National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon and welcome to this new parliamentary term. We will move to our first item this afternoon once I have informed the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 26.75, that the Agriculture (Wales) Bill was given Royal Assent on 17 August this year. So, assent was given.

The first item this afternoon is questions will be questions to the First Minister, and the first question this term is from Russell George. 

Diolch, Llywydd, and welcome back, all. 

Llywydd, last year, the British Liver Trust, drawing on authoritative advice from the World Health Organization, concluded that minimum unit pricing is amongst the most effective measures that can be taken to reduce alcohol-induced harm. As the policy is embedded in Wales, we should expect to see increased benefits from its adoption.

Thank you, First Minister. I looked at some of the reports from Scotland—there were 40 case studies carried out in Scotland—and I also looked at the Welsh Government's commissioned reports as well, and I took from that a different analysis from you. As much as I would like minimum unit pricing to work and be successful, that's not what I took from the evidence. I noticed there were some reports published, commissioned by the Welsh Government, and there's a table set out in a report that talked of people who are classified as increasing or higher risk drinkers, rising from 33 per cent in 2018 to 40 per cent in 2020, and to 45 per cent in 2022. So, clearly that data, and the table that was sitting behind that, were showing that the direction is going in the opposite direction to what you or I would have wanted, also implying that people are drinking more frequently, and twice as many people are binge drinking before minimum pricing was introduced. 

So, my concern is, and I'm sure it is yours also, that if people are spending more money on alcohol, they will have less money to spend on essentials such as food. So, I'd be grateful for your analysis of some of the work commissioned by the Welsh Government, and whether you feel it's appropriate to bring forward the Welsh Government's final evaluation report, because, clearly, if MUP is not having the desired health outcomes but is actually having a detrimental outcome for people's health, then there needs to be a rethink of this particular policy.

Well, Llywydd, I'm glad to hear Russell George say that he hopes the policy will succeed, because I think the evidence of the World Health Organization is that the policy does have its impact on those drinkers who are at the most hazardous end of alcohol addiction—people for whom high-strength, low-cost alcohol poses the greatest risk. I heard the Member refer to the Scottish experience. The Scottish evaluation—of course, Scotland ahead of us in terms of time—the final evaluation there, was published on 27 June. It showed a reduction in deaths wholly attributable to alcohol consumption of 13.4 per cent during the implementation period, and a reduction in hospital admissions wholly attributed to alcohol consumption of 4.1 per cent. Now, if we could mirror those achievements in Wales, then the policy would have been a very significant success.

The Member referred to the interim evaluations here in Wales. They are not as definitive in demonstrating the advantages of the policy, but, as I know the Member will recognise, they covered a very unusual period indeed. They covered that period of COVID restrictions, of lockdowns, when we know there were wider impacts on people's drinking behaviours. We will award four different contracts to complete the final evaluation of the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Act 2018, and those reports will be available to Members in time for this Senedd to take a view on the sunset clause that is in the legislation, and to do that ahead of the next Senedd elections. 

I hope very much that the successes that have been seen elsewhere from this policy—a policy that, as I said in my answer, was very specifically endorsed by the World Health Organization as one of the most effective measures that policy makers can take—will turn out to have the same impact here in Wales. 

Llywydd, thank you. After more than a decade of austerity, the impact of rampant inflation has reduced the value of the budget available to Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, as with all other public bodies in Wales. In this financial year, the board predicts a gap of £134 million between the available resources and anticipated expenditure.

You are entirely right, of course—the pressures are huge. At the NHS Confederation dinner yesterday evening, your Minister for health said, in the context of cuts:

'You ain't seen nothing yet.'

Those are the words that she used, with the strong suggestion that there would be need for cuts this year—that is, in-year cuts—in the current budget. So, can you confirm whether the Government will ask health boards—and Betsi Cadwaladr health board, of course, being one of them—to find cuts in their budgets this year? And bearing in mind, as you said in your earlier response, that most of them won't balance their books in any case, what impact would that have on their budgets, but also on the services that they are able to provide?

Llywydd, the Welsh Government is not making any requests of the health boards to cut down on the budgets that were made available to them by this Senedd in our vote on the final budget. We are having to ask boards to reduce the level of over-expenditure that they have been predicting this year. So, it's not a matter of us asking them to spend less than we've given them; it's asking them not to spend even more than we have given them. And the reason that all health boards in Wales, for the very first time, are predicting overspends is because of the cumulative impacts of budgets held back by the UK Government, year after year, for more than a decade, and, now, the impact of that made even more significant by the effects of rampant inflation, the effects of energy cost prices on the budgets of our health boards. The effort that the health Minister is making with ministerial colleagues is to mitigate those impacts in the health service. Those efforts that we are making need to be matched by efforts the health boards themselves make, and I have every confidence that they will be doing just that.

First Minister, this is a health board that has had its finances under the spotlight for a number of years now, including under the spotlight of Welsh Government officials. Yet, we learnt that, just a few weeks ago, it was found by Audit Wales that there was a nursing director—the executive nursing director—who was being paid more than three times the permitted financial compensation for her role, at a rate of £469,500 per year, between 1 April and 31 July 2022. Clearly, that is unacceptable. It's outside of the Welsh Government's own rules. What are you doing to make sure that Betsi Cadwaladr health board, and, indeed, every other health board in Wales, plays by the rules that you set, because you're clearly not policing them well enough?

I agree with Darren Millar that it is completely unacceptable that the previous board should have overseen the overpayment to one of its executive members on the scale that Darren Millar just outlined, breaching not only the board's own instructions, but the instructions of the Welsh Government. What we have done is to replace the board with a new chief executive and a new chair, who are now having to investigate how that mistake was made and to put it right. There was nothing wrong with the framework, there was nothing wrong with the rules that were in place. What was beyond what is acceptable is the oversight of those rules at the board. Many Members on the benches opposite have defended the previous board, have questioned the Welsh Government's actions in bringing new people in to oversee it. This is a very good example of why that was necessary.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I welcome everyone back after the summer recess?

The Welsh Government is bringing forward one of its most contentious policies—the 20 mph default speed limit. That is within your manifesto, First Minister—I accept that—and it's within the gift of the Government to bring that forward because it has the votes within this Chamber. But, clearly, there are many people who have strong reservations about the impact of this 20 mph default speed limit. What assessment will the Government commit to making, when this speed limit comes in, of the impact that it will have on the economy—your own papers show a £4.5 billion impact; at the top rate it's £8.9 billion—and ultimately the ability to hit the goals that you have set that will take down casualty rates and accident rates in sensitive areas? 

Well, Llywydd, the leader of the opposition is right—this was a manifesto commitment of my party. It's been in the programme for government ever since the new Senedd term began, and this Government will keep its promise to people in Wales to bring about this reform. We will, of course, just as we have with the minimum unit pricing, have independent evaluation of the impact of this policy. The prospective evaluation showed that it would save up to 10 lives every year and up to 20,000 accidents over a 10-year period, and that the NHS would save £92 million every year as a result of the reduced casualties from road traffic accidents that this policy will help to promote. We will have an independent evaluation of that, of course, and, just as we published the interim evaluation of the minimum unit pricing, we will put into the public domain the result of the evaluations that we will commission.

One of the things that has been highlighted, First Minister, is the knock-on effect this will have on emergency services. The ambulance service, for example, have said that, in their working plan and management tool, ambulances can only travel at 20 mph over the speed limit. So, whereas in a 30  mph zone they can do 60 mph if they're blue-lighting it at the moment, they will be going down to 40 mph. We've seen letters and correspondence from South Wales Police that there will potentially be a knock-on effect. What discussions have the Welsh Government had to change the working framework that the blue-light services will have to operate under so that there will not be an unintended consequence of ambulances being delayed or emergency blue-light services delayed in getting to those vital call-outs that this policy could potentially affect? 

Llywydd, we have those conversations all the time. I don't think that those anxieties are shared by the services either. I think that those anxieties will not be borne out in practice. All our blue-light services are used in Wales to dealing with 20 mph, 30 mph, 40 mph, 50 mph, 60 mph, 70mph restrictions on different roads in different contexts. They manage that perfectly successfully; they will manage this in exactly the same way. 

Well, there have been concerns expressed by those in the emergency services. By your own figures, as well, First Minister, it is recognised that potentially this could have a knock-on effect on economic activity of £8.9 billion. Those are your own figures. The medium range is £4.5 billion. That isn't an inconsiderable sum of money when you are considering the opportunities that will be taken away from the Welsh economy. Twenty mph zones are sensible outside schools, hospitals, care homes and other areas where the argument can be made, but the default position that, obviously, the Government have taken, to have a blanket 20 mph, is the wrong option, First Minister. I urge you, as many people have indicated, that they have not been taken along by this policy—.  The ITV poll today shows over two thirds of the people of Wales do not agree with the policy you've put forward, and, indeed, the former Minister and the Member for Clwyd South has indicated that the Government have failed to take people along on this policy. So, why are you continuing to pursue the policy when it is quite clearly not accepted by the large majority of the people of Wales, and, ultimately, if you look at surveys from Belfast, the goals that you have set yourselves will not be met? 

Well, there are a whole string of points to be corrected there, Llywydd. We will continue with the policy because the policy was voted for by people in Wales in an election, and I can tell you that any change—any change—in this area is often opposed by people before the change comes about. I am quite old enough to remember the introduction of the breathalyser, when people felt that it was perfectly okay for them to spend the day in the pub and then drive home in the car when they were quite unfit to do so. There was just as much controversy about that as there is about this, as there always is when you bring about change. Once the change is there and people see it operating in their areas, as it has been in the part of Cardiff where I live for a number of years now, then people will see the advantages and I don't believe people will want to return to anything else.

It is not a blanket policy. Let's just make sure that we understand what the policy is. It is a default policy and then local authorities are able to designate roads at a 30 mph speed where it is sensible for them to do so. I've been out as much as I can recently, trying to explain the policy and advocate for it. I don't always do it as eloquently as others, so let me just quote what a different Member of the Senedd said on this in a debate here on the floor of the Senedd:

'It's a common sense and it's a safe move. A person is seven times less likely to die if hit at 20 mph than 30 mph, or 10 times if they're over the age of 60.'

The Member ended by saying:

'The de-facto standard for safer and people-friendly streets is now 20 mph with higher limits only where they can be justified.'

Well, I agreed with what Janet Finch-Saunders said in that debate. It is not a blanket ban. It is the default measure, as Janet said—it is the default position, which local authorities can then override when they wish to do so.

Let me give you the best evidence that there is. Russell George said in his opening question that he hoped that minimum unit pricing would succeed because the evidence from the rest of the world is that it saves lives and it targets those who need that help the most. In Spain, where they have had 20 mph zones for a number of years—[Interruption.] No, 20 mph as their default position, as we will in Wales—the very policy you advocated so eloquently, Janet. There, urban deaths from road accidents have fallen by 20 per cent. The number of cyclists killed in road traffic accidents has been reduced by 34 per cent. I can't imagine that there's anybody on the floor of this Senedd who would think that it was an unfair price to ask somebody to pay to drive a little more slowly, when you know that by doing that you are helping to keep other people alive.

Leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd. It's good to be back after the summer recess. It's clear that the high temperatures have told on some. It doesn't surprise me to hear the Conservatives asking questions on the speed limits. They're playing politics, I'm afraid. I do feel, however, that there are some real concerns from people who are supportive of the principle—concerns about how the Government has implemented the change and how broad it is—and I do strongly believe that we will need to review this once we see how it works in practice. We can discuss that a little later this afternoon and tomorrow.

I do agree 100 per cent with the First Minister when he said a few days ago that he didn't need to discuss this issue with Keir Starmer because it is a devolved issue. But there are other issues that the First Minister of Wales should and, indeed, is duty bound to convince Keir Starmer of. One example is the way in which the Conservative Government in London has reduced the Welsh Government's budget by £3 billion. So, in light of the warnings that there will be further cuts—£900 million this year, perhaps—what assurance has the First Minister received from the leader of his party that all of that money would be returned to Welsh Government coffers if the Labour Party were in power in Westminster? Can we have that assurance today?

To start, I'd like to thank Plaid Cymru's leader for what he said about the policy on reducing the maximum speed limit on the roads. The point that he made about the importance of reviewing the policy is a reasonable point. Of course we're going to do that, because when we do something new like that, it's important to learn from the experience and do so across the length and breadth of Wales, and that's what the Welsh Government will do in collaboration with those in local authorities.

As far as Keir Starmer is concerned, of course we are in regular discussion with our colleagues in the UK Labour Party. We understand the circumstances that they will face if and when they become the Government, given the financial mess that they will inherit.

What I say to the Member is instead of asking me speculative questions about what may or may not happen in the future, let's look at what has happened already, because Keir Starmer has made a specific commitment that European funds, as were, will in future be put in the hands of the Welsh Government when they are to be used in Wales. So, that is a very specific commitment; it demonstrates, I think, an understanding on the part of the Labour leadership of where devolved responsibilities properly lie. They will look to strengthen this Senedd and they will look to make sure that we have the resources that we need to discharge those responsibilities. They will have no magic wand on the first day, but they will have a very, very different purpose behind the decisions that they will make and I believe a very, very different relationship with whoever is in Government here.

I think the people of Wales will be looking for assurances that a Labour Government would be restoring funding. We know that governments need resources in order to tackle inequalities and injustice. At the heart of my positive vision for Wales, Government needs resources in order to invest in infrastructure, and so far, the UK Labour Party have shown little interest in doing that. Keir Starmer seems pretty committed to doing whatever it takes to get into Downing Street, but what about the commitment to Wales? There's no commitment to giving Wales its £6 billion fair share of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail funding, no commitment to undoing the real-terms cut in public sector pay, and that's despite the Labour First Minister for Wales saying that he wants both.

After last week's reshuffle, nearly 90 per cent of Labour MPs in Wales hold shadow ministerial positions, so, after years of the Conservatives letting Wales down, can the First Minister now pledge that, on HS2 and on public sector pay, Keir Starmer will now deliver on his wishes as the leader of the Labour Party in Wales?

The leader of Plaid Cymru knows perfectly well that those are not pledges for me to make. What he is busy doing—let's be clear about the political narrative that he is attempting to build here—is attempting to persuade people that a Labour Government that has not even yet been elected and will only ever be elected because of the efforts of people on this side of the Chamber, and certainly not efforts that he will ever contribute to, has already let them down. That is his attempt. 'Labour will let you down'—that's the narrative he's attempting to manufacture. It won't wash with people in Wales; people in Wales will understand at the election that the main task in front of us will be to elect that Labour Government and the very different prospects for the future that it will bring.

People want governments elected for a reason; it's because they want a change. No pledges there on HS2 or public sector pay, or on increasing the Welsh Government's budget.

Let's turn to what the First Minister and I certainly agree on—that the UK Conservative Government could and should be doing so much more to ease the cost-of-living crisis. I've spelt out some of Plaid Cymru's ideas: a windfall tax on banks; a winter heating payment that doesn't depend on how cold the temperature gets—something introduced in Scotland; and extending the energy bills support scheme. These are ideas that could really make a difference to the lives of thousands of people in Wales.

But of course, the Welsh Government has things it can do too. We know that spiralling rents are compounding the cost-of-living crisis—and I'm grateful to Carolyn Thomas, Jack Sargeant and Mike Hedges for supporting our recent motion to introduce controls that would cap or stop rent increases. Now is the time to act. And doesn't the First Minister agree that not doing so only reinforces the feeling that the Tories and Labour are too consumed with fighting each other than fighting on behalf of the people of Wales?

I do agree with Rhun ap Iorwerth that increases in rents are of huge concern to people living in the private rented sector, particularly. It's why, in the co-operation agreement, we are committed to finding ways to take action in that area. It is why we have published a White Paper on this matter. I understand that, for some people, that seems a laborious process, but, unfortunately, in the real world of government, when you take one set of actions, you have to make sure that you've understood the consequences of them, and not all the consequences may be the ones you looked for or even were expecting.

We know now, don't we, that the Scottish Government's so-called freeze on rents led to a reduction in the availability of private sector properties for rent in parts of Scotland. That wasn't what the policy was intended to do, but it had that effect, and that just meant that it was even harder for people looking for private sector rented properties than it was before the policy was introduced.

I'm very keen that we pursue what is in the co-operation agreement and that we look to see what more can be done in dealing with the difficulties that people are experiencing, but doing it in the way we've agreed through the White Paper, and making sure that we hear from those in the field who will have a more nuanced understanding of how some of those actions will make a difference on the ground, is the right way to do it.

The Welsh Government does not support wide-scale land abandonment as a form of rewilding. With others, we work to create living landscapes where farming and forestry sit within and alongside nature protection and promotion.

Thank you, First Minister. I, like many others, I'm sure, in this Chamber see rewilding as part of a number of options that will help increase biodiversity in Wales, and in the coming years, I think we can all expect more areas across Wales to be rewilded. As you're no doubt aware, there are many benefits from rewilding, particularly in developing the nature-based economy, reducing the risk of wildfires and improving water quality to name but a few. That said, many farmers are concerned about rewilding, because they see that not only is it on prime agricultural land, but some of the animals reintroduced can cause extensive and costly damage. The First Minister will know of the reintroduction of beavers in Wales, supported through the Welsh Government's rural development programme. Whilst beavers are not currently causing an issue in Wales, in other parts of the UK they are, in particular Scotland. The numbers have grown to such an extent that they're having a detrimental impact in some places and causing localised flooding. This has unfortunately led to an increase in unregulated culling and the complete absence of beavers in some places. With this in mind, First Minister, what steps are the Welsh Government taking to integrate rewilding into the Welsh countryside whilst also supporting farmers who may experience detrimental consequences to their businesses as a result? Thank you.

