Plaid Cymru on Ynys Môn continues to champion, also specifically call for ensuring that the development at the Wylfa site is fully aligned with the needs of the local community.

The latest Tory pledge to deliver on Wylfa is just another desperate and empty promise. The people of Ynys Môn simply aren't buying it, because they scuppered the last one. We're now talking about a project for 2040 or 2050. We're still focused on the jobs and the skills that could come then, but being honest that some of those young women and men who could work at a new Wylfa haven't yet been born. We should manage expectations on timescale, be honest rather than make grand promises to try to buy votes. In the meantime, we can continue to push the boundaries of what's being done right now in renewables, tidal, offshore wind and hydrogen and so on.

The people of Anglesey deserve better than to see the Conservatives playing political games with Wylfa. Plaid Cymru will continue to insist on investment in order to help our communities to prosper.

The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language now to contribute. Jeremy Miles. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this subject. As I said in response to the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, the discussion is a timely one following recent developments, and as there will be a new Government in Westminster in a few weeks' time. Civil nuclear isn't a devolved policy area and it's and issue for the London Government to decide what nuclear developments should be driven forward and invested in.

In Wales, the Welsh Government invests in nuclear through supporting and enabling. There's one important condition for the support, namely that any investment has to be consistent with the Welsh Government's economic priorities in terms of green jobs, promoting renewable energy, developing the green economy and ensuring a just transition to net zero. Nuclear energy should support our efforts in terms of renewable energy, not replace them.

We will, of course, want to do our best in terms of the economic and social benefits that can come, but we would want to mitigate the impacts that could follow major infrastructure projects, for example on local services. Developing and investing in nuclear helps me support the objective of improving productivity, providing good conditions for businesses to invest in and to renew skills. 

The nuclear objectives of the UK Government have changed entirely over the past few years, with ambitious targets set to produce more nuclear power in the next three decades than in previous years. But there is a great deal of ambiguity, still. The fact that the announcement to purchase the Wylfa site was made shortly before the announcement of the election is an example of that ambiguity. 

Llywydd, as I responded previously on a key recommendation and conclusions from the ETRA committee, we need a commitment on siting for north Wales from a UK Government. The decade-long uncertainty has impacted significantly on our ability to plan for any new activity, and the ongoing delay also affects the perception of nuclear deliverability in potential host communities that eats away at any future projects' social licence to operate. We have clearly shown our ambitions to be innovative in this space and to explore how to bring much-needed socioeconomic benefits to our rural communities: the setting up of Cwmni Egino, supply chain support on Hinkley Point C, and projects on decommissioning opportunities, to name just a few. Should new projects emerge for Trawsfynydd and Wylfa on Ynys Môn, we will work diligently and collaboratively with major developers and strategic partners, including what I hope, and, from the look of the polls, very much expect, will be a UK Labour Government, on issues of mutual interest.

There are three other areas where I can see how the Welsh Government can actively contribute to promoting and realising benefits and reducing impacts: supply chain and innovation, skills, and local and regional impacts. In supply chain development, we will, of course, look to key centres of innovation excellence such as AMRC Cymru and M-SParc to help support and drive innovation, productivity and competitiveness in our businesses. We also have active experience at Hinkley Point C, supporting the HPC engagement team to engage with Welsh companies that had competency to participate in the project's supply chain, which resulted in significant economic orders for businesses across Wales.

On skills, I've highlighted the scale of the nuclear workforce challenge previously to the Chamber. The sector has a current shortfall of 9,400 people and needs to grow sharply from 83,000 to 123,000 by 2030 to service and support the expected demand. The figures, which were developed as part of a UK Government taskforce, show the challenge ahead. Unfortunately, although officials have had contact with taskforce members, there was no formal opportunity from the UK Government's taskforce to the Welsh Government for involvement. For projects of scale, Llywydd, collaboration is key across the United Kingdom, yet here we have yet another example of the frustration that we have had in dealing with this Conservative Government. It is frustrating, because, in Wales, we have good practice to share. We've made significant strides in skills and the further education sector, providing much-needed investment for new training facilities at Coleg Menai in Llangefni, which is now able to offer a range of engineering-related courses, all with relevance to nuclear and the wider energy sector.

In terms of driving interest from children and young people in career opportunities, we also have several existing STEM-based projects that are and have been delivered by key strategic partners, such as M-SParc in Ynys Môn. On local and regional impacts, which I referred to and Rhun ap Iorwerth mentioned in his contribution, we've shown, on the previous Wylfa Newydd project, how we worked collaboratively with the developer and partners to plan effectively on transport, housing, education and Welsh language matters, truly recognising the critical role that having supportive, resilient communities can have in successful projects and economic health.