I thank the Member for the question and for the balanced way in which he set out the debate. I agree with him that it is bound to be a balance of trying to capture the advantages that come for species and nature restoration where it is possible to carry out aspects of rewilding. The Welsh Government supports a whole range of schemes that have rewilding as part of their purpose, but it's got to be done in a way that does not have consequences that we can see elsewhere that were not intended or use up land that could be better used for other productive purposes.

To give the Member an example of where we think rewilding can certainly have a part to play, Members here will know we'll be bringing a Bill in front of them later in the year on coal tip safety. In coal tip reclamation, there are some real opportunities to enhance species diversity and to create new wildlife opportunities through a bit of action that would fall under the rewilding category. I was fortunate enough, Llywydd, to go to Tylorstown in Rhondda Cynon Taf earlier in the summer. Members will remember the landslip that happened there back in the flooding of 2020. The reclamation is now almost complete. It was very impressive to see the way in which the company responsible for the restoration has so carefully made sure that they have rehomed species that have already taken root in that landscape, have created a new wildflower meadow as part of the reclamation, and how using that land, which isn't available for food production or other sorts of activity, will, in future, contribute to species protection and nature restoration. That sort of rewilding—carefully thought through, properly used where the opportunities are right for it—is part of the mix that we will want to take forward in Wales.

First Minister, I think the unique and historic Gwent levels are a good example of the sort of balance that you're describing, where land is being returned to nature, the water vole has been reintroduced, farming is continuing, public access is enhanced, and I'm very grateful for the Welsh Government commitment that has protected, and I believe will sustain and enhance, that very important area of land, and indeed the creation of the working group that I chair. So, I'd just like to say on behalf of local communities, First Minister, how grateful they are for that balance that you've described being taken forward and supported in that part of Wales, and obviously they very much hope that the Welsh Government's commitment to work with partners on this agenda will continue in the future.

Well, Llywydd, I thank John Griffiths very much for what he said. In his expertise as chair of the Gwent levels working group, he's a great asset not just to those local populations but to the wider policy agenda that we aim to take forward through the Welsh Government. The Living Levels Landscape Partnership is key to all of that, because it brings together communities, farmers, helping to manage and restore the biodiversity and the landscape features of the Gwent levels. And the Welsh Government does want to do more in the future. I hope that quite soon the Minister for Climate Change will be able to say something about the way in which we will use some of the sites that were acquired prior to the policy that I adopted in relation to the M4 relief road—how we can use those sites for further enhancement of the Gwent levels. That will be an opportunity to do even more in that highly valued landscape.

Llywydd, the Welsh Government remains ambitious for the semiconductor sector in the south-east of Wales. Just last week, the Welsh Government signed a declaration to join the European semiconductor regional alliance. That alliance, between European regional Governments, will promote growth, foster collaboration and develop strong value chains in the semiconductor industry. 

Diolch, Prif Weinidog, and I'm glad to see that the Welsh Government are sincere in their support for this crucial industry and the substantial and talented workforce that it supports. I'm really pleased to see last week that the Welsh Government has now joined that European semiconductor regional alliance to support the sector's growth. Sadly, I can't say the same about the Conservative Government in Westminster. Last week we heard the devastating blow that over 100 jobs could be lost in my constituency at Nexperia. Combined with announcements, it will amount to a 25 per cent reduction in the Newport workforce. These losses are as a result of the direct actions and subsequent inactions of the Conservative Ministers in London. Since the order for sale in November, I've been in constant conversations with these committed workers. Between them they have hundreds of years of working in the sector, but they have yet to be treated well. Westminster has refused to engage with them; Westminster Ministers have publicly undermined the cluster and Westminster's lack of impetus over this sale has made job losses inevitable. First Minister, this is disgraceful. My constituents have been left out to dry. Please can the Welsh Government do all it can to support these skilled workers, and crucially can we also put as much pressure as possible on the completion of sale, because with every passing month, the position becomes more untenable? The workforce and the cluster deserve so much better.

Well, Llywydd, this is a sad story and a bad story. It's a sad story for those people who now face themselves being put out of work, and it is a sad story, because it need not have happened in this way. So, here is the history briefly: Newport Wafer Fab acquisition was announced on 5 July 2021. It led to new investment in the plant, it led to new jobs being created in this very important industry in that part of Wales. It took the best part of 18 months before the UK Government decided to block the takeover, a period in which there were a set of equivocal statements by the Prime Minister about the intentions of the UK Government. Having issued a divestment instruction, the UK Government has simply walked away. Now, let us assume for a moment that they had good reason for that decision; what they cannot possibly have thought of as reasonable is to put all those jobs at risk and then to act as though their decision had had nothing to do with what has happened since. And that is how they have acted. They have simply left the mess behind and that is now being felt in those 100 jobs that will be lost at the site.

There are some urgent things that need to happen, Llywydd. The judicial review has not even been listed for a hearing. That needs to be resolved, and then the sale of the company to a new investor needs to be expedited, with the help of the UK Government, so that that factory can go on fulfilling its part in the emergence of that very important cluster in south-east Wales. Fortunately, Llywydd, there are other opportunities. The Member will know that KLA have significant expansion plans, helped by the discussions they've had previously with the Minister for Economy, and there are more discussions with other potential partners in the pipeline. We will do whatever we can both to help the workers and to help the recovery of the premises, but we can't do it when the people who caused the problem have acted as though they had no responsibility for it at all.

I'd like to thank Jayne Bryant for asking this very important question today. News of the restructuring plan at Nexperia, which could result in the loss of 100 jobs, is extremely worrying for, I'm sure, colleagues all across the Chamber here today, and it's vital that the Welsh Government supports those affected workers, going forward. And I have, First Minister, also been reassured only recently that the UK Government remains committed to a site owner being found very soon.

Now, my region of South Wales East has, in recent years, become a hub for the semiconductor industry, with a vast array of businesses setting up in the area. The Member referred to the UK Government, and the UK Government recently launched its semiconductor strategy, which sets out—in fact, they're going to be investing £1 billion; it's going to be receiving £1 billion of Government investment to help boost the industry, going forward. This move will undoubtedly grow our economy and see the UK remain a global force when it comes to science and technology, which I'm sure is really welcome news. So, First Minister, will you join me in welcoming this fantastic UK Government investment, which will help grow our world-leading semiconductor industry, and will you also commit to working closely with the UK Government to unleash the industry's full potential right here in Wales?

Well, I'm sure the Member will understand that it is difficult to give full-throated support to a strategy when the practical impact on the ground is being seen not in the growth of the industry but in the loss of highly skilled jobs. I hope what she says turns out to be true, Llywydd, that the UK Government is committed to the sale, that it is committed to the future of that site, but we're going to have to see more than words, aren't we, and we haven't seen many of those, even, so far in the Newport case? What we now need to see are actions that will make a difference in the lives of those people who have been directly affected.

I agree with the comments made by Jayne, and thank you for your answers as well, First Minister. The way that Westminster has behaved towards Newport Wafer Fab demonstrates the importance of Wales having control over its economic levers. Until we have the powers, decisions will continue to be made that run counter to the interests of our economy and our communities. Workers at the plant have told my office that they accept that it is likely that nothing will stop the 100 redundancies and nothing will change Westminster's mind over Nexperia's ownership.

The focus now must be on supporting those being made redundant to ensure that they are given the training and support they need to find alternative employment. And the focus must also be on safeguarding the remaining 461 good-quality jobs and the many more that rely on this facility through the extended supply chain. The last 12 months have shown that the UK Government cares little about the facility and its workers. So, what practical support can you offer to achieve the two stated objectives?

Well, Llywydd, I agree with the Member that the Welsh Government's most urgent, immediate actions must be to help those staff members who've been affected by the decision, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are in contact, through our officials, with the owners of the company. We, of course, are in contact with the trade unions who represent workers at the site. I don't want to strike a note of false optimism, of course, but as I said in my answer to Jayne Bryant, there are other companies investing in this area in Newport who are looking for skilled workers, and the workers who are losing their jobs certainly are that. And the longer term prospects for the semiconductor cluster are strong. There were officials of the Welsh Government in Taiwan only last week, following up leads that came as a result of the economy Minister's visit to California earlier in the year. Newport is a very, very good place for companies to come and invest, and in this industry in particular. And while we will work with the individuals directly affected immediately, the longer term prospects for employment in the sector, if we can get it right—and we need the support of the UK Government for that to happen—I think can be very promising.

I thank Delyth Jewell for that question, Llywydd.

A planning enforcement notice was served on the site operator by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council. The company has submitted an appeal against the notice to the Welsh Ministers. In addition, Coal Action Network have ongoing legal proceedings, and discussion with the courts is currently taking place.

Ffos-y-frân opencast mine in Merthyr has received UK-wide attention because the company has continued to extract coal a year after it was told to stop, churning out dust and carbon and muck into the atmosphere. The Good Law Project estimates that more than 300,000 tonnes of coal have already been extracted illegally. The company has said it will cease mining in November—we have only their word to take for that—but my main concern is about the little amount of money that has been put aside to restore the land, a landscape that has a long history of being desecrated for coal. Fifteen million pounds has been put aside should the company not complete the work that's been promised, and that could be used for restoration, but estimated costs of that restoration stand at £100 million—perhaps £120 million. If the company doesn't keep to its promises or abandons the site, there will be a shortfall of more than £100 million. What measures is your Government taking, First Minister, to ensure that that land is restored, and what will you do to ensure that our Valleys don't see yet another mountainside forever blotted by an abandoned mining site?

Well, Llywydd, I share many of the anxieties that the Member has articulated. Here is a company where permission to remove coal ended in September of last year. They've continued mining coal ever since, using a variety of devices in order to allow them to do that, hence we have this complex set of appeals and court actions. But now, a new set of perils begins to emerge. There are the redundancy notices, which will have been issued to the 150 staff, and while it is the clear policy of the Welsh Government that finite fossil resources should stay in the ground, in that transition away from coal mining we still have to pay proper attention to the fates of individuals whose livelihoods are still bound up in it. The company say they intend to close the mine on 30 November. There is a genuine danger, given the history, that the site might simply be abandoned. If that happens, there are a series of immediate perils that we will have to be alert to. There is the whole potential for flooding, if pumps that currently are on the site are removed or switched off. There is ground stability to be thought of, if machinery that is currently used at the site is removed from it. There are old workings on the site that will need to be attended to. There will be no security on the site if it is simply abandoned. With all the dangers to—. I don't want to be pejorative and say 'young people', but anybody thinking that this might be a place to go and explore, they would find that they were exploring a pretty dangerous place and no security there to assist them. And then all the challenges that would be posed for restoration of the site. It is why—and this is where it's difficult to say much more this afternoon, Llywydd—it's why the current court actions are so important, to try to bring all this to a resolution, deeply unsatisfactory as it has been, in a way that helps to reduce these new risks, which, if we're not careful, in the way that Delyth Jewell said, might crystalise in the next few weeks. If they do, then we will have to take one set of actions. The current focus is in trying to mitigate those risks.

Good afternoon, First Minister. Just following up from the issues raised by Delyth Jewell and your comments about the workforce there, one of the things that I've been really keen to look at is a transition universal basic income, that is, how we support workers moving from fossil fuel industries, carbon-heavy industries, into green industries and ensuring that they have the skill base in order to do that.

In relation to Ffos-y-frân, and we have other coal mines that are in this particular state as well—Aberpergwm and Glan Lash—would you, if funding were available, support a transition universal basic income? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Well, Llywydd, that is a very interesting idea. The Member knows I'm interested in universal basic income generally. I suppose, if that idea had not been put to me, I would have said that what I am in favour of are decent redundancy arrangements, because decent redundancy arrangements provide exactly that cushion that Jane Dodds has spoken of. What we've seen is the erosion of workers' rights and trade union rights and redundancy rights and what they should have been in a solidarity state that says to workers who find themselves in this position that collective action of the wider community will support them while they find themselves in transition from one form of employment to another.

I was asked by the leader of Plaid Cymru a series of questions about the leader of the Labour Party. Well, today, in front of the TUC congress, the Labour Party has once again reaffirmed our commitment to those rights that workers ought to be able to enjoy in the workplace. It's good for workers and it's good for the economy when people know that, if things don't turn out as they would hope, there will be a safety net there strong enough to support them. A universal basic income in those circumstances might be a different way of doing it, but a decent redundancy scheme, as a right, guaranteed to people in the workplace, would be another way of achieving the same objective.

I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. While I've had no formal discussions with the owner of Adventure Parc Snowdonia, Welsh Government officials are in regular contact and will work with others to secure an alternative future for this outstanding site and the remaining members of its very dedicated workforce.

Thank you. I'm glad—. I agree with those sentiments. Obviously, it's a major blow to the north Wales tourism sector that Adventure Parc Snowdonia—and this was the world’s first inland surfing park, with the highest waves in the world—has sadly closed. I was very supportive of this development from the outset. We loved the innovation and the fact that it was repurposing the old Dolgarrog aluminium works. Now, you invested £8 million, your Government invested £8 million, but this is just one of many businesses in my constituency now that are facing massive, massive challenges under your Welsh Labour Government. As part of your co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru, there's a real feeling between the industry that there is now a real sense of an anti-tourism agenda. Recent reports show that there are 30 per cent fewer visitors into Wales, and there's a real threat that more businesses will follow unless you and Plaid Cymru wake up to the fact that the tourism tax could be the final nail in the coffin of our much-valued industry.

At what stage, First Minister, irrespective of your co-operation agreement, will you stand up and actually address those in the hospitality industry that you actually do value them for the jobs that they provide, for the economic benefits that our tourism and hospitality sector bring to here in Wales? There isn't a single Member here who doesn't represent a constituency where there isn't a tourism industry, and, to be honest, some of the comments—

I think you do need to refer to your question—

Anyway, if the First Minister would just show some support for the industry.

—I think it was on Parc Antur Eryri. First Minister.

Well, Llywydd, I'm afraid the question's ranged far away from the adventure park itself. I'll reply just to three points that the Member had in her melange of a supplementary question.

First of all, the most recent figures show a significant increase in visitors to Wales: a 13 per cent increase between April and December 2021 and April and December 2022, and a 35 per cent increase in spend for tourists coming into Wales. So, that's the first thing. The doom and gloom view of tourism in Wales is of no help to the industry whatsoever when people work so hard in it, make a success of it, and when there are more visitors to Wales than ever before. 

As to the Welsh Government's efforts, quite apart from the millions of pounds that we invest in the industry every year, it may have escaped the Member's attention that on Friday of last week the Welsh Government won the grand prix award, the premier award of all, in the World Media Group awards. Now, the World Media Group is made up of The Economist, of Forbes, of National Geographic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal. These are amongst the leading organisations in the world, and they have an annual series of awards for the promotion, the advertising and promotion campaigns that are run across the world. There were many winners on that Friday night—Volkswagen were amongst them, for example—but the chief prize, the chief prize across the world, went to the Welsh Government's tourism campaign, 'Wales to the World'. I know that the Welsh Conservatives hate it when anything nice is said about Wales, but cheer up just for a moment, because I would like to take seriously what you said, Janet, when you said that we all want to make a success of this industry. Here is what the chief executive, the person overseeing the awards evening, said:

'The Welsh Government did an amazing job bringing together different cultures and values in an integrated campaign that showcases Wales as a progressive nation with so much to offer.'

It would be really nice if once in a while we heard something similar from the opposition benches.

Llywydd, there have been no recent discussions with the UK Government on this matter. The Welsh Government, particularly through the work of the education directorate and Ystadau Cymru, has focused on ensuring that asbestos is managed properly in public buildings across Wales, creating a safe environment for the workforce and for visitors.

Diolch. On Sunday 2 July, The Sunday Times launched its campaign calling on the UK Government to act now on asbestos. The cross-party campaign is calling on the UK Government to develop a national plan for the removal of all asbestos over the next 40 years. Asbestos was banned in new buildings in the UK in 1999, but, according to Airtight on Asbestos, which campaigns for its removal, more than 6 million tonnes of it may still be found in as many as 1.5 million buildings throughout the UK. Sir Stephen Timms, the MP and chairman of the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, conducted an inquiry into asbestos last year, which said: 

'When you mention asbestos to most people, they tend to think it was a problem of the past that’s been dealt with. When you tell them it’s still all around us, they’re surprised. When you tell them it’s the UK’s biggest work-related killer, they’re shocked. And when you tell them it’s in most of our schools, they tend to become worried.'

First Minister, more than 5,000 people a year are still dying from diseases caused by asbestos, primarily mesothelioma. The period between being exposed to the inhalation of asbestos fibres and developing symptoms ranges from 10 to 50 years. So, what further representations will the Welsh Government make to the UK Government after its complete refusal to acquiesce to a 40-year programme of removal of asbestos from all non-commercial buildings and to establish a national register of all with asbestos in situ and a record of its condition? Because none of us in this Senedd can rest whilst any Welsh public building remains riddled with latent killer materials that could potentially take the lives of Welsh citizens in the years ahead.

First Minister, what are the Welsh Government's ambitions and plans for dealing with this ongoing public health emergency in Wales, and would you be willing to meet with me to discuss this vital issue?

I thank Rhianon Passmore. She's right, Llywydd, that it is a very, very important public health issue. It was disappointing that the UK Government, when it responded to the Work and Pensions Committee report on this matter in July of last year—. The DWP select committee had asked for a removal of asbestos from all commercial and public buildings within a defined period of time, and the UK Government declined to accept that recommendation. Without their willingness to take it forward, then I'm afraid the Welsh Government, by ourselves, are unlikely to persuade them otherwise. But there is the cross-party campaign that the Member mentioned. I know there are efforts being made by Members of Parliament from many parties to generate a debate in the House of Commons as early as this week, and we will certainly be following that very carefully.

In the short run, our focus can therefore only be on making sure that those buildings are as safe as they can be and that, as buildings come to the end of their natural life span, we replace them with construction material that doesn't pose the same difficulty. Going it alone in this field, Llywydd, we know is fraught with legal complications. I was the health Minister when the Senedd passed the mesothelioma Bill promoted by Mick Antoniw. It successfully passed through the Senedd here, and the Supreme Court found that the Senedd hadn't the powers to do what we would like to have done. So, going it alone I think is fraught with those sorts of dangers. We'll be associated with campaigns at a UK level to do better. We'll discharge our own responsibilities in a way that keeps people safe. I was able to discuss with Rebecca Evans, who is the Minister who has responsibility for Ystadau Cymru, the question, as I saw it come in, and I know she'd be very happy to meet with you and to make officials available for that discussion as well.

Finally, question 8, Ken Skates.

Llywydd, officials are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of all buildings on the Welsh Government estate, as well as the wider public domain, to establish whether RAAC is present or likely to be present. Plans are being developed to remediate risk where necessary, and the returns received to date indicate only isolated instances of RAAC identified so far in Wales.

First Minister, that is hugely relieving for the people of Wales and, thankfully, it's in no small part due to the huge sums of money that the Welsh Labour Government has invested in the twenty-first century schools programme.

First Minister, given that the issue predates devolution and the use of RAAC in Welsh public buildings was signed off by UK Government departments, can we assume that it will be UK Government that will foot the repair bills and that it won't fall on Welsh Government to put those mistakes right?

Well, it's a very important point that Ken Skates raises, Llywydd. We ought to be confident of that because the fiscal framework and the rules that underpin the relationship between devolved Governments and the UK Government on these matters are clear that liabilities that are incurred because of decisions made prior to devolution remain the responsibility of the UK Government. It's not been a responsibility that they have been willing to shoulder in more recent times. I've had this discussion a number of times now with UK Ministers in relation to coal tip safety, where the liabilities that we see today are the result of actions taken far before devolution ever began. I believe that in this case the same principle should apply in just the way that Ken Skates set out. Thankfully, Llywydd, so far—and the work is still ongoing, and we're making sure that it's done carefully and comprehensively—the impact of RAAC in public buildings in Wales is at the modest end of the spectrum. But in the longer run, these buildings are not going to get any better, are they? That's what we know about RAAC, that it is a progressive condition, and while we keep it carefully under review, more buildings in future are going to need to be attended to. And that's why establishing that principle that the body who pays should be the body that made those decisions in the first place is the one that we will pursue in discussions with the Treasury. 

I thank the First Minister.

The next item is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Trefnydd to make that statement. Lesley Griffiths. 

Diolch, Llywydd. There are multiple changes to this week's business. All the changes have been published on the Plenary agendas. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Trefnydd, it's been some time since I called for an update from the Welsh Government on its action to address stroke care in north Wales, which, as you will be aware from the updates that we receive from the Stroke Association, unfortunately, is falling well short of where it ought to be, with the overall grade in each of the hospitals in north Wales being either D or E. Now, clearly that is not acceptable. Many of the indicators are also getting worse, particularly in terms of access to stroke units, and we know that these are essential in turning patients around as quickly as possible and giving them the best possible chances of recovery. So, can I urge you again to work with the Minister for Health and Social Services so that we can get a statement on this important issue as soon as possible?

Secondly, can I also request an update from the Minister on progress towards delivering the real living wage commitment for social care workers in Wales? I know that this is something that my party has supported, and we wish the Government well in ensuring its implementation. However, it's recently come to my attention that there are some care homes in my own constituency that are not paying the real living wage to their staff, and they say that it's because the commissioners have not given them sufficient resources to be able to make that happen. I know the Welsh Government has released extra resources to local authorities to deliver on this important commitment, and I wonder what action is being taken to ensure that local authorities are actually making that cash available to care home operators to make sure that this commitment is delivered in full, and that our hard-working social care workers in our constituencies are getting the pay and remuneration that they deserve.

Thank you. Well, the Minister for Health and Social Services is in her place, and will have heard what you said, particularly around the second issue, and I'm sure she will have great concern about what you said. As you mentioned, the Welsh Government has given extra funding to our local authorities to ensure that our very hard-working staff in the social care sector are in receipt of the real living wage. I would imagine that the Minister's officials are monitoring this, but as I say, she has heard your question, and I'm sure if she has any concerns in the way you've described, she will ensure her officials are aware of them and will have those conversations with—. I'm assuming you're referring to Denbighshire in particular, as you referred to your own constituency.FootnoteLink

In relation to a further statement on stroke, I'm not aware of any guidance or further information around the stroke strategy, but again, I will ask the Minister if there's anything she can update us on.

May I request an oral statement on RAAC outwith schools? Clearly, we're very grateful that the Minister for education will be giving us an update on the situation in schools, but as was mentioned in Ken Skates's question, it's clear that there is a situation across Wales, and in his response, the First Minister mentioned that the work was ongoing. But I do think, because of the gravity of the situation that we see in my region—St David's Hall being closed for four weeks, for example, and a number of major warnings in terms of the safety of that building—that it would be beneficial, with buildings such as St David's Hall having to close, to know what the broader picture is, what the timetable is, and what collaboration is ongoing to ensure that there is no risk to life, either for those working in those buildings or attending events, for example, in the case of St David's Hall.

Thank you. Well, you will have heard the First Minister say in his answer to Ken Skates that there is a comprehensive review being undertaken by Welsh Government officials, and, fortunately, at the moment, there are only isolated incidents of RAAC being identified. It's a two-stage process. Obviously, work has been ongoing, and I'm sure you will have heard Councillor Llinos Medi, in her statement around the two schools—. And as you say, the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language will be bringing forward an oral statement this afternoon in relation to RAAC being present in educational establishments. But she said that Ynys Môn council was very aware, and that was because this work has been ongoing for quite a significant time. It is a two-stage process. I think, firstly, officials are gathering summary information, so that we do have a clearer picture of what work will be needed, going forward, to make sure all of our public estate remains safe. And then, obviously, there are other concerns around theatres and leisure facilities. You mentioned in particular St David's Hall in Cardiff, which has been closed because they've confirmed the presence of RAAC in the ceiling and roof of St David's Hall. So, I think that when all that information has come forward—as I say, today, the Minister for education is bringing us a statement on educational establishments—we will look for Welsh Government Ministers to bring forward further statements at the most appropriate time.

First of all, I wondered if we could have a statement on whether or not the Government will consider a demolition levy as a minimum response to the illegal demolition of a listed building in Guildford Crescent in my constituency last week. This commercial company has form on this matter, in showing willful disregard of the planning regulations in pursuit of profit, and this listed building was in the way of their 30-storey block of flats. There were a lot of calls by the community to cancel the planning application as a result of their behaviour. That may not be possible, but we need to protect the buildings of the future, and I would like to see a statement on how we might consider a demolition levy as one way of getting developers to behave.

Secondly, I wondered if we could have a statement on the interim agri-environmental scheme that you announced during recess, which I know is causing a certain amount of concern amongst the over 500 organic producers, who are worried that all the progress that we've made in Wales with the production of organic farming could be lost if there is no form of grant available specifically for organics, when there is a shortage of production, for example, of milk, that is not meeting the demand already, and particularly as this obviously enhances nature, which is one of the things we are endeavouring to do. I appreciate that this is an interim scheme, in advance of the sustainable farming scheme, but it seems to me that we need to ensure that we're going forwards and not backwards on that.

Thirdly, I wondered if you'll join with me in congratulating the two schools that have been nominated for the World's Best School Prizes, under the sustainable development scheme. These include Cadoxton Primary School in Barry, which has a wonderful pay-as-you-feel shop, with a launderette and uniform store, to support poorer members of its community, and Cardiff Sixth Form College in my constituency, which is also doing fantastic work on ensuring that they are strengthening the physical and mental health of their A-level students, in the main, many of whom are living very far away from their families.

Lastly, I wondered if we could have a statement from the Minister for health on what we've learnt today about misogyny in the operating theatre, because the revelation this morning that female surgeons are being molested while they are doing operations is just beyond belief. I know that this is obviously focused on research that's taken place focusing on England, but we need to ensure that our excellent female surgeons, who, by the way, have a better performance overall than male surgeons, are made to feel comfortable that this is a career that they can pursue without being chased and molested while they're doing their work. It's really beyond belief.

Thank you. Welsh Ministers are aware that Cardiff Council are currently considering a planning application that relates to the demolition and rebuilding of the existing Guildford Crescent facade. Now, I know they are having to consider any necessary action to address the recent breach of planning control, which you referred to, and obviously, given Welsh Ministers' wider statutory role in the planning process, it's not appropriate to comment on that, but you raise a question around a demolition levy. I'm not aware that that is something that is being considered, but certainly I'm sure that the Minister for Climate Change would be interested in that.

Around Glastir Organic, obviously the Glastir contracts, I’ve extended several times, and they are coming to an end at December 2023, because the European funding is coming to an end and I am unable to extend it in a way that I know some people would have liked, but it’s just not possible to do so. I think you make a really important point about the excellent work and the gains that we’ve had in relation to organic farmers, and it’s really important that they are able to access a range of support schemes, and that will include the interim agri-environment scheme that my officials have been working on over the summer, and we will be announcing the scheme and when the windows will be opening later this month. But I think it is really important that we do retain as much benefit as we have, and that’s why I was very keen to have an interim scheme ahead of the sustainable farming scheme coming in in April 2025.

I’ll certainly join you in congratulating both Cadoxton Primary School and Cardiff Sixth Form College in your constituency, the former primary school being in Jane Hutt’s constituency. I met with Janet Hayward, the headteacher of that excellent school, at the Royal Welsh Show. You will be aware of the Big Bocs Bwyd, for instance. It was great to talk to a group of children from Merthyr Tydfil who had told me they’d never been to a farm, they’d never understood where their food came from and the lessons that they were learning at the Royal Welsh Show were just brilliant to see. So, certainly, I know that the Minister for education has praised both of them as being finalists for this prize. It’s really a massive achievement, I think, to see two Welsh schools in the final. So, it’s great to hear of that, so congratulations to them both.

In relation to your latter point, I too read that article today with absolute horror and I’m sure the Minister for Health and Social Services, once she’s had time to have a look at that, will be very happy to update Members.

Trefnydd, I’d like to request two statements, please, from the Welsh Government this afternoon. Firstly, can I also request a statement from the health Minister regarding the discovery of RAAC at Withybush hospital? I was heartened to hear you say that other Ministers will now bring forward statements on this issue, because recent reports tell us that its existence at the Withybush hospital site has been known since 2019, and we now need an urgent statement from the health Minister to clarify exactly what the Welsh Government knew and when the Government knew about it. Now, as has been said, the education Minister is rightly coming forward with a statement today on the situation facing schools in Wales, and I believe the health Minister should do the same as soon as possible, as it’s vital that the Welsh Government does everything possible to support the local health board and ensure services continue at the site. I know that the Minister has recently visited the site and so I’d be grateful if time could be made available for the Minister to provide an update to the Chamber as soon as possible, and outline exactly what the Welsh Government is doing to address this matter. And I think it’s important that the health Minister does bring forward a statement on this issue because my understanding is that it does actually affect other hospital sites as well. 

Secondly, Llywydd, can I request a statement from the Minister for Climate Change regarding water quality here in Wales? I know that there has been some movement on this issue, but this continues to be a real problem for us in Pembrokeshire and right across Wales. It's vital that we see some leadership on this matter and that the public can understand exactly what is being done to tackle this issue. So, I'd be grateful if the Welsh Government could bring forward a statement on action being taken to address water quality as a matter of urgency. 

Thank you. Well, you will have heard my earlier answer to Heledd Fychan around the work that's being undertaken by Welsh Government officials in relation to RAAC. This is not a new thing. We have been working with the UK Government, and I was very surprised—I haven't discussed it with the Minister for education—to hear Gillian Keegan say she was chairing gold meetings from her villa in Spain, because Welsh Government should have been part of those gold group meetings. So, you know, we are doing this independent piece of work now, but we have been working with the UK Government on this for several years, so it's not a new issue. The Minister for Health and Social Services did bring forward a written statement, and, as I said in my answer to Heledd Fychan, we will look at the work that's been done and, as and when, we will bring statements forward. The Minister for Education and the Welsh Language is doing an oral statement today on educational establishments because, obviously, a couple of weeks ago this was the main focus, but we thought it was important for the Minister to update Members today. 

In relation to your request for a statement on water quality, I think there is indeed leadership being shown in this area. As you know, the First Minister has chaired two water quality summits. There will be a third one this autumn that both I and the Minister for Climate Change will be attending, and, certainly, a further statement will come forward following that summit. 

May I request a statement from the Deputy Minister for Climate Change on the truly critical situation facing bus services on Anglesey at the moment? Since the announcement by Arriva buses last week, dozens of constituents have contacted me to express their concerns about loss of bus services—some of them stating that they will lose access to a service that is crucially important to them in their daily lives, some are concerned that it will be difficult for them to access education, some fear that they will have to give up work, even. In their announcement, a spokesperson for Arriva stated said that, among other reasons, the changes to the way the Welsh Government supports bus services after COVID had led to reforms to the Arriva network across north Wales. Now, I am meeting Arriva tomorrow, as it happens, but bus services, of course, are crucial in rural areas such as Ynys Môn. This announcement is a serious blow to communities such as Llanddaniel, Bodedern, Trefor, Llynfaes, Bodffordd, Gwalchmai. We can't afford to see these communities being isolated, and I would like a statement giving a commitment as to how the Government is going to act urgently to protect these bus services. 

Thank you. Bus services are indeed crucial to many of our constituents right across Wales, and you'll be aware the Deputy Minister for Climate Change announced £46 million from bus budgets for the bus emergency scheme and the bus transition fund to prevent that wholesale cancellation of services. And we've asked local authorities, Transport for Wales and operators to plan the network that best meets the needs of the travelling public. By March of next year, the Welsh Government will have provided over £190 million to protect our bus network since the onset of the COVID pandemic, and, as you know, we are introducing legislation to reform the bus system in Wales, taking public control of the bus system through a franchise network, putting people before profit and making buses easy and attractive.  

Can I ask for a statement, please, on what the Welsh Government is doing to promote responsible reporting on suicide? I know that suicide prevention is something that is very close to the Deputy Minister's heart, and it's vital that we as Members of the Senedd keep the issue on the agenda and debate how it can best be addressed. Sunday was World Suicide Prevention Day, and I'd like to take this opportunity to remind Members that we must lead by example when discussing this important subject, and that our words and the way we frame things can have a huge impact. The Samaritans have long been a voice of expertise on this issue, and I know that Members around the Chamber will have seen their briefing on the importance of responsible reporting on suicide. Responsible reporting, whether it's in the media or social media, is incredibly important, and there is evidence that certain types of depictions can lead to increased suicide rates. The briefing contains many useful suggestions that I believe are imperative for us to take on board. These include avoiding discussing details of suicide methods, not labelling locations as hotspots, exercising caution when referring to the context of a suicide, and avoiding oversimplifying suicide by the suggestion of a single cause. As elected politicians, we should always be reminded of the importance of the words we choose, and the Welsh Government and the Senedd can play their role in enhancing this message across the country.  

Yes, I absolutely agree with Jayne Bryant and we very much welcome this guidance. As you say, we all have a role to play in talking about suicide responsibly, and this guidance helps us to do just that. I understand the Deputy Minister’s officials are working with the Samaritans to develop the new suicide and self-harm prevention strategy for Wales, which will be published for consultation towards the end of this year. 

Can I ask for a statement this afternoon from the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership regarding north Wales fire service's emergency cover review as it is currently being proposed to the people of north-east Wales regarding the future of fire service provisions in Rhyl, Deeside and Wrexham fire stations? The three options available seek to cease 24-hour services in all three stations, leaving night cover to the retained service, which is causing much anxiety to my constituents and people across north-east Wales over their future safety, particularly at night-time. Over the summer recess, I’ve liaised closely with front-line firefighters and representatives from the Fire Brigades Union, who all believe if such measures are implemented they will cause jeopardy to the safety of local residents and the work-life balance and fatigue amongst those who put their lives on the line for us, who face the prospect of being relocated, in some cases to rural stations in Gwynedd.

There have also been concerns around the quality of the public engagement exercises, with consultations being poorly promoted and timings of meetings being in the daytime, when most people are at work or busy, and also the complexities of completing the online surveys, which take up a lot of time and are labyrinthine. So, can I see a statement from the Minister on what discussions the Welsh Government have had on this matter and what the position of the Government is in regard to maintaining robust fire service provision in north-east Wales? Thank you.

Thank you. The issue to which you refer is, obviously, out for public consultation at the moment, and I think the point you make around public engagement is very important. I know that the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership has met with the chair and officials of the fire and rescue service to make sure that that consultation is absolutely out there so that people are very aware of the consultation and it’s a meaningful consultation.

I, too, want to call for a Welsh Government update on the RAAC at the Withybush hospital site. I am aware that the Welsh Government have already approved a £13 million spend for survey work to be carried out, and I know that that work is in progress. But I’d like to ask you to join me in thanking the staff at Withybush hospital who’ve been impacted by that disruption and will be impacted as the repairs go forward. The staff’s understanding and commitment to delivering patient care during this challenging time has been commendable. Some staff have moved hospital sites to ensure that patients have been able to move from Withybush and have continued to receive the much-needed care that they require. Minister, I’d like to hear in the update from Welsh Government what assurances they will be able to give to patients and staff that care and services will remain as local as possible whilst the survey work and the repairs are being carried out. And one of the asks—which I know is not an easy ask—by members of my constituency is a timescale, where that timescale is possible. 

Thank you. You will have heard my earlier answers around the timeline for Ministers doing individual statements as and when we get the information. I think you make a really important point around thanking the staff at Withybush hospital, who have had incredible upheaval, and ensuring that they can do all they can for that continuity of patient care. We send them a massive 'thank you' for doing that, having to move hospital sites. None of us like upheaval in our working life, but they’re clearly putting patients first, and patients have had to move from Withybush hospital.