To conclude, Llywydd, the Welsh Government is, and, indeed, has been for almost a decade, ready and willing to proactively maximise the social, economic and carbon-reduction benefits of nuclear power, where that aligns with our priorities. I look forward to clear and decisive action from a new UK Labour Government following 4 July, which will allow us to unlock investment and realise the significant wider opportunities arising from new development at both Trawsfynydd and Wylfa.

Sam Rowlands now to reply briefly to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. We've had an excellent debate here this evening on nuclear. Janet Finch-Saunders opened up for us, outlining the benefits that nuclear has for us, particularly here in Wales, contributing around £700 million to the Welsh economy in 2021 alone and supporting around 11,000 jobs, including in the supply chain. We heard from Plaid Cymru what I can best describe as a fairly confused position around nuclear; I'm no clearer right now as to what their position is, quite frankly. We also heard from the Government just now, which, generally, was supportive of the opportunities in nuclear, to be fair, but not reflected by their back benches, it seems, in the party. Gareth Davies spoke to us, importantly, about the safety of nuclear energy, comparing it favourably to the health risks posed by fossil fuels, which pollute the atmosphere with carcinogenic particulates. In summary, for me, Llywydd, it's clear that, for Wales to have the continued energy security and to attract new investment, new jobs and to help move forward in a net-zero place, we need nuclear as part of that energy mix. Our motion today sets out clear support for this and deserves all of our support in this Chamber here today. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

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

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will move immediately to our first vote.

The first vote is on item 5, the motion under Standing Order 26.91 seeking the Senedd's agreement to introduce a Member Bill. It is a proposal on British Sign Language. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Mark Isherwood. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, three abstentions and 16 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next votes are on item 7, the Welsh Conservatives' debate on Chepstow bypass, and I call for a vote on the motion without amendment. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 31 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We will now vote on amendment 1. Open the vote on amendment 1, in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied—in favour 22 and 22 against. Therefore, I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. And therefore the amendment is not agreed. There were 22 votes in favour and 23 against. So, amendment 1 is not agreed.

We will vote now on amendment 2. Open the vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Close the vote. In favour 9, no abstentions, and 35 against. Therefore, the motion and the amendments to the motion have not been agreed, and therefore nothing is deemed agreed under that item.

The next votes are on item 8, the Welsh Conservatives' debate on nuclear. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 32 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed. 

We will now vote on amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1. Open the vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, and 22 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed and amendment 2 is deselected. 

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, 21 abstentions, and 1 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

There we are. That concludes voting time.

We will now turn to the short debate, and Rhys ab Owen will introduce that short debate once the Members who are leaving the Chamber have done so quietly.

Rhys ab Owen, therefore, to introduce his short debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I would like to introduce this debate by drawing your attention to the former Allied Steel and Wire workers in attendance in the public gallery, along with some family members. Their strength and their desire for justice over such a long period of time is incredible and simply inspiring. I'm very grateful to have them here today. I'm also pleased that Adam Price is taking part in this short debate. He has been a keen supporter of Allied Steel and Wire workers for over two decades. 

For many, being a steelworker is more than just a job, it's part of their identity. Many followed their fathers and grandfathers to work as steelworkers. It's a dangerous job, injuries were common, yet we have repaid these individuals and their families by taking away their hard-earned pensions.

In 1981, before you and I were born, Cabinet Secretary, workers at Allied Steel and Wire, not far from this location here, were called into the canteen separately and told by the directors that their company was beginning a new occupational pension scheme—one that had the full backing of the UK Government. They were told that this would allow a decent retirement package for them, and that their pensions were safe and fully protected by law, no matter what hardship the company might face in the future. However, by 1997, along came the Tony Blair Government. One of its first pledges was to put forward a tax pension by up to £10 billion in order to fill the Treasury. For Allied Steel and Wire, that was a bridge too far. By 2002 they went into receivership, making thousands of people unemployed.

To remedy its financial troubles, the receiver came to the decision to axe the pension scheme. Up until that point, workers were paid the pensions that they were promised, based on the length of service and the salary at time of retirement. This was stopped in exchange for what was called the wind-up scheme. This meant that it was no longer about fairness, or what pensioners were owed, but whatever the scheme could afford to pay out. 'Wind-up' is one term for it—an aptly named term for it, perhaps—another term is 'pension theft', and I believe that is a far more effective term for it.