I’m not able to give you a timeline at the current time. As I say, that work is being undertaken at the moment, but the Minister will do a statement when we have that further information.

Can I call for two statements from you as Minister for rural affairs, please, with the first being on the end of the Glastir programme and the introduction of an interim agri-environment scheme, and the second on the nutrient management scheme, both announced via written statements on the same day during the first week of recess? The Minister will be aware that I wrote to her to express my concern that these were written statements and made during recess, affording this Chamber no opportunity to scrutinise and debate the changes. With Glastir scheduled to end on 31 December, only four months remain to scrutinise this decision and the interim scheme, which will exist for only 12 months before the sustainable farming scheme begins in 2025.

I was also rather shocked to learn, via 8point9.com and their freedom of information request, that no impact assessment took place before the decision to end Glastir, so the consequences of its termination are unknown. This has caused real concern within the agricultural community, especially participants of Glastir Organic, a number of whom have been in touch with me and shared their frustrations with me.

I would also hope that an oral statement on the nutrient management scheme would set out your decision on whether to implement a licensing scheme or not, so that Welsh farmers can have some clarity as the clock is ticking. So, despite some time having passed since these written statements were made, they are both still incredibly important topics, and I would welcome oral statements on them both. Diolch, Llywydd.

Well, they are two very important topics, and that's why I believed it was important to bring forward those written statements. You'll be aware that both refer to ongoing work. So, in relation to the ending of Glastir, I want to make it very clear that I could not extend Glastir any further. I've extended and extended, but the European funding that paid for Glastir comes to an end on 31 December 2023. But, as I said in my answer to Jenny Rathbone, it's really important that we keep the good work that we've had, not just from Glastir Organic, but from everybody who's had Glastir support, so it's very important to have an interim agri-environment scheme. Officials have been working on that scheme over the summer. We've engaged with stakeholders, because it's really important that we get their views. The farming unions were very clear that they wanted to have an interim scheme. We are bringing an interim scheme forward, and the window for opening that will be done shortly. I will certainly update Members when further work has been undertaken over the next couple of weeks, and I will bring forward a statement once further work, again, has been done regarding nutrient management.

Trefnydd, as you may be aware, there is currently a medicines supply shortage in Wales, with hormone replacement therapy products being one of the main medicines affected. I'm conscious that I've been in correspondence with the health Minister regarding this matter, but, since that time, I have been further contacted by worried residents and medical practitioners over the ever-increasing number of routine medicines that are in short supply. As such, I am concerned that the Welsh Government's assessment of occasional and temporary supply shortages is not reflective of the experiences of health professionals. With this in mind, may we have a statement from the health Minister regarding this and its impact on patient care in Wales? As you'll no doubt agree, a statement would offer Members an opportunity to directly question the Minister on this and to allay any fears that the general public might have. Thank you. 

Well, there are always opportunities to question the Minister for Health and Social Services during her oral question session, but I do think you raise an important point and it clearly is a matter—. I know I've had constituents contact me, not around the drug that you referred to, but clearly there have been issues with a variety of medicines being accessed. I will certainly ask the Minister for Health and Social Services to bring forward a written statement.

I'd like to request and see a statement from the education Minister on the multitude of issues that we've seen plague the return to school regarding school transport. Back-to-school is always chaotic at this time of year, but this year takes the biscuit. It has left thousands of anxious parents and children with no transport or unsuitable transport. It is clear that current provisions and the way of doing things just aren't good enough. I am fully aware that this is a local government issue, but I'm also aware that we've had a Children, Young People and Education Committee report into school absenteeism recently, and we've just seen how critical the issue is, yet we're allowing school transport to be a massive contributor to lack of school attendance. We also talk about safeguarding and the rights of the child, which we quite rightly promote, yet we see children being put on public transport and waiting hours, potentially in the rain, before and after school because public transport timings don't fit around school hours.

I could go on, and every Member in this Senedd must be aware of the issues that I'm presenting to you, as they'll be in their inboxes, but we need a pupil-first approach and we need wholesale reform, not just tweaks. Parents can't wait around for a White Paper on school transport for implementation years down the line. Urgent action needs to be taken; this cannot be repeated next year. All children should be able to get to school and should be able to get to school safely. The Welsh Government have a responsibility—

You need to ask a question.

—to act on this. Therefore, I'd like to see a statement, Minister.

Thank you. This doesn't fall in the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language's portfolio; it falls within the Deputy Minister for Climate Change's portfolio. You'll be aware that, quite long ago, in a previous term of this Senedd, the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 was brought forward, and that's currently under review. And you will have heard in my earlier answer to the leader of Plaid Cymru that we will be bringing forward a bus Bill, which I think will help in this area.

And finally, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Could I have a statement, please, from the Minister for Health and Social Services on the presence of RAAC in Welsh hospitals, especially the Bryn y Neuadd Hospital in Llanfairfechan? The issue with this particular unsafe building at Bryn y Neuadd Hospital is not new; I've been raising this issue since February, particularly the £27.7 million backlog of spend and 70 per cent of the floor area being recorded as not functionally suitable. This was evidenced in the health board's estate strategy. This is a mental health hospital and it cares for 25 of the most vulnerable people in our society. The majority of the building is quite frankly not fit for purpose, and this is well documented. So, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide a statement to urgently explain what is being done to assess the presence of RAAC in hospitals, what precautions are being taken to ensure that RAAC does not impact NHS patient care and waiting times, and how a hospital like Bryn y Neuadd has been allowed to reach a position where the majority of the estate, according to their own reports, is deemed not functionally suitable. Diolch.

Thank you. Janet Finch-Saunders is the fourth Member to ask for the Minister for Health and Social Services to bring forward a statement on RAAC in healthcare settings. As I said, once we've got the necessary information, the Minister will do so.

I thank the Trefnydd.

Item 3 is a statement by the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language, an update on RAAC in education. I call on the Minister, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m pleased to have the opportunity today to provide Members with an update in respect of the use of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, or RAAC, in schools, following the decision by the UK Government to unexpectedly announce new guidance on RAAC in education settings at the end of August. 

RAAC is a material that was used in the construction of many buildings between the 1960s and 1990s across the United Kingdom. UK Governments have been aware of some of the vulnerabilities of RAAC since the 1990s and the Welsh Government has been working with other devolved Governments since 2018 in the management of RAAC. Until very recently, all Governments have considered that the guidance for the management of RAAC in buildings a robust approach in managing RAAC and in ensuring that the safety of building occupants is prioritised at all times.

As I outlined in my statement on 4 September, local authorities in Wales were made aware of the inherent structural limitation with RAAC through the Welsh Local Government Association in February 2020, following a safety alert published in 2019 by the Standing Committee on Structural Safety. There is a statutory duty on all local authorities to assess building condition and any safety risks, including structural integrity for all buildings within their school estate, and to maintain records. Requests were made for any details of any instance or awareness of RAAC as part of the annual education data collection exercise. A number of local authorities have completed their school estate reviews, and reviews are under way in other authorities.

As a result of the unexpected change by the UK Government to their experiences of RAAC in buildings in England and in light of newly provided evidence-based RAAC guidance, we have been working closely with local authorities in reviewing their school estates to identify any areas suspected of containing RAAC. On Monday 4 September, we confirmed that two schools in Ynys Môn, which have RAAC present in their buildings, would close temporarily to enable further safety inspections to be carried out. Quite rightly, and with the information available at that time, this was the appropriate decision to have been made by Ynys Môn. I’m pleased to say that, following proactive management by both headteachers, Ysgol David Hughes has today safely reopened to all learners. 

In addition to this, I am pleased to inform you that, from 7 September, Ysgol Uwchradd Caergybi provided learners with online lessons, and as of 11 September was able to partially open for pupils with face-to-face lessons for four school year groups, with three school year groups receiving online learning. This arrangement alternates each day to ensure all year groups receive the same balance of face-to-face and online learning.

Members will know that Wales has had an extensive programme for the refurbishment and building of new schools and colleges, upgrading and replacing those that are most in need of replacement for safety and quality reasons. Our sustainable communities for learning programme is delivering the biggest new school and further education building programme in Wales since the 1960s to address an ageing estate. Such is the commitment to improving facilities for our learners, the Welsh Government increased the level of capital funding available through the sustainable communities for learning programme to £300 million annually for the period of 2022-23 to 2024-25, representing an increase of 33 per cent when compared to the 2021-22 baseline. To date, more than £2.35 billion has been targeted towards new-build and major refurbishment projects.

Of the 1,463 state-maintained schools in Wales, more than 140 schools benefitted from this investment under the first wave of investment, and 200 schools and colleges are benefiting from the current wave. This, together with the fact that the Welsh Government has invested £203 million in capital maintenance over the last four years, means that local authorities and further education institutions in Wales have been able to address key aspects of maintenance to their schools and colleges. Planned maintenance of school and college buildings generally and addressing water ingress particularly are recognised as a key element in maintaining the structural integrity of RAAC buildings. The funding provided has also enabled local authorities and further education institutions to undertake the removal of asbestos in schools and colleges, which has aided access for the identification and assessment of RAAC.   

To date, Dirprwy Lywydd, there have been no further notifications from any local authority as to the presence, or suspected presence, of RAAC in schools in Wales. Last Friday, I published the latest position of each local authority as the assessment work continues, and I expect to have a more complete position by 15 September. In the meantime, we'll continue work at pace on new information provided by the Department for Education and to respond quickly to any findings arising from local authorities' review work, including any necessary assurance measures arising from that work. This includes continuing to support local authorities in any instances that might require specialist structural advice.

We are also working closely with CollegesWales to ensure we have a full picture of the impact of RAAC in the sector. Preliminary assessments of the whole estate are being undertaken and further education estates directors are working to complete assessments to provide an updated picture by the fifteenth of this month in line with schools.  

Finally, we are working closely with the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and Universities Wales to get a full picture of the impact of RAAC in the higher education sector. Universities will be making their own assessments, working with the Association of University Estates Directors, which is conducting a survey of institutions.

I'd like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who is working in the education sector and local authorities who have been working tirelessly in light of these developments. I know too that many parents, carers and staff will have been concerned. I would like to reassure you that our priority will always be to ensure the safety of learners and staff and to keep our children and young people learning.

Thank you for your statement today, Minister. It was important that all Members, and the public, of course, were privy to all of the information, so your statement is appreciated today. Having spoken to you in the summer, I know how concerned you are about all of this, and we all are, of course. It's a major concern for parents, school leaders, young people and communities across Wales. So, I'm a bit confused as to why you're not acting faster in this regard, especially when it's affecting our learners' education across Wales. It is apparent that, once again, the Welsh Government is behind the curve and playing catch-up with the rest of the UK on this issue.

Minister, you say the UK Government unexpectedly announced new guidance, yet this Welsh Government knew the extent of the damage caused by RAAC in 2019 in Withybush hospital and Bronglais hospital—years ago—as well as knowing that the RAAC had been identified in the schools in Ynys Môn in that same year. Yes, the UK-wide guidance hadn't changed until recently, but you knew about RAAC's shortcomings since 2019, perhaps before. Why didn't you think it was perhaps necessary to take greater action then? I'm astounded you did not think it was necessary at that point, on the back of the evidence from these Welsh hospitals, to investigate other public buildings, including schools built in the same period. Perhaps it would have been beneficial, therefore, for a more general statement today in that regard, as just requested by many Members across the Chamber.

The Welsh Government is now attempting to pin the blame on the UK Government for not notifying them sooner about the evidence they've seen, but I'm asking you today about what you knew and what you know about these devolved issues. This is devolved; the educational estate and health estate are devolved. The guidance was UK-wide. The information that you were already privy to on these Welsh buildings was devolved. What is clear is that the Welsh Government have clearly failed to adequately monitor the state of the infrastructure in Wales, and this despite being devolved, and despite Wales already being known to have the oldest and most vulnerable infrastructure and housing stock in the UK. Yet again, you are trying to pass the buck wherever you can. Your Government should be following the urgency and decisiveness of the UK Government. They've wasted no time in appointing a dedicated caseworker for schools impacted. We in the Welsh Conservatives have already called for a website that helps improve communication for students and parents and provides that reassurance.

Minister, due to the communication on all of this needing to improve—and again, your statement helps with that today—is a dedicated caseworker and perhaps a website or something similar something that you would consider in Wales, and could you confirm whether you think that's appropriate today? Minister, parents, schools and, most importantly, learners need answers and clear timelines from the Welsh Government on just when these issues are likely to be fixed, how you plan to mitigate the crisis arising from many school closures, and how the repairs, of course, will be funded. We've already seen the effect of the pandemic on how damaging missing school time can be, and the knock-on effects that are left with school attendance now.

Minister, once, hopefully, we have a more comprehensive knowledge of what on earth is going on across our local authorities on Friday, instead of the vague announcement that you made last Friday, we need to know how will you minimise the disruption that will be caused to learners and where the money will come from for repairs. You could say, 'The UK Government', but we both know the Welsh Government benefit from buildings being handed to them at the point of devolution, so the Welsh Government need to provide us as soon as possible with a plan about how they would—if it is their responsibility—fix the problems, and where that money would actually come from. Thank you.

I thank the Member for that range of questions. Many, of course, were answered by the statement that I provided and that, perhaps, the Member wasn’t able to have read, but I’ll try and engage with the key points that she made.

I think it is important to clarify some of the misconceptions in her questions. What has not happened is a change of guidance by the Institute of Structural Engineers. The guidance has been available to Governments in all parts of UK for a number of years and has been periodically updated, and those responsible in all parts of the UK for managing public buildings have done so—have been required to do so—in accordance with that guidance.

What happened the week before term started is the provision of new information, which had caused the UK Government, two days before the start of term, to issue its revised position. That was information that I understand had been available to them for some time, but that is a matter for them. The reason the information was available to them and not to us is because the information reflects failures in public buildings in England of a sort that we have not seen in Wales. That’s why the information was in their hands and not in ours.

I think it is important to say that the RAAC in the two schools in Ynys Môn was identified as a consequence of a survey and has been managed in accordance with expert engineering guidance over the period in which the schools and the authority have been aware, which is entirely what we would expect to happen.

The timeline for this is much longer than it seems from the Member's question. Governments in the UK have been working together on this, as I said in my statement, since about 2018. The process has been different in different parts of the UK. For example, in England—she invites me to draw the comparison—the Department for Education sent questionnaires out to the heads of its schools. It has around 24,000 schools, as she will know. That's a very different process than the process that is available to us in Wales, because we have 22 local authorities with whom we have very collaborative relationships, because we're discussing with them every week the needs of their school and other estate because we invest together very significantly in that, in the way that I was describing in my statement. So, the process has been—. We are discussing with a much smaller group of people and we're able to work in a much more strategic way. That is a consequence of the way our education system is structured in Wales. It's not available across the border because there are different arrangements. I'm not making a criticism of that, I'm just explaining why that difference is in place.

Authorities have been working to understand the presence of RAAC in their buildings. As the Member will know, they have a programme of routine building survey and so they will be making planned maintenance interventions on a periodic basis, which I think is obviously a very helpful thing for them to do and a very different position, I think, from that of some other parts of the UK.

She asked for specific timelines. I have been very clear, I think, in the statement that we expect further information at the end of this month. We hope, and expect, if any other schools are identified, to have resolved that position by the end of this year. That's broadly the same timeline that the UK Government is working to, and I understand that to be broadly consistent right across the UK. I thought it was telling, if I may say, that she referred to schools being handed to the Welsh Government upon devolution. The approach that we have had has been one where I think most people would recognise that the investment that we've put into the school estate in Wales over the last decade has been very significant, because we prioritise capital investment both for maintenance purposes, for net-zero adaptations and for quality and safety purposes, and I'm very proud of that, and most Members in this Chamber I think are very proud of that work.

At the end of the day, we are prioritising the safety of our learners. I'm very pleased that, as I stand here today, it's two schools in Wales that have been identified. We'll have a fuller picture at the end of this week. And when we have that information, if there are—and I hope there won't be, but if there are schools that are identified as potentially having RAAC, if they have not already been surveyed, and many will have been surveyed, but if they haven't, we will work with authorities to put those arrangements in place. And if we identify schools that may have RAAC, we'll agree an approach with the local authority to have a particular management plan for that school, just in the way we did with Ynys Môn at the start of last week. That collaborative, cautious approach I think is absolutely the right way forward.

Thank you, Minister, for bringing this statement forward this afternoon, and also thank you for the updates during recess, including providing a personal briefing. I'm very grateful for that, because clearly it was a very worrying time to see the headlines and so on. It has been some comfort to see, with Anglesey, that first they are aware of the problem, that Llinos Medi as the leader of the council can say that they are carrying out annual surveys and therefore can collaborate with you. I think what does cause concern is the work happening in other areas where that work hasn't been identified as yet. Like you, I hope there are no further examples, but what is worrying is that we don't have a full picture at the moment.

You have mentioned a number of times the date of 15 September as a target and the hope that you will have a clearer picture by then. Does that mean a full picture? Sorry to be pedantic in terms of the use of language, but a more complete picture—. What I would want to know is when will we have definitive information, because one of the things that you mentioned in responding during the summer was that some work had been commissioned by the Welsh Government in terms of looking at the estate, but that was particularly in terms of decarbonisation, which included RAAC and so on. And I think there was some ambiguity when that statement was made in terms of where the work had reached. And certainly, if you were looking at the statement on decarbonisation, that work was supposed to start next month and to be completed within 12 months. Has that work been brought forward in terms of the RAAC element of it and then what's remaining? When will we really have that full picture, to provide assurances to staff and, obviously, pupils in these schools?

I would like to echo some of your comments on when additional information was provided to Welsh Government. It's important that there is a partnership between the UK Government and the Welsh Government and that there should be respect for the fact that we have a Government here. One of the things that I do think is very important in terms of funding is the responsibility in terms of that collaboration, if we see that the UK Government is at all concerned about Wales. Hywel Williams MP asked whether the Treasury would pay any costs related to RAAC in Welsh buildings, and the answer was 'no'. So, may I ask what discussions you've had with Welsh Labour MPs to ensure that they are pushing this case forward, and also any assurance from Keir Starmer, if he will be the next UK Prime Minister, in terms of what the situation will be when these types of things arise in future? Certainly, we must—. We shouldn't be playing politics here. The important thing is that we find resolution, and we know that Welsh Government funding is limited, and it's very important that we do have a UK Government that collaborates with us, rather than saying, 'Well, you should pay for this—we won't help out.' We have to have those assurances.

So, more than anything, if I could have some clarity, please, in terms of the timetable, the decarbonisation work and how that links to RAAC, and also in terms of the case for funding. Thank you.

I thank Heledd for those further questions. Could I just say—? In terms of the relationship question, the reason that I was answering a lot of questions about this last week was because people wanted to know why the decision was made on the first day of term. That's why. I was just trying to explain the timetable to people. It was a fair challenge for a journalist to present to the Government, but I needed to provide honest answers to people as to why the situation arose. It wasn't a political reason, but it was just to explain to people what the situation was.

In terms of having a full picture, since then I called for two things from the Government in Westminster. The first thing was for more information regarding the technical assessments that underpinned the information that was shared with us on the Sunday evening. The second thing was to hold a meeting of the cross-governmental committee—the Welsh Government was represented on that during the summer—to call for a further meeting of that so that all Governments were working with the same information base. It's important that we do collaborate and share information; particularly if it's happened to one Government but not to another, it's important for us to be able to see that. And, in fairness, both those things have happened since we called for them. So, the information has been flowing more easily since then.

In terms of the information at the end of this week, well, there are three categories. The first category is, 'Unfortunately, we have found more RAAC.' Hopefully that won't happen, but it is a possibility. On the other hand there's, 'We are entirely certain that we have no RAAC', so that's assurance and that's clear information. But there will be a middle category that's, 'Well, here is a school that may have a RAAC risk—we need to undertake more detailed survey work in order to be sure about that', but that will be a group with fewer schools. We will be able to define those schools. As I mentioned earlier, if work has already happened in terms of surveys, well, maybe we don't need to do that again. It depends on the circumstances: how many there are, what the age of the buildings is—those kinds of things are important. So, that's a fuller picture. The details will be clearer, but maybe we'll need to undertake further tests and maybe further work on schools in order to be completely sure. So, that's the information that we will have by Friday. But in publishing what we did last Friday, we were eager, and local authorities as well wanted to be transparent about where they were in terms of this process.

In terms of the work that happened before the summer, the survey that I mentioned in the statement—. As you mentioned, decarbonisation was the main purpose of that, but the kind of questions that arise in the wake of that, namely the age of the building and what materials were used to build it, whether adaptations have been since then—that's the kind of information you'd use to understand whether there is a risk of RAAC. There is more work to do, then, if you belive that that category is appropriate. And we've included RAAC, at the start of the summer, as part of that process as well, so that we have independent assurance. But the work will bring forward those details and we'll be able to tell you, 'This is the work that's going on with the local authorities', and further survey work that will be undertaken on schools where there is a question. So, that's the information base that will provide further certainty, and we will have another source of information as well. And I hope that will give you more certainty.

In terms of funding, I think the First Minister made a very clear statement during First Minister's questions earlier this afternoon where he said where he believes the responsibility falls, and he's right to say that, of course. These decisions were made in a period before the schools were given to us, as the Conservative said in her question. So, that is the principle. So, if anyone has an influence on the Westminster Government to undertake that position, I'd be pleased for their support.

Cement can best be described as a hydraulic adhesive. It consists of nothing but special glue that binds sand and gravel together, forming a stone-like hard element. By itself, cement is of very little use. However, when you blend it with aggregates, such as sand and gravel, it forms concrete. So far, so good. Concrete is the most used man-made ever invented. Unfortunately, people tried to do things to it to reduce the cost of making it. The problem with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete does not come as a surprise to me. It follows a long list of previous problems with non-traditional building materials. How many people remember high-alumina cement, which was in a number of schools that ended up with holes in the cement? How many people remember pre-cast reinforced concrete, where the houses had to be taken down because they became unsafe for people to live in? How many people remember Wimpey no-fines? The houses are still there, but it's very, very difficult to get a mortgage on them. How many people remember the steel houses, which we had in Swansea, which again had to be taken down? I could go through a further list of this, but it would be far too long. All I'm asking is for the Welsh Government to specify only traditional building materials be used in the construction of school buildings. It might cost more, but they'll last.

I thank Mike Hedges for that, and I always appreciate the technical detail that he brings to his questions, and I'm grateful to him for that. He's identified a number of points in his question. He will know this, in any case, from his experience, but we build schools differently in Wales from the way that they do in England. We allow for greater collaboration, if you like, as I was pointing out a little earlier, with our local authorities to ensure that the construction of our new school buildings, for example, reflect the appropriate standards. We are in a pretty much ongoing discussion, really, and are continuously, with the Consortium of Local Authorities in Wales, who he will know—the Welsh local authority construction consortium—in relation to questions around standards and design standards and materials and other questions. Indeed, over the last nine months or so, my officials have been working with the sector, actually, in reviewing those standards across the board, really—design standards and space standards, as well as others. We do that periodically to refresh that as part of our sustainable communities for learning programme. He will also know that we are commissioning the building of some new primary schools using natural materials, so I think it is important for us to be able to meet our environmental goals by taking that sort of initiative as well. But the new standards, which my officials are discussing with the sector, will be specific to schools in Wales. Those discussions have been going on for some time, as I say, and they will directly support our commitment as a Government, which I know that he shares, to make sure that our schools in Wales are fit for the twenty-first century in all respects.

Thank you for the statement, Minister, and for your earlier written statements. I was pleased to see that Bridgend County Borough Council had not found any RAAC in their schools. However, does that mean that our schools are safe? Minister, how confident are you that all school buildings are safe, regardless of whether or not RAAC has been identified?

On a recent visit to Brynteg Comprehensive School I witnessed a huge steel support structure holding up the ceiling in the headmaster's room. While I fully understand the need to prioritise dealing with the RAAC issue, we must also ensure that all of our school buildings are 100 per cent safe for pupils and staff. Minister, what steps should be taken to review the structural integrity of school buildings across Wales? And finally, has the RAAC issue prompted any changes in policy on how to deal with ageing buildings going forward? Apparently, we manage asbestos and we manage RAAC. Do you accept that we can't continue to paper over the cracks? Diolch yn fawr. 

Well, I think the context of the Member's question is really important. So, the answer to his question, 'Are our schools in Wales safe?' is, 'Yes, they are.' And I think we need to be very clear that we don't allow the implication to arise that simply because there is RAAC in a building that it is automatically unsafe. The Institute of Structural Engineers guidance, which has kept pace, if you like, with developing knowledge over many years, on which we've spoken with them in the last week or so to say, 'Does this new information cause you to change that guidance?'—. And the answer is, 'No, the guidance is still good guidance.' And the whole point of it is to help building owners, building managers, manage the estate safely when it contains RAAC. So, I think it's really important that we establish that point as well. 

It's also true to say that local authorities right across Wales, in relation to each of their schools, and, indeed, each of the buildings for which they are responsible, will have a continuing programme of survey and maintenance. So, Ynys Môn is a very good example of this. RAAC has been known about in the school because the authority properly did the surveys and have identified those areas, and have been managing the building in accordance with that guidance. So, right across Wales, there are programmes in place to manage public buildings in that way. 

In relation to the last question, 'Do I think there needs to be a change of guidance?' Well, we've tested that particularly with the Institute of Structural Engineers. What is happening now in Ynys Môn, and in other buildings, and if we were to discover in another school the presence of RAAC, which obviously, as of today, we haven't, but we will know more in the coming days, what's being done there is applying those professional standards with that new knowledge. It's a cautious approach, it's a case-by-case approach in many, many ways, but our commitment in Wales has been really clear, and that's exactly why we invest so much in planned maintenance and in capital upgrade, and very much more even than that in our new school and college building programme.

I'm grateful to the Minister for his statement today, and for the opportunity for a personal briefing and conversation during recess. It's a very worrying situation across Wales, but, as it happens, the two schools identified were in my constituency and a decision was taken not to open them at the beginning of term. And I would like at this point to express my thanks to Llinos Medi and to Anglesey council for their prompt response, and to thank them for the proactive work that they've done, as we've heard, in undertaking the necessary RAAC assessments, so that they knew what needed to be done when the change of guidance came at the last minute. I'm extremely grateful to staff, headteachers, management teams at Ysgol David Hughes and Ysgol Uwchradd Caergybi for responding so quickly and ensuring that the education could continue. The challenges are greater at Ysgol Uwchradd Caergybi than they are at Ysgol David Hughes now, but the work that has been done to ensure that education can continue is extremely important. 

I did have some questions about funding, and questions as to how this could have happened with so little notice before the beginning of term, but those have already been asked. But two very brief questions: what steps are the Welsh Government taking to support Ysgol Uwchradd Caergybi specifically to ensure that they can open their doors fully as soon as possible? And further, in moving forward, what assurance can the Minister give that any maintenance work can happen in a way that won't interfere further with the education of pupils? 

Well, this is an opportunity for me to reiterate my thanks to the school, to the headteachers and the staff for working under great time pressure, but in such a creative way, to find ways to reduce the period for which the schools have been partly closed, and to the council and to Llinos Medi and the team there too. They have worked very quickly, and have also collaborated with us, so I thank them for that.

In terms of the next piece of work, we're still waiting to hear from the experts who have been in the schools at the end of last week. We will have, or the council will have, a report from them. They are experts in the field, and they're using the official guidance to look to see whether things need to be changed in the light of the new information that emerged on Sunday evening. So, we're still waiting to hear what comes from that. Because we have a joint plan with councils of co-investment, there is an opportunity nearly every week to have these kinds of conversations anyway. So, the capital plan is a significant one. If we need to reprioritise within that in order to be able to meet some of the problems that are arising, well, we have an opportunity to do that jointly. So, those conversations are happening consistently.

In terms of work that we're doing to support both schools at present, of course, Ysgol David Hughes has reopened entirely. We have been working with Ysgol Uwchradd Caergybi to find alternative options in terms of local buildings to ensure that we can increase the numbers of children who can have face-to-face education. At present, there is a lot of online learning happening, of course, and school groups coming in alternately, so that they can have the experience of being in school. But we're trying to have a strategic response to that in terms of which alternative buildings are available locally that could provide a temporary space to increase the numbers having face-to-face education.

So, that's the main priority at the moment in terms of alternative arrangements, and we'll see what comes back from the engineers to see what further steps need to be taken in the school as well. It's important to remember that RAAC isn't present in all parts of either of the schools—it's in specific buildings. So, there are options to be able to work around that as well.

And finally, Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Wales will not forget the tragic consequences of ignoring safety concerns involving schools. Yet, despite this, it appears to me that the UK Government's response appears to be driven largely by ideology. We are in this situation—let us remind ourselves—we are in this situation due to UK budget cuts to school repairs, vital information not being shared and the buck being passed to others. I couldn't believe it when I read last week that the UK education Minister believed that headteachers would be able to identify RAAC in their schools. Like the majority of us, I'm sure they hadn't heard of RAAC by the end of the summer term, let alone being experts in concrete to identify which type it was. When does the Minister expect the Welsh Government surveys to be completed? We are seeing, in crumbling concrete over the heads of our children, the result of 13 years of austerity in the UK. These policies have consequences. It's also the consequence of a UK Government who wants a smaller state and dislikes details. What steps are the Welsh Government taking to ensure that vital information is shared promptly? Diolch yn fawr.

I share the priority that the Member attaches to making sure that our school estate in Wales is fit for the twenty-first century. I think that his question may not pay, if I may say, quite enough regard to the different policy choices that we have made in Wales, even within that wider UK context, which he, I think, fairly describes, of having a UK Government that hasn't prioritised public investment for the last 13 years. But I think, in Wales, we see the evidence of the benefits of devolution, when you can take different decisions and apply different priorities to the funding that you have available, which is why, both from the previous band and the current band of investment in schools in Wales, we're looking at around 340 schools that will be entirely new or substantially refurbished. And I think that it's a policy that we're all proud of in this Chamber, isn't it, really, and I think it's a policy that this Welsh Labour Government is certainly very passionate about.

I do think the point that he makes about how we can work with schools in relation to this is important. I would say that we are able to take a more partnership-based approach in Wales because of the respect that we pay to local authorities. We still have—. Over the border, because of the structure of the school system, there are many, many schools, obviously, which operate outside the purview of local authorities, so that, I think, is why the Department for Education is having to engage with individual heads. There are 24,000 schools or so, I think, in England, so that is quite a task. Obviously, in Wales, we have a smaller number of local authorities, who understand their building stock very well, so we're able to work very quickly with them. As I say, by the end of this week, we'll have more information.

And he asked me, finally, 'When will we expect this to have been entirely resolved?', well, I'm very much hoping that we will not have any more schools identified as having RAAC, obviously, but, when we have the information, by Friday, we'll engage then with specialist structural engineers based on that information with local authorities and, also, I should say, the further education institutions, because they're also providing information to us within the same time frame, and we'll do any urgent appraisals that need to be made then of any newly-identified instances—I very much hope there won't be any—and we anticipate that work will all then be completed by the end of December this year, which, I think, is broadly the same timeline that other parts of the UK are working to as well. 

I thank the Minister. 

Item 4 this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Climate Change, independent review and Natural Resources Wales reports into flooding 2020-21. And I call on the Minister, Julie James.   

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I am pleased to announce the publication of Professor Elwen Evans KC’s independent review of local government section 19 and Natural Resources Wales reports into extreme flooding in the winter of 2020 and 2021. This review was undertaken as part of the joint co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru and is an important step in improving how flood risk management, including the response to flooding instances and their aftermath, is delivered across Wales. This review was desk based. It focused specifically on understanding the investigation process currently in place under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and how this was applied in the context of the severe flooding instances referred to. This has identified areas of good practice, areas for improvement, successes and lessons learned. This review was not intended to address local authority or NRW responses to the flooding more widely. The terms of reference and scope were agreed through discussions between myself, the designated Member and Professor Evans. Both the designated Member and I met with Professor Evans at various stages of the review to discuss progress and her emerging thoughts. Professor Evans reviewed supporting information including testimonies, progress reports, published section 19 reports, along with other submissions that were provided by the lead local flood authorities, Natural Resources Wales and through Senedd Members. I'd really like to thank all of those who inputted into the review.

All relevant information and legislation, alongside existing policies, strategies and outputs from other reviews, were considered within the bounds of the terms of reference and complex arena of flood risk management. There are a number of other reviews into flood risk management that have taken or are taking place, and the terms of reference specifically directed Professor Evans to avoid duplication and overlap with these other reviews. This includes, amongst others, work by the flood and coastal erosion committee, Audit Wales and the National Infrastructure Commission Wales, who, through the co-operation agreement, are considering how the nationwide likelihood of flooding can be minimised by 2050.

I would like to take this opportunity to outline some of Professor Evans's main findings from her review, which highlights both strategic, policy and practical changes that could strengthen the flood investigation process whilst recognising the limitations within the current framework. Professor Evans has identified two broad areas where she feels greater clarity and improvement are needed. The legislation itself does not provide the necessary clarity for lead local flood authorities to understand the purpose of a section 19 flood investigation. It remains subjective and open to interpretation and is unclear where it fits within the wider flood risk management reporting framework. The degree to which an investigation is carried out is at the discretion of the local authority as is the need or otherwise of a formal report. In fact, there is nothing in the legislation that directs our local authorities to compile a report, only to publish the findings of any investigation that may have taken place. In the absence of this clarity, local authorities have individually developed the process they use today, where the expectation is that an investigation ends with a report, detailing events, actions and recommendations. However, this is not a consistent approach across Wales, and Professor Evans recommends the need for a strategic policy review to clearly define the purpose of a section 19 investigation and strengthen the process. An additional recommendation is that there is a need for greater consistency across the lead local flood authorities in terms of the wider reporting. For example, at what point should investigations take place, and what form should an investigation take? Should the investigation result in a report? And, if so, the development of a template would be a positive step forward. 

In October 2020, we published 'The National Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management in Wales'. This 10-year strategy identifies five key objectives to support reducing the risk to people and communities from flooding and coastal erosion. Supporting the delivery of these objectives are 24 measures setting out how we will deliver against these five objectives, each measure being one jigsaw piece in the wider landscape of flood risk management.

Measure 21 of the national strategy already identifies section 19 as an area for improvement. As a practical action that can be taken forward immediately within the current framework and without pre-empting wider strategic and policy work under way, my officials will be working with the WLGA, the flood and coastal erosion committee, and local authorities to improve how section 19 investigations and reporting can be made simpler, easier to understand, and more accessible. Professor Evans recognises this specific piece of work is already under consideration, and officials will continue to work with our risk management authorities to include these findings as part of delivering this strategic measure.

In reviewing NRW’s progress against actions identified in their reports following the flooding in February 2020, Professor Evans has identified good progress against the 94 identified actions. However, 15 actions remain to be delivered. It is recognised that the remaining actions may be more long term and complex to deliver, but Professor Evans recommends that realistic timescales for the delivery of these actions should be provided.

This review is one area of flood risk management and the reporting framework, but an important one in helping everyone to have a better understanding of flooding and the structures that underpin flood risk management. Understanding the causes of flooding instances and their aftermath provides important information for risk management authorities and communities that can support understanding of what happened, how it happened and how the risk might be mitigated in the future. And whilst we all continue to learn lessons from recent events, we are also looking to the longer term. The information contained within many of these reports can provide the evidence base for future flood mitigation schemes.