The ASW workers were not the first nor the last to experience this injustice, this gutting of their pensions. Wind-ups were increasingly common in the early 2000s, and punished those who were most loyal and hard-working. You see, if someone was made redundant before the wind-up, then they were first in line to have their pensions paid, while those who were just about to become pensioners were left with the scraps. As BBC Panorama said in 2003, 'The truth is that Government legislation and the stock market had conspired against these workers.' ASW workers anxiously waited to see whether the pension pot that they had paid into with their own money for decades would return any of their hard-earned money.

A key aspect of this controversy is the different schemes the Government put in place to assist victims of this injustice, namely the pension protection fund and the financial assistance scheme. The pension protection fund by no means was perfect, but it was reliant on Government funding, and in face of a crisis, there was provision to reduce payment to pensioners, but to the 90 per cent. Whilst the financial assistance scheme had an arbitrary maximum payout of 90 per cent of the pension value, it was limited indexation, so that 90 per cent was gutted over the years by inflation. And if the value of a pension was largely due to assets, then you would only be permitted to a measly 25 per cent of the value of your shares of the assets in that payment scheme. This meant that pensioners lost 10 per cent of their pensions from the get-go, then more due to inflation, and on top of it all, many had to pay tax on the measly sum they received to the UK Government. For workers who had worked for decades, slaving away day after day in dangerous work, it is no wonder this faulty scheme led to protests across the UK.

In 2006, thanks to hard work by campaigners who are here today, and Baroness Altmann, the parliamentary ombudsman published a report on the misinformation of the then Labour Government, what they had said about the scheme. They said that the scheme would be fully funded, that pensions would be safe, that pensions would even be guaranteed. The ombudsman found that the official information provided by the UK Government was inaccurate, incomplete, unclear and inconsistent. Unsurprisingly, the report was instantly rejected by the UK Government. This then led to a long journey to the Court of Appeal, which ruled in 2008 that the Labour Government had acted unlawfully and irrationally. They had misled pensioners and after five years of battling, the Government finally caved and accepted the ombudsman's report. Surely, Llywydd, that should have been the end of the matter. Justice finally received after a long six-year battle. Yet the fight continues.

The ombudsman recommended that the Government offer compensation to lost pensions and the distress caused to the workers and their families. Yet today, in June 2024, many pensioners have not been reimbursed for the value that their pensions had lost. The UK Government still refuses to pay back the 10 per cent it took from these hard-working steelworkers. So here we are, 22 years after the event that set off this controversy, countless early day motions in the House of Commons, statements of opinion in the Senedd, protests in Cardiff, London, Brussels, Luxembourg, countless petitions to the Welsh and UK Government, and still they have not achieved justice. Do we really need another ITV drama to resolve this scandal?

This struggle for Cardiff workers has lasted so long that it's been through two generations of the Thomas family, my father being a constant voice in this battle from which I am glad to take on the mantle. It is strange to me that the Conservative Party are so keen to attract the votes of pensioners, and so keen to talk about quadruple lock, when they have been the ones presiding over this injustice for over a decade. Where was the quadruple lock on Welsh steelworker pensions? They have shown time and time again that they are not listening to working people.

While I am thankful that the UK pensions Minister met with the pensions action group in January of this year, it's clear to me that the UK Government wanted to move as slowly as possible. And I quote—this is what the pensions Minister said in oral evidence to the committee—

'I do not want the Committee to think, "Great, there is going some be some magnificent change occurring"—I have made that clear to the people I met as well—but there is a body of work now taking place to help me make further decisions.'

There isn't going to be a quick resolution. The reality is that successive Governments have had 20 years to put this right, to return indexation to pre-1997 pensions, to restore the 10 per cent that they stole. And so the fact that work is only now taking place is outrageous. Countless workers have died waiting for their pensions to be restored. I knew some of them—people like Billy Hill, people like Des Harris, a friend of my father's, and people like Stan Nubert, and his son is here present today. His son, Stefan, told me of the impact of this injustice on his father's health—stress, strokes, heart attacks, that took him, untimely, before his time. The impact this injustice has had on the relationship of the families of workers has gone on for too long. Families have collapsed under the strain, under the emotional and financial strain.

John Benson and Phil Jones, who are here today, have told me harrowing stories of literally visiting the death beds of their former comrades, only for them to ask, 'Well, how on earth will my widow, how on earth will my family, survive without the pension?'—hard-working individuals during their dying breath having to be worried and concerned about the well-being and the welfare of their family because the UK Government stole money from them. Some didn't even have money to pay for their own funerals. Some have, tragically, taken their own lives waiting to find justice. This is a scandal still unresolved, a scandal that has been going on—and everyone has known about it—for 22 years; widows still paying mortgages that should have been paid off decades ago.  