According to UK climate predictions, Wales will see milder, wetter winters, more intense rainfall events, more coastal flooding, and hotter, drier summers. The recent reports by the International Panel on Climate Change and the UK Climate Change Committee have reiterated the need for continued investment in mitigation, adaptation and resilience, to respond to global warming challenges. Our continued investment in flood risk management is therefore vital for our communities.

To support how we plan for future flooding, and again as part of our co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru, we have asked the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales to assess how we minimise flooding to homes, businesses and infrastructure by 2050. The commission will consider our skills capacity and resource needs, the challenges around adaptation, the need to work on a catchment scale and to have greater partnership thinking, not just across risk management authorities, but also across wider Government departments. We expect to see the completion of this work next summer.

Furthermore, Wales's independent flood and coastal erosion committee, chaired by Mr Martin Buckle, has taken forward two separate reviews, prescribed by our national strategy. Consistent with some of the questions posed by Professor Evans, these also consider whether there is a need for wider legislative and policy change within flood risk management, while the second considers the resource and skills position within the field to deliver flood risk across Wales. Professor Evans acknowledges that she sees her review as just one important piece in the wider flood risk management landscape, which are already being addressed in other audits, reviews and assessments, including some of those already stated.

Additionally, she goes on to recognise that flood risk is a complex picture with progress having been made already in some areas, lessons learnt being actively worked on now, but also the need for continued improvement across the wider area of flood risk management. I will be continuing to work with the designated Member on this work in light of the commitment to act on the recommendations made in Professor Evans's review, and in light of the wider work that's ongoing. Diolch.

I'd like to thank the Minister for what is, though, a very delayed report on the reviews of the 2021 flooding section 19 reports—2020-21. Also, we mustn't forget that, prior to this—. I've raised, several times in this Chamber here, concerns, because, of course, in Aberconwy we saw flooding in 2016 and 2018, and we have even questioned the merits of section 19 reports.

During the tragic flooding events of the years mentioned, there were 3,130 homes flooded across Wales. That's 3,130 families' lives disrupted. It was an unprecedented winter—or so we thought—for storms and flooding events, and has resulted in a dire need for serious immediate action. Calls were made from these benches at the time, during 2021, for a serious review of flood management and section 19 reports, and the need for immediate reform. So, of course we welcome the review of the section 19 reports, given it is so overdue, and we've asked and asked and asked for it. We were awaiting this report with great anticipation, with hopes that it would provide a way forward for extreme flooding events. Since 2020, we have been highlighting evidence to the Senedd that section 19 reports were taking far too long to both produce and publish, and frankly, in some local authorities, I would actually say that I don't think there's been a large appetite for them doing them.

Almost three years ago to the day—three years ago to the day—on 16 September 2020, I highlighted that section 19 reports were taking an unacceptably long period to be delivered, using the example of a report from Betws-y-Coed and Dolwyddelan taking over six months. I thought that was bad. The publishing of this particular report now confirms that 43 section 19 reports are completed, but are not intended to be published. Eight reports are still awaiting approval. And more concerningly, 34 reports are still ongoing. We are now in September 2023; this was an agreement in the previous administration. So, Minister, I think a lot of questions need to be answered here.

So, this data now is from April 2023, two years on from the flooding events that are being investigated. These are reports into those floods that devastated homes, livelihoods and lives, and that over 50 per cent are either unpublished, unfinished or awaiting approval is frankly disgraceful. And this is all down to the weakness of the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru's responses to the report. We now know that all this, the section 19 reports, the actual review of the section 19 reports, is proving to be a costly waste of taxpayers' money and time, when we have an immediate flooding crisis in Wales.

The Minister's statement just this year, on 31 August 2023, highlighted positive investment by the Welsh Government, but completely misses the point. It states that the context of other ongoing reviews or reports is needed, therefore, almost nothing immediate is going to happen. Whilst I welcome the work on measure 21, the reality is that it was already under way and has not been triggered by this particular report. The report asks for three outcomes: a review of wider flood risk legislation in Wales; a pan-Wales approach to section 19 reports; a Wales-wide co-ordination between risk management authorities, and for a lead to be established, to review progress and share common issues. We were asking for this in 2021.

On 20 September 2021, we, as a group, proposed the flooding (Wales) Bill. In this, I outlined a legal basis for the establishment of a national flood agency, a single body dedicated to tackling flooding and to impose statutory time limits on the publication of section 19 reports. Therefore, Minister, will you establish a national flood agency for Wales, so that there's a lead the report asks for? Will you set out in law statutory time limits and structures for section 19 reports? And will you bring forward a flooding (Wales) Bill, so that this Senedd can start the process of strengthening legislation for Wales?

It is not good enough to stand by and just wait for winter to come and see all the floods that come with that. We're even seeing floods now in summertime. We have got a crisis on our hands, Minister. It affects us in Aberconwy, my colleague in Clwyd West, and many of the Members serving here, their constituencies will have been impacted by flooding. It is not fair to these home owners, and I would ask that we actually take, now, a far more proactive approach to flooding than I've seen since I've been here. Thank you.

Thank you, Janet. I'm not absolutely certain quite what you're asking me there. I'm not going to set up a national agency for flooding. I'm absolutely convinced that the people who have suffered flooding over the last few years—and, indeed, before that—would be not at all comforted by the idea that yet another agency would be set up in response to that. Instead, we've done a number of very practical things in the short time since that flooding, and I absolutely love the idea that you think the report is delayed when it's been two years in the making. How on earth you think this kind of very detailed work can be done faster than that is beyond me, and if you'd like me to give you a list of things that your own Government has taken a lot longer—[Interruption.] Do you want to hear what I'm saying to you or not? 

Let the Minister respond to the question, please. 

Probably nothing new. 

Well, in that case, Darren, I won't bother to answer it. Shall we go to the next person? Apparently, I'll say nothing new. 

Minister, I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome the report, and I'd like to thank Professor Elwen Evans KC for leading the work. This review is obviously a vital part of the co-operation agreement. I'm sure I've no need to remind the Senedd or the Minister that Plaid Cymru was keen to see an independent inquiry into the floods, given the serious nature of them, and I think there are questions unanswered. And some of the communities I represent, and other Members here, will still be asking where are those answers, and how do we ensure that the recommendations that came out in the Natural Resources Wales report as well, in terms of having that national conversation—where has that got to?

I understand from your statement, Minister, that a number of things are happening. But for those communities who are seeing the BBC headlines again today saying, 'Heavy rain weather warning as heatwave ends could cause flooding', you know the psychological distress; we've spoken many a time about the distress that it causes every time it rains heavily. They'll be asking, 'What has changed since I was last flooded?' And they won't have received the answers that they were seeking here, and I think that's a challenge for all of us then, about how do we ensure that communities who will be flooded again, because, unfortunately, we won't be able to save every home and business—that's just the reality. 

You've outlined as well in terms of the climate emergency that we face that that's going to be the reality for a number of our communities, and though the work is under way to ensure that more homes and businesses can be saved in the future, others will have to live with this situation. And, as we know, in many communities, people can't move out of those communities—there are no alternative homes, they can't afford to live elsewhere, and so on. So, I think what's missing here, at the end of the day, is that link with those communities. We can have all the strategies in the world, but we don't have flood action groups in every community and there is no Welsh flood forum, for example. Although some of these come out in the report and the evidence presented, I'm not sure we're any clearer about how we're actually going to support those communities while these plans are going to be put in place.  

I am pleased to see, to come out, something that many of us knew. As Janet Finch-Saunders was mentioning, many of us know that the section 19 process does not work, and I think one of the things that's really helpful from this review is the fact that it's very clear that it needs to be redesigned. We also need to look at accountability, because one of the things that doesn't work at present is the fact that perhaps you can have one river flood, and that's a matter of looking at each section 19 report—[Interruption.] There are no interventions in a statement, sorry. They're all individual section 19 reports. It's the same as it crosses local authority boundaries: you could have different section 19 reports.

One of the things I would be keen to see taken forward from the review, because it outlines this, is how we are actually going to put in place a system that allows us to learn lessons, because, frankly, you've talked about templates being put in place, but what we need from section 19 reports, or any report, is an understanding of what's happened and could anything have been done differently. I think what's not coming through at all at the moment is the response of local authorities or Natural Resources Wales at a time of flooding. All these reports look at is why did a flood occur and any mitigating steps taken afterwards, but we don't get that deep understanding of whether things like drains haven't been maintained, if there's anything like culverts that haven't been maintained, and so on, or whether there has perhaps been human error or lack of resources when it comes to local authorities. That's something that we do think, looking at the amount of investment the Welsh Government has had to make since the devastating flooding that we’ve seen, that perhaps maintenance is something that was as a result of austerity.

We also see that one of the challenges across Wales is the lack of expertise—that some local authorities fail to attract staff that have that expertise. So, have you given consideration, following Elwen Evans’s very useful report, to those section 19 processes, as in who should be responsible for investigating floods? Is there an element of being able to work across Wales to ensure that we do learn those genuine lessons?

I think one of the things you’ve mentioned as well is the fact that a lot of work is undertaken, and Elwen Evans says that further comments can be sent in relation to her report to those who are looking at this. But what would be your advice to those communities now that have suffered flooding, and continue to be at risk, in terms of how they can find any comfort from what’s been found, and what will change, and also perhaps the commitment from the Welsh Government on how we can work with them and take forward the Natural Resources Wales report, in particular the mention of not enough staff, and not being able to cope? And if we’re going to see these frequent events, how can we work more in partnership and ensure a voice for our communities in all of this, not just different taskforces?

Diolch, Heledd. You made a number of very important points there. I think Professor Evans has been very clear that what she’s looked at is a part of a jigsaw, and that the jigsaw is complex, and that we need to get all parts of the jigsaw right so that we can—sorry for the analogy—see the whole picture emerge. We’ve got a number of other reviews ongoing, and one of them is very much part of our co-operation agreement, and that’s the overarching review that the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales will look at, which is the overall how can we prevent our communities from suffering what the communities you’re referencing have suffered in the past, and how can we be more resilient. They will be able to look at all of the various pieces of the reviews that we’ve been doing.

There’s no single agency that’s going to be able to do that. It’s hugely complex, and as a result of us coming out of the European Union we’ve inherited a number of things at the Welsh Government level that are probably not best situated here. There absolutely needs to be some regional working by the local authorities, because as you rightly say, there are cross-border issues and so on. There is definitely a skills and resilience issue in this area, we know, because the Welsh Government is fishing in the same pool for flood engineers and flood resilience officers. So, making the best of that across Wales rather than us all competing with each other for well-qualified but hard-to-get-hold-of staff is obviously not a good way forward, either. We’ll definitely be having all of those discussions.

We have done a number of other things, not least in response to some of the things you’ve raised in the Chamber, actually, around making sure that NRW works better with community groups. We’ve very many more community groups, I’m pleased to say, since we last discussed this in the Chamber, being set up as part of the package. We have 27 communities now in the south Wales Valleys with community flood groups in them—that’s more than we had before. I have to find the page—it's 37 in south Wales, 13 in mid Wales and 24 in north Wales now set up. There are many more communities who could set them up, and we have put the resources in place to help them do that. We have a number of community engagement pieces running, not just about flooding but about community energy and about community forests, all kinds of things. And one of the things I was talking about to some of the rural housing enabler people that we employ very recently is getting them together to get a kind of resilient communities forum, which would include flooding, of course, in it. Well, climate change adaptation, actually—because it’s not just flooding, it’s drought as well. Because the communities that tend to be flooded in the winter then tend to have drought in the summer. So, it’s about trying to see, again, that complete picture.

I think this is a complex area to look at. The legislation is not fit for purpose. We’ve known that for quite a long time. The section 19 reports, as Professor Evans rightly says in her piece, have grown up as a kind of custom and practice, really, because the legislation underpinning it is so inadequate. But rather than a knee-jerk reaction to changing that legislation and fixing that little one piece, what we’ve asked for is a series of reports around—. Start with a blank bit of paper, actually. How would you set this up in Wales? What should it look like? Who should be responsible for what? Who would you expect to do the resilience work? It isn’t just about the riparian—you know, the riverbeds, or the culverts. It is about the drainage and the highways and the sustainable drainage systems and the new build. Actually, it’s even tied up with the phosphate issues that we have, and the run-off. So, it's quite a complicated set of things. We have a number of things ongoing, looking at the individual pieces of that, and then I expect the national infrastructure commission, as part of our joint commissioning of them, to pull that together as a single set of recommendations to us, and that we then would have a coherent programme to go ahead and look at.

It's up to them entirely, but I would expect that to include what I've just set out: more regional working, better pooling of skills, a better and much more straightforward understanding of what each local authority should do, what NRW should do and what the Welsh Government should be doing, and whether or not the new body that we hope to set up through the coal tip safety process should have some kind of supervision over it, or whether the environmental governance people that we're going to set up should. You know, there is a complicated set of things that we're doing here, and rather than just add more and more agencies into it, we're trying to make the best use of the agencies we have in place, so that, actually, in the end, the Mr and Mrs Joneses in our communities have an understandable process by which they can feed in, which is where I'd like to get to and I know it's where you'd like to get to too. In the meantime, if they want to write to Martin Buckle at the committee, then, obviously, they're the ones who are taking forward the current review. So, there is a place to send anything that you think has not been covered in this.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement here today and for the work done by Professor Elwen Evans KC on this crucially important policy area.

I welcome the recommendation of regularising the approach to flood investigation reports across our local authorities. I think this should lead to greater consistency in the evidence base that the Welsh Government collates to assist with its own work to alleviate the impact of flooding, as well as greater transparency for residents in Wales who find themselves residing in areas at risk of flooding or affected by flooding, which, as I know you'll understand, is a frankly terrifying situation for those people to live in.

Minister, I've got one question for you today and this is particularly on behalf of my constituents in Cae Felin Parc in Hirwaun and Clydach Terrace in Ynysybwl. As you and your officials digest the recommendations put forward by Elwen Evans alongside those other reviews that you've also mentioned and seek to implement all of those recommendations, how will you balance the need for experts to have the time to provide a thorough evidence base for any interventions, any flood alleviation measures that are carried out in these at-risk areas, alongside the need for swift, practical action to protect lives, homes and livelihoods in the face of increased extreme weather events caused by rampant climate change?

Thank you, Vikki. It's a very good question and it was really good to have the meeting with you about the specific issues that were raised in your constituency. And that's a really interesting one, isn't it, because that kind of flash-flood-type worry that we have there is a really difficult one to get to grips with. 

There is a balance to be brought to bear on the work needed to understand what scheme might work and how long that takes—and it is a frustrating amount of time, I know, that that takes—and any instant mitigation measures that might be possible. And then, there's this whole sort of value for money against people's—. You know, if you've got seven houses but the scheme is very expensive. But this is somebody's life and community that they're trying to protect. So, trying to get the difficult balance right between what will work and what will give resilience and adaptation and what will, frankly, give peace of mind to communities and what we can do going forward to understand whether there's an ongoing risk or whether that risk can be moved is very much part of the work that we're doing. As you know, sometimes it's not just the infrastructure around it, it's just the nature of the valley that you're living in and the kind of flooding that we're looking at.

So, the answer to your question is that we hope that we will be able to get an understandable system in place that has transparency at its heart so that people understand which agency does what in relation to the flooding, what it's possible to do, what it isn't possible to do, and therefore what the prognosis for that community is. Unfortunately, I cannot promise to protect every single house in Wales from flooding—that's just not possible—but we will make sure that we have as much adaptation in there as possible and as much assistance for people who do live in those areas to make sure that they can live healthy and productive lives without the fear of flooding, which I absolutely do understand. I've met a large number of people, especially children, who have a real fear of flooding once they've experienced it.

I just want to use this opportunity as well to highlight that there is a national flood insurance project as well, to just make sure that people have tried to access that, because one of the other issues is recovery after flood and what we can do to help that. I see that the English Government has put a small scheme in place that mirrors our own, because sometimes the big capital schemes don't work at the individual community level, and I'm glad that you highlighted that to me in the last meeting that we had.

Finally, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister, I welcome the statement today and the work of Professor Evans in this area. We didn't suffer the widespread devastation that some communities did a few years back, but what we did have was localised flooding that was because of those traumatic weather incidents. In those classic Valleys communities you've described, we had rapid run-off, partly to do with street design, partly to do with blocked drainage and co-ordination, exactly as you've described. But I urge you, first of all, let us legislate, but only where absolutely needed. Let's run the rule across the powers that we currently actually have if we used and implemented those powers properly. Secondly, let's have no more additional bodies, although I am a fan of voluntary flood forums that come together to help people on the ground locally. But let's not have some super new national bodies to hide behind this stuff; let's get on. And that's my primary point, Minister: what can we get on with right now, acting right now at a local authority level with local partners within these localised areas of flash flooding? What can we do right now? Because that's what my constituents in Llangeinor, Heol-y-cyw, Garth and elsewhere who have suffered devastating flooding in localised areas want to know: can we do stuff for them right now?

Diolch, Huw. We fund Natural Resources Wales and the local authorities to engage in this sort of activity, as I was saying to Heledd, throughout the year. There is on the NRW website something called 'What to do before, during or after a flood'—pretty straightforward, it's available on the website. NRW run volunteer network support events across Wales and advise community groups on the completion and testing of community flood plans. We have volunteer events that include representatives from NRW, local authorities, local resilience fora—so, that's the wider civil resilience fora—the voluntary sector, including the British Red Cross, who I was delighted to meet with very recently about their report into flooding, and the National Flood Forum.

This year, we've given NRW £24.5 million in revenue funding, which is an increase of £2 million from last year, to maintain the network of assets throughout Wales and support the work in community engagement. There is advice and support about how to join a community flood group and a list of organisations that provide support for flood groups, and that's also on the website. As I was just saying in response to Heledd, there are 74 community flood plans across Wales at the moment, so we can help you, if there isn't one in your area, to set one up. As I say, if you haven't met with the British Red Cross as well, it's worth doing that.

We also have a small-scale scheme in place in Wales that has now been copied by England. It's only available in England where 10 or more properties have been flooded twice or more in the last 10 years, so ours is a little more generous than that. The small-scale scheme in Wales can protect as few as two properties and there's no requirement for properties to have suffered flooding on multiple occasions, so it's a bit more generous than that.

We employ what's called a scaled approach to scheme appraisal, as I was saying to Vikki. I had a very interesting conversation with Vikki about an area of her constituency where there's a very specific problem and it's about trying to find a bespoke solution. But we had good engagement from NRW, the local authority and myself, trying to find that. It's one of the benefits in Wales, isn't it—we're small enough to be able to bring a focus to a small community that's got a very specific problem. So, I'm very happy to do that if you have a specific community in mind, Huw, as always, and then, as I say, help you access some of the support necessary to put one of those community groups together.

Thank you, Minister.

We move on now to item 5, which is a statement from the Deputy Minister for Climate Change on the 20 mph default speed limit on restricted roads. I call on the Deputy Minister, Lee Waters.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. From Sunday, most roads with a 30 mph speed limit in Wales will be changing to 20 mph. This is the biggest step change in community safety for a generation. It will save lives, prevent injuries and encourage more people to walk and cycle. It'll make our streets safer for all road users, including car drivers, and improve the quality of life for everyone in our local communities.

On the two occasions when we have debated the approach in this Siambr, there's been cross-party support, including in 2020 from the Conservative benches and their group leader at the time, and the policy was backed with significant majorities. Change is never easy, and as we have got closer to 17 September, and with greater awareness of the speed limit coming into effect, concerns are being surfaced, and people’s natural anxieties about change have not been helped by the blatant misinformation being cynically spread by the Conservatives in Wales. Under our standards of personal conduct in this Senedd, the rules state that Members must act truthfully. I regret to say that Conservative Members are making false claims about this policy, a policy many of them voted for in this Siambr.

I want to take the opportunity today to set out the facts. The hardest hitting fact is that if a pedestrian is struck by a vehicle moving at 30 mph, they are around five times more likely to be killed than if they are hit at 20 mph. It’s simple: lower speeds save lives. By the time a car travelling at 20 mph has come to a stop, a car travelling at 30 mph will still be doing 24 mph: lower speeds save lives. It’s not just me saying that—those are the exact words of Dr David Hanna, a consultant in paediatric emergency at the University Hospital of Wales. It is his job to deal with the consequences of children being hit by cars at 30 mph and more. He has described the devastating life-changing injuries children and young people and their families have to deal with as a result of road traffic collisions, more than half of which occur on roads where the speed limit is currently 30 mph.

Being struck by a moving car is the biggest cause of serious injury in children. Public Health Wales estimates that we can expect to see a 40 per cent reduction in collisions, six to 10 lives saved every year, and somewhere between 1,200 and 2,000 people annually avoiding injury in Wales once we’ve moved to 20 mph. So, as well as reducing human misery, this will also ease pressure on our overstretched emergency services. Casualty prevention savings, which include reducing the need to attend so many road traffic collisions and reducing the flow of injured people needing treatment at A&E is expected to save £92 million in the first year alone, and for every year afterwards. As the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, Dr Frank Atherton, says:

'Not only will slower speeds save lives and reduce injuries, it will also help keep people healthier and reduce the burden on the NHS.'

Dirprwy Lywydd, a 20 mph default speed limit will pay for itself three times over from the savings to the health service in the first year alone. This is not a policy that has been rushed, it has been four years in development, in close partnership with local authorities, the police and key delivery organisations. We've piloted it in eight communities across Wales. In St Dogmaels in Pembrokeshire, the first of the trial areas, 20 mph has already proven itself. A car driver avoided hitting a young boy crossing the road because, in their words:

'Luckily, I was doing 20 mph. At 30 mph I would’ve hit him.'

There was no need for an ambulance, no need for the police and, thankfully, no need for the parents of that child to hear bad news at the hospital. Many of us are parents and grandparents, and we understand the fear of traffic, and we know why most people support slower speeds on the streets they live on. And we know that the fear of traffic leads to many children being kept inside to avoid the risk of harm robbing them of the experiences many of us had of exploring our neighbourhoods and having fun with friends. All of this contributes to the obesogenic environment that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has warned us is adding to the epidemic of type 2 diabetes and obesity. In Spain, in London, in Edinburgh, and soon in Ireland too, speed limits have been reduced to 20 mph and casualties and deaths are falling too. The evidence for change is very strong and is not disputed.

My focus throughout has been to do all we can to concentrate on the practicalities of implementing the new speed limit to ensure its success. In May 2019 I set up a taskforce group to test our policy intent with experts and practitioners. Led by the widely respected independent transport expert Phil Jones, it spent over a year considering the best ways to bring in the change and find a consensus. The group included local government officers, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Road Haulage Association, amongst others. The taskforce group recommended that we move away from short sections of road being reclassified as 20 mph, and instead said we should change the underlying default speed limit. We should move from the current situation where local roads, restricted roads, have a default of 30 mph, where a case can be made to reduce that to 20 mph, to a default of 20 mph, where the case can be made for that to be set at 30 mph. So, there is no blanket 20 mph, as the Conservatives wrongly claim. We are following the approach that the experts recommended. And I know the Conservatives don't like experts, but in this Chamber, we do.

Local highway authorities will retain the power to vary the speed limit according to local conditions. It is not a uniform speed limit. It is not a blanket speed limit. It can vary according to local circumstances, as decided by the local highway authority, and that's already happening. If it was a blanket, how is it that Rhondda Cynon Taf could put in so many exemptions? How is it that Caldicot in Monmouthshire could change its speed limit as a result of the trial? How is it that in Buckley the speed limit could be changed on roads that didn't work in the trial? That can only happen because it is not a default and local highway authorities have the flexibility to meet local circumstances. Each of these local authorities have undertaken a thorough assessment of their roads and applied the Welsh Government exemptions guidance and their local knowledge. This has been a significant piece of work and I am extremely grateful to all local authorities who have helped to ensure that the change goes as smoothly as possible. These are small teams, and they've worked extremely hard, and I think we all owe them our gratitude.

Now, there is inevitably some local variability in how the exceptions criteria has been applied in each of the 22 local authorities—we've heard it praised as localism in the past—and of course by the Welsh Government ourselves on the trunk road network. We've encouraged councils to take a common-sense approach, recognising that the character of some stretches of road suits 30 mph, where people and vehicles don't mix. This is the biggest change in road safety in a generation, and despite all the efforts, it's unlikely to be flawless on day one. For example, we know that some councils will have all their signs up on Sunday, and others have decided to take a different approach in sequencing the change. It will settle down. And where communities think councils have got some stretches wrong, there'll be an opportunity to reflect and to revisit. We will carry out a light-touch review of the exemptions criteria after the change has had a chance to bed in, where this can be looked at again if there are problems. But we do expect, based on the experience in the pilots, that the new approach will be welcomed by local communities. It will take a while to adjust. As a driver, I find driving at 20 mph feels slower. But just as lots of people didn't like wearing a seat belt as first, people adjust. And as people adjust, we'll be taking a proportional approach to enforcement. Excessive speeders will be fined and given points, but while drivers are getting used to the new 20 mph limit, and if they are not breaching it excessively, they will be offered roadside engagement sessions, where available, with GoSafe and the fire and rescue services, as an alternative to prosecution.

Now, I know there are concerns that the new speed limit will add significantly to journey times. The early data from the trials shows that the new limit has succeeded in reducing average speed limits without a significant impact on journey times. This is because most delays occur at traffic lights and at junctions. I'm sure we've all been overtaken by a car only to meet them again at the next set of lights. At 20 mph there is less breaking and less speeding up. That not only reduces harmful particulates from tyres and breaks, which helps air quality, but also means that the average journey is only about 1 minute longer. And it's more efficient. A steady 20 mph for many cars will achieve better fuel consumption and use less energy. But most importantly, Llywydd, it will save lives. For all the discomfort of change, we must not lose sight that this will reduce deaths, it will improve the quality of life in communities by cutting noise pollution, which is the second-greatest harm to public health, and it will feel safer, which will lead to increased levels of walking and cycling. And there is strong evidence to support each of these points. That's why Wales is following Spain to make 20 mph the default speed limit on local streets. And others will follow. This is all part of our vision of making Wales stronger, fairer and greener. And I'm confident that we will look back at this change with pride. Diolch.

Thank you, Deputy Minister, for your statement this afternoon on your deeply unpopular 20 mph pet project. It's no secret here, and I've been saying since day one, that I, alongside my colleagues, the Welsh Conservatives, have no problem with 20 mph being outside schools, places of worship, high streets—places where they're needed. But I'm afraid my position on this hasn't changed over the summer, much to your disappointment I'm sure. I cannot, will not and have not ever supported a blanket 20 mph speed limit across Wales. If anything, after talking to countless residents and businesses, and listening to the fresh and concerning details coming out in relation to your scheme, my opposition has in fact grown over recess.

You and the First Minister keep referring to Spain in many of your interviews, and also today in the Senedd, and also the results that they've seen. Just for everyone's knowledge, when Spain introduced similar changes, COVID was rife at that time. Everything had come to a sharp halt. Given that we were in the thick of COVID, just how reliable is the evidence that you have used from Spain, going forward? And if you've been to Spain, you would have seen their public transport infrastructure, and please take a minute to look outside what we have here in Wales—you cannot make the comparison that we have the roads, we have the public transport infrastructure to manage the 20 mph speed limits you're brining into place.

Also in your statement, you mention a taskforce made up of the likes of the FSB and Road Haulage Association, and a report that they produced recommending changing the default speed limit. Well, Deputy Minister, I actually spoke to some of the heads of the Road Haulage Association just this afternoon before I came into this Chamber, and they told me, in no uncertain terms, they didn't support in any way making the default 20 mph limit across Wales. They stood by the message, exactly what I've been saying, that they support targeted action outside specific areas, such as schools, playgrounds et cetera, but never a blanket move. Other participants who were in that group as well also felt that it was more of a steering group, where participants had to follow your agenda of 20 mph all across Wales, and not have a say into what they felt was right and the way forward. [Interruption.] That's absolutely accurate. Deputy Minister, are you misconstruing reality in a bid to dress up this unwanted and flawed policy?

Only last week we discovered that the Welsh Government had no plans whatsoever to monitor the impact of this 20 mph scheme on neighbouring roads. How will the Welsh Government be able to determine whether it has increased congestion or what impact the scheme has had on safety and air pollution, going forward? Why won't you be monitoring the impact, Deputy Minister? Are you worried about what it might actually uncover? And would you much rather prefer to hide from facts, going forward?

If this blanket pet project does go ahead, and I sincerely hope it doesn't, at the very least it should be properly monitored and reviewed. As we're on the topic of monitoring, Deputy Minister, have you been monitoring the success of your marketing campaign? Because, as far as I can tell, it's been one epic failure. So, just how effective has your campaign been? And have you been advertising the change across the border in England, as I fear many who will be here and visiting Wales, going forward, will indeed be unaware of this blanket 20 mph speed limit, going forward?

My inbox has been inundated, and I cannot underestimate and tell you how full it's been, with e-mails from constituents airing their concerns about the 20 mph limit going forward. You can all stand here today, specifically you, Deputy Minister, and say that the public are on board and perhaps support this move, but the reality is they do not support this move. The majority do not want this to go forward. In fact, a poll conducted by ITV Wales found that almost two thirds of people are against this change. I know my leader, Andrew R.T. Davies, said this earlier.

Deputy Minister, I have a long list of constituents who have complained to me, and I feel it might be beneficial for you to read what many of them said to me, and to perhaps get a better understanding of how your policy will in fact impact them every single day, going forward. So, what's the best e-mail address to reach you on, Deputy Minister, as I'm going to start sending each and every single one of their concerns to you so you can actually gain a full flavour of what the mood is on the ground? And rather than being missing in action, or MIA as I like to call what you've been doing all summer in relation to this policy, it would be good for you to actually speak to the residents and try and defend your policy rather than going to those areas where you know you're going to actually get support for it. Of course, Deputy Minister, it's also not too late for you to hold your hands up, admit you made a mistake—something you're all too familiar with—and stop this roll-out from going forward.

I want to make someone aware of something very important today. An e-mail was sent out by a local authority in north Wales to a resident, and I'm going to quote it word for word for all of you today: 'Over the next 12 to 18 months, further Welsh Government guidance is being provided to enable further speed changes to be reviewed, for example, for 40 mph, 50 mph, and national speed limit roads.' Now, I'll be honest, this set my alarm bells ringing even more so than before, because I want to know: is 20 mph just the tip of the iceberg, and are you planning even more drastic changes going forward when it comes to speed limits?

Clarity, Deputy Minister, is very much needed, and it's needed now. You say you will look back at this as a change with pride. You are, in fact, going ahead to damage the economy, thrashing people's livelihoods, and hampering emergency services' response times going forward. I'm not sure this is something to be proud of, Deputy Minister, but, if you are so confident in your policy, can I get assurance from you today that your Labour MSs will not be whipped for the Welsh Conservative debate tomorrow calling for this policy to be scrapped and that they can vote how they see fit rather than toeing the party line? Thank you so much, Presiding Officer.

Well, as ever, I regret the tone with which Natasha Asghar makes her contribution on this serious matter. Let me try and deal with a number of issues that she put. She says, again, that she has no problem with the slower speeds outside schools. Eighty per cent of children do not get killed outside of schools, so it's their journey to school that we need to think about, not just immediately outside of their school. So, the proposal she has put forward would not work, and it was not supported by the taskforce. Let me just remind her again, okay: on 15 July 2020, this Chamber voted for the taskforce report, which included the default speed limit in the body of the text, and Paul Davies, the leader of the Welsh Conservative group, voted for that, as did Janet Finch-Saunders, as did Russell George, as did Laura Jones, along with other Members who are no longer here. They voted explicitly for the fundamental approach we're now taking, an approach you're now trying to characterise as 'blanket'. If it was blanket, why did they support it? Because it was quite explicit in the motion that this was the approach that we were taking. So, there's just some hypocrisy here; they've turned tail because they can see it's unpopular with some and they want to be at the head of yet another band wagon. She says she will support them where it's needed. Well, this approach follows the UN Stockholm declaration on road safety that says that, where people and traffic mix, the speed limit should be 20 mph. That's where it's needed, that's where this will apply, and local authorities have the discretion to change it.

Now, she also makes a claim—and we heard it earlier—about emergency services being put at a disadvantage from this, and I just want to quote to you from a statement from the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service, who say that they support this policy and this approach. They said: 'We have been asked whether this will affect on-call firefighter response times. Our on-call firefighters live or work at various locations within our communities, and their response times vary accordingly. Not all of them will travel exclusively by car, nor will they commute solely on roads where a 20 mph limit will be applied. Therefore, we do not foresee these changes adversely affecting our overall response times, and we will review their impact in due course.' And they are going to be reviewing and collecting data over the next six months and carrying out a robust evaluation to see if that is, in fact, the case. That is a sensible approach.

We are also going to be monitoring and reviewing, and if it turns out there are roads that have been given the 20 mph, not an exemption, and that's not appropriate, then the local authorities can change them, as we can on the trunk roads. So, I really don't understand quite what the drama is other than to whip up opposition and yet again pursue a culture war, wedge issue search, which the Conservatives are now obsessed with, even though it doesn't deliver them any benefits; the opinion polls still show them profoundly unpopular, so you'd think they might change tack. As Janet Finch-Saunders said in that debate in 2020:

'The de-facto standard for safer and people-friendly streets is now 20mph with higher limits only where they can be justified.'

And we support that approach. It's a shame that she has changed her mind.

I just want to touch briefly on the issue of cost to the economy, which is another one of the issues the Conservatives have been going big on on social media. Now, I understand the headline figure that's been published in the explanatory memorandum is arresting, but it's really not what it seems. Now, we have to publish an estimate of costs and benefits, and we have to use the approach set out in the UK Treasury's Green Book for evaluating schemes. And we have to try and put a financial value to this, but, of course, there are some things you cannot measure: the grief to a family of a child killed on the street; the social value of meeting neighbours in the street and chatting; the absence of stress from engine noise that is louder in a street with a 30 mph limit. You can't measure those. Those things aren't captured by the Treasury Green Book, and it measures what it can. And it tries to put a monetary value on what it can measure, which, again, is arbitrary. And as the explanatory memorandum makes clear, there's a lot of uncertainty about these figures that they are claiming as fact, and Andrew R.T. Davies was even claiming an even higher, absurdly inflated figure this afternoon.

Now, in transport schemes, the way they try and measure this economic impact is around estimated value to the economy from journey times. Now, the approach generally assumes that the faster people get to places, it's better for the economy. Now, that will be true of some journeys, for example, just-in-time deliveries, but not true about others, like visiting your granny. Now, our analysis shows that individual journeys will, on average, be affected by one minute, and most journeys by less than two minutes. That's what the evaluation shows—very small and very hard to reliably monetise. But the Green Book requires us to add up every minute lost, to multiply it by 30, because this analysis has to cover a period of 30 years, and that's where this figure of a £4.5 billion impact on the economy comes from.

But, as the explanatory memorandum says:

'It is important to note that there are a number of wider benefits such as reduced noise pollution, broader impacts health impacts from active travel, increased social interactions, retail spending and land values that are not included in this calculation. Moreover the increases in individuals’ travel time are likely to be small and so there is uncertainty about the opportunity cost of that time.'