The polls are clear that there will be a Labour landslide in 15 days' time. Now, will the party founded and funded over the years by the workers, will they finally give the ASW steelworkers and their families the money that they are owed? Will they finally stand up for the workers who have supported them over the decades? Hopefully, this new Government will be far more receptive than previous Labour Governments and ultimately ensure that this injustice no longer continues. 

The financial assistance scheme was implemented with the aim of cutting costs for the UK Government without any regard to fairness, to chwarae teg. The UK Government misled pensioners and has been found guilty in court on numerous occasions for maladministration. It is our duty as parliamentarians to stand up for our constituents, to stand up for the steelworkers. Crucially, we need to hold this UK Government to account for what they have done. I hope that our Labour colleagues will join myself, the Allied Steel and Wire pensioners and other Members in this Chamber in sending a clear message to the incoming Government that the Allied Steel and Wire scandal should end now, that it's gone on for far too long, and that full pension rights should be restored to the hard-working steelworkers of Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I'm very grateful to Rhys ab Owen for allowing me a minute of time, and it's particularly fitting given the fact that this journey for justice started in the building next door, in Tŷ Hywel, with a meeting organised by his father, with many of the workers that are here present there asking what could be done. To be honest with you, I didn't know, and I spent the whole of the night previously trying to think what could I say. And we managed to find a European directive from 1980 that hadn't been implemented, that said there should be a safety net for workers in precisely these circumstances, and successive Governments hadn't implemented it.

The first battle that we faced was actually convincing Community, which then, as now, is a union that has a history of being very loyal to the Labour Party, that they had to take on a Labour Government, a Labour Government that was refusing, even now, to implement that directive. And we won that first battle, and the union had to take that threat to a Labour Government, all the way, if necessary, to the European Court of Justice. And the 295,000 workers that are covered by the PPF now, the 145,000 workers covered by the FAS, none of those workers would have anything if it wasn't for that group of steelworkers in Cardiff that stood up for justice.

Time after time, the story of capitalism in these islands, and the story of the failure of our democracy, is the story of pension scandals: Murdoch and the Mirror Group, the Women Against State Pension Inequality, the way that the mineworkers have had the profit, the surplus, from their pension taken away by successive Governments—pension mis-selling scandal after pension mis-selling scandal. It says something about these countries in the UK, the way that we treat our workers, our older workers in retirement. It's that moral question that this incoming Labour Government now faces. I'm glad to see that they recognise, in their manifesto, the need to put the injustice to the mineworkers pension scheme finally to rights. But, surely, that same justice that is being offered to former miners should be offered to former steelworkers as well.

The Minister for Social Partnership to reply to the debate. Sarah Murphy.

Diolch, Llywydd. Let me start by saying that I am very grateful to Rhys ab Owen for tabling this short debate, and I thank Adam Price for his contribution to this debate. I also want to pay tribute to the former Allied Steel and Wire workers and their trade unions, who have campaigned for justice so resolutely for more than 20 years. I pay tribute to all of the campaigners, many of you in the Chamber today, those of you who are in the gallery, and also to those who have passed away without ever receiving justice. Because I have no hesitation, and Welsh Government has no hesitation, in calling out the injustice the Allied Steel and Wire pensioners have faced.

While state, personal and occupational pensions are a reserved matter, we have consistently and repeatedly called upon the UK Government to do the right thing and bring restorative justice to those former ASW workers. Successive UK Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions have told us that they are content with the current pension protection regime, but the former ASW workers are not content, and we are not content. We are disappointed the UK Government has failed to secure the pensions justice for the former Allied Steel and Wire workers that they deserve, and I recognise the sense of betrayal that they must feel and that you have highlighted today in the Chamber.

These pensions are not a gift; they are deferred salary. The contributions were made in good faith by ASW workers in the expectation that they would receive security in retirement, not just for them, but also for their families. Those contributions should be honoured and honoured in full. These are workers who worked hard, paid in, and made provision for their retirement, but they have been let down, denied the value of pensions that they could reasonably have expected, and they have seen the purchasing power of those pensions further eroded by inflation.

We continue to be concerned that the welfare and well-being of all of the former steelworkers in Wales and, indeed, mineworkers, because the mineworkers' pension scheme is another example of pensions injustice—. Through no fault of their own, these people are receiving lower pensions than they expected. After more than 20 years, a rightful outcome is too long overdue. Whatever the outcome of the general election on 4 July, the incoming UK Government will have the opportunity to do the right thing and address this ongoing injustice. I will continue to call upon them to do so, along with all of you. Diolch.

Thank you to the Minister and thank you to everyone for that important debate. That brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.