We spend more time being held up in customs than we are going to be held up on these journeys, and we don't measure that cost to the economy. I don't hear the Conservatives screaming about the cost of the UK Government's security policies on businesses. This does not bear scrutiny. They don't care, do they? They don't care about the facts or evidence-led debate, because all they want to do is to wind people up and press buttons because they don't have to govern, and the attitude and recklessness they're showing on this shows thank God for that.

Thank you, Minister, for the statement. I congratulate you on the way that you responded in many ways to some of the points that have been made. We have to change the way in which we live if we want to take the risk of air pollution seriously, and the risk of suffering you have point out—the risk of deaths on the road. We have to act. And yes, that will mean making difficult changes, changing some of the things that we have become accustomed to. So, I support the need for a change in the speed limit in many places across Wales. That's why we as a party supported this policy. Of course, we need to make sure that we listen to communities and that councils do receive the support that they need to make sure that unsuitable speed limits are not introduced.

May I first ask, therefore, whether the Government will review the support that's available to local government, and set out what discussions they have had with local councils, to work out why so many examples of decisions made appear to be unsuitable and why that has happened? Public support is required, of course, for changes of this kind. And yes, the loudest voices do disagree with decisions such as these, but a great many people are in favour of making changes that will benefit our health, the health of our children and the health of our planet. What plans do you have to improve the dialogue between the public and those who make decisions to perhaps deepen the understanding of each other's perspectives? Because I think that doing something constructive like that would be very beneficial.

But I would just like to remind the Chamber that nuances are important. The aims underpinning this policy are to be commended. This will save lives. And yes, communication does need to be improved, support does need to be strengthened and we need to look again and adjust some decisions. But we can't carry on living our lives by pretending that air pollution doesn't exist, and we can't go on thinking that road accidents and children dying is just a price that needs to be paid. To do such a thing would be to neglect our duty to our children, and it would neglect our duty to forthcoming generations. 

Diolch. Well, I agree that local highway authorities do need to listen and they do need to consult, and that has been a mixed picture across Wales, I think, if we're fair about it. One of the clear conclusions of the pilot in Buckley in Flintshire was that not enough consultation was done in advance of the changes being brought in, and we have sought to learn from that. We had intended a wider and deeper consultation process. I'm afraid that COVID did have a real impact on the time available and the ability of local authorities to do this. Now, let's be fair to local authorities. These are small departments, they are working with a range of other pressures. It's one of the reasons why we've delayed the introduction of the pavement parking consultation, because it would be the same people involved in doing that change too, and they have done their best in difficult circumstances.

We know the culture in local authorities in some areas is not as open as it could be, and is not as engaging as it could be. Some local authorities have simply consulted local ward members. Others have also consulted community councils. Some have put it up on their website and had a small number of responses. I would freely acknowledge that the consultation has not been as widespread as ideally I would have liked to have seen, but I completely understand the pressures local authorities are under.

But this isn't the last word on the matter. What we're doing is changing the default. Local authorities now, as they were before, continue, as their local highway authorities, to decide the appropriate speed on the roads under their control. We've set out guidance of how that can be done, and, where there is a good case, they are able to change the speed. So, that is now the normal function of a local authority; all we've done is change the underlying default. We've not set this in stone, and it's for local communities, through the normal processes, to make representations to their local authorities where they think that can be changed. 

Obviously, there will be areas where they've got it wrong. It would be absurd to expect that not to happen, and I hope that they'll show the flexibility and humility to be willing to make that change, as we will as the trunk road agents for Wales. There's a balance to be struck, because we do want a consistent approach across Wales. We need to recognise that there are some people who will be opposed to this, but many people who will be supportive. So, for every exception there has been, there have been objections at a local level from people who don't want there to be an exception and want it to be 20 mph. So, these are difficult judgments, and, obviously, politics being politics, there are opportunists who want to take advantage of that, despite the evidence. I regret to say that Councillor Lindsay Whittle in Caerphilly has denigrated this policy as well, so we are finding people across all parties in all parts of Wales who are not doing as we would wish to see on this.

But I think the final point that Delyth Jewell made about committing to review the exceptions guidance I think is right, and we will do that. It'll be a light-touch review; we want exceptions to be tidying-up exercises, not wholesale changes, but I think it's absolutely right that we keep this under review.  

We have a policy, which I fully support, that has been badly explained by the Welsh Government and wilfully misinterpreted by the Conservative Party. Put simply, it is not possible to drive at 30 mph safely, if at all, in areas with terraced houses, or on estates. Most effectively become single-track roads with passing points, due to parked cars on both sides of the road. In Swansea, as far as I can see, no A-roads will be limited to 20 mph. The only roads you can sometimes travel on at 30 mph are the B-roads, but in Swansea East these either have schools on them or houses coming out straight onto the road. So, this is something that is a big decision to make, if you are going to take them back to 30 mph, because there's a danger of coming into contact with people. 

I have two questions. Can the Minister again confirm that emergency vehicles attending emergencies do not need to follow speed limits? That's a misapprehension that's been spread fully by a number of people. And does the Minister expect traffic lights at some junctions to be turned off, because it will be easier to join B-roads from estate roads? And finally, the point I’d like to make is: if you want to know what really slows traffic down, drive towards somewhere all at a halt because there’s been an accident. If you have fewer accidents, you’ll move faster.

Thank you. Yes, I think that’s a very commonsense way of looking at the situation. We shouldn’t underestimate what a significant change to the landscape this is, and it will have all sorts of ripple effects. So, for example, now that we are changing the default, the whole set of measurements used by road safety engineers as to when to put in railings and when to look at sight lines alters, because the traffic will be travelling at a slower speed, and therefore visibility and the ability of drivers to react will also change. So, this will have a wider impact that I think will be for the good in terms of our urban environment.

He is absolutely right that the idea that this is going to affect the emergency services is yet another false claim that is being made and supported by the Conservatives. Blue-light emergency services are not subject to speed limits and, as I mentioned earlier, the question of staff travelling to call-outs is something we’ll continue to monitor, but at the moment the police service and the other services are not telling us that they have any undue concerns. But I think it’s only reasonable for us to say there are a great deal of unknowns here, and we will have to keep this under review, and we will follow the evidence.

I know claims have been made about the impact on bus journeys, for example, and we’ve asked bus companies to provide us with data on that. I note that the average speed, for example, of a Cardiff bus is 8 mph. So, it seems unlikely to me this is going to have a significant impact, but if it turns out to be the case, then we want to look at that and we want to review and reflect on how we can make those changes. I think this can all be dealt with in a very sensible, grown-up, measured way, and the benefits, as Mike Hedges said, are very clear.

Deputy Minister, thank you for your statement this afternoon, and thank you also for acknowledging this hugely significant measure and the impact this will have on people up and down Wales. I believe one of your opening lines was that this is the biggest step change for a generation. You acknowledged also in your statement the work of local authorities with this roll-out, so thank you for doing that, and Delyth Jewell also acknowledged and outlined some of her concerns about the support for local authorities going forward. So, my first question is really about that ongoing engagement that you expect to have with those local authorities regarding 20 mph, and how you think that engagement may look, and how you’re going to be able to sustain it and share best practice—as you said, there are different approaches being taken across Wales, particularly in the opening months of this new policy being implemented—so we don’t see those local authorities potentially being left hanging dry with perhaps the fallout from some of this.

Additionally, Deputy Minister, I’m interested to hear what expectations you might have around people’s compliance with the speed reduction. You’ll be aware, although you may not particularly like the research, that research from Cambridge University and Queen’s University Belfast has shown that after a year of 20 mph being implemented in Belfast, traffic speeds fell by 0.2 mph. So, clearly, compliance may be an issue in some areas. You have acknowledged in your statement some of the enforcement activity that will take place, but I’m interested to know how that compliance, aside from enforcement, will be monitored by you, and how that approach will vary across Wales. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you very much for those questions. So, we absolutely continue to work closely with local authorities. I met with leaders again last week and was pleasantly surprised, I must say, by the positive response of the meeting. So, the officers obviously are meeting regularly. We are doing this in partnership, and absolutely there is good practice to share, not least from communications and engagement.

In terms of compliance, I think that is a very good question. The study from Belfast he’s quoting does not quite tell the story that he’s suggesting it does. That was a study of an existing 20 mph in an isolated network in the city of Belfast, and what that study concluded was that it would be better to have an area-wide approach, like we’re doing, which would be well-marketed, which is what we’re doing, and to enforce in an education-first way, which is what we’re doing. So, I think we’ve learnt from that Belfast study, so he quotes it in a way to knock down our policy, but I don’t think that is a correct interpretation of what it says.

Obviously speed limits, all speed limits, are not fully complied with now. We all know that as drivers, and we’re not going to suddenly see next Monday everybody driving at 20 mph. You know, let’s be realistic about that. But what we will see, I’m confident, because we've seen it elsewhere in the pilots, is that average speeds do fall. And one of the big wins of a 20 mph speed limit is that the number of people doing over 30 mph falls dramatically. So, just as at the moment, in many cases, in a 30 mph zone, people do 40 mph, we'll see in a 20 mph people doing more than 20 mph, but the extreme speeds will fall dramatically, and that's where one of the big road safety wins comes from. We also know that for every 1 mph drop in the average speed limit, there is a corresponding 6 per cent drop in casualties. So, even in cases where there is not great compliance, but the average does fall, that is still a win for community safety and for reducing deaths.

As I said in the statement, we're adopting, with the police, who we worked really well with through this process, I think a proportionate response, where we're not going to come down like a tonne of bricks on people doing between 20 mph and 30 mph as it beds in—we'll obviously tighten that up as time goes on. People who are doing over 30 mph will have points and they will have a fine, but below 30 mph where there are speed measurements in place, where there are roadside checks, people will be offered education. And certainly, where we've piloted it in Llanelli, in my own constituency, where schoolchildren have been involved with GoSafe in stopping motorists and giving them the choice, 'You can either have points or you can answer questions from the schoolchildren', it's been a very sobering and very effective process, where they've asked them, 'Do you realise that you're driving in a way that endangers my life?' And many motorists leaving that conversation have done so in tears and changed their behaviour in the future. So, I'd like to see more interventions like that, rather than simply slapping fines on people, but if people clearly are breaking the law, then they are liable to be punished for breaking the law. But I think what we'll see is it bed in.

We've certainly seen from Spain that many of the claims that were made in advance—many of them made here today—did not come to pass. We will see a lower average speed, we will not see full compliance in the first instance, but that is something, then, that we work on with GoSafe and with communities to bring that down over time.

First, I'd like to congratulate the Minister on having the courage of his convictions and doing what needs to be done. We have a climate emergency and we need to reduce our speed limits and we need to ensure that we make that transition out of cars into active travel and ensure that we meet our 58 per cent reduction by 2030, which is not very far off.

So, I'd also like to disagree with Mike Hedges, because I think that this leaflet, which I assume is being delivered to all households—

Yes.

—is really excellent in that it's really clear and you don't need to be a first-language English speaker to understand it, as the graphics tell you exactly what's happening and how to understand where it's 20 mph.

My main question, Minister, is really around the approaches that local authorities have made, because some have paid more attention to this than others. Certainly Cardiff haven't waited for 17 September to get on with implementing 20 mph zones. So, in my constituency, there won't actually be very much change in the road signage or in the roads that are already designated 20 mph, but there will be a progressive change in behaviour, as people realise that this is now the way we do things. So, I just wondered what action you plan to take with local authorities that really haven't paid as much attention to their responsibility to ensure that, for those roads that are not suitable for 20 mph—i.e. the roads that you wouldn't allow your child to play on—they are making the right changes, within the timescale, that are not going to undermine the law. 

Thank you for your comments. I must commend Cardiff Council for the leadership they have shown over a number of years in bringing in a large number of 20 mph speed limits across the urban areas of the city. They have led the way in that and they welcome the fact that the rest of Wales will now follow suit. Of course, the advantage of doing it the way we've done it—and this is a point that I remember John Griffiths, Joyce Watson and others making in the early debates we had, and David Melding too—is that this is a much more efficient and cost-effective way of bringing about change, by having a default change, because if you had to bring in a traffic regulation Order for each street—so, this is the Conservative recommendation approach, of only doing it where they perceive it's needed—that's a very expensive and very inefficient way of doing it. Doing it default-wise is a much cleverer and more cost-effective way of doing it.

I hope Cardiff will gain the benefit as this now becomes normalised behaviour. That, I think, is the big win of this, if we can change what feels normal, just as it no longer feels normal to light up a cigarette in a pub, even though at the time there were huge claims as to the damage that would cause—and, indeed, the Conservatives were on the wrong side of that as well. It is now normal behaviour not to do that, just as it is normal to put a seatbelt on, when it wasn't normal and there was huge resistance to that too. So, I'm hopeful that, over time, this will change what is considered normal in the way we travel around areas where people live.

One of the things about having a default approach is that people will know where they stand with the speed limits in their area, because people often say at the moment they're confused as to what the speed limit is. So, from Sunday, where you see street lights and there's not a 30 mph speed limit, it is 20 mph. So, see street lights, think 20 mph is the clear piece of advice we can give our constituents, and that'll be far easier to follow.

In terms of accountability, local authorities are sovereign in this regard: they are the local highway authorities. In law, they are responsible for local roads. We've set a national framework. So, it's not for us to hold them to account, it's for their local voters to hold them to account and for local councillors to hold them to account. We've set out a set of guidelines, which are freely available online, for where an exception would be justified. But, essentially, if you are within 200m of houses, schools, hospitals or community facilities, then 20 mph is appropriate, unless there is a good case to not do that, and that's a decision they're best placed to make. I daresay there will be some variability, but that's an issue of local accountability, not for us to try and micromanage. We've set a clear framework, we've set out a really clear evidence base behind it, and I think, over time, the demands for more 20 mph limits, to reduce the exceptions, will grow.

Thank you very much for your statement this afternoon, Deputy Minister, and you may wish to note that 17 September is my birthday, so the best day of the year has now become the day that 30 mph died in Wales.

Now, in your statements and in Government communications, Deputy Minister, you seem keen to stress that this isn't a blanket programme. Well, I'm afraid it is, particularly in my constituency where the list of exemptions is pitifully low, leaving 30 mph arterial roads in the Vale of Clwyd, such as Rhuddlan Road in Rhyl, Marine Road in Prestatyn, the Meliden dip, the Roe in St Asaph and many more to the dismal prospect of travelling on straight, clear roads at 20 mph, leading to increased driver frustration and consequential economic issues in my constituency, where I've not spoken to one member of the public, service or business in Denbighshire who supports this draconian policy.

So, can the Deputy Minister describe the assessment process of reviewing and increasing the list of exemptions for main arterial roads? And what discussions have or will you conduct with Denbighshire County Council to gauge the reaction to the implementation in the following weeks and months after 17 September, to ensure that my constituents' voices are heard and we can establish a list of local exemptions in Denbighshire that are reflective of the public mood? We do live in a democracy, after all.

He started by saying that 17 September will be the day that 30 mph died, and as Llyr Gruffydd correctly said, as opposed to children dying. I think that really does answer the force of the Member's contribution. He is entitled to his view, of course, but I disagree with him, as did Paul Davies, Russell George, Janet Finch-Saunders and Laura Jones when they voted in favour of a default speed limit approach on 15 July 2020.

To answer his only serious question, the exceptions criteria are set out in the document that is available on the Welsh Government website. Local authorities have applied those, we've not been notified of any significant problems, and certainly Denbighshire hasn't raised any concerns. If concerns emerge, local authorities already have the discretion to make those changes. That is why we've seen the changes in Buckley, that is why we've seen the changes in Caldicot, that is why we've seen the changes on the maps being produced elsewhere. So, the power and discretion are absolutely there, because if they weren't, how could they have done it? But if it does turn out that further changes are required, then we’ll have a constructive dialogue about that.

Minister, in my experience, people readily understand that if a child or another person is hit by a vehicle at 30 mph, the likelihood of death or serious injury is far greater than it would be at 20 mph. And of course, people know as drivers that it’s much easier to stop at 20 mph if somebody does step into the road in front of you than it would be at 30 mph. I think people readily understand that. But of course, what they want to see is 20 mph on the right roads, and that’s why I very much welcome what you’ve said about getting the policy right and making sure that the exceptions are on the right roads and that there is monitoring and that it is an ongoing process. I very much welcome that.

Just on the wider picture as we move forward—because I think 20 mph will have ongoing and building support as we go forward and it beds in—the wider picture for us locally in Newport, Minister, is around the Burns agenda and making sure that active travel and public transport, integrated transport, are strengthened and complemented by the 20 mph policy. I just wonder if you could say a little bit as we move forward about that wider picture and making sure that we make the necessary progress with the Burns recommendations.

Thank you very much. Again, I just want to acknowledge the leadership that you have shown in this agenda from the beginning. In fact, as I’ve reflected before, the first meeting I had as a Minister some four and a half years ago was with you and Rod King from the 20’s Plenty campaign to make the case for this approach. I should also echo the tribute to Rod King and to the others—Phil Jones and others—who served on the steering group with us, to help us guide through this policy; their support has been invaluable.

He’s absolutely right about appropriateness on the right roads, and if councils are obdurate about it, we do risk discrediting the agenda and compliance will be low. And I think that’s the balance that needs to be struck. He’s absolutely right about the importance of this dovetailing the active travel agenda; we know this is probably the most significant thing we can do to encourage levels of cycling and walking. The evidence shows a significant increase in levels of cycling and walking where there is 20 mph—and that’s true in London, in Edinburgh, in Spain too, as well as in our pilot area. So, I think we can be confident that that will emerge, because it simply feels so much safer, and obviously the consequences of collisions occurring are lessened as well. But it changes the psychology of an area, and I think that is hard to measure and hard to prove, but I think we’ll all know it when we see it. I think this absolutely complements the Burns agenda, and we continue to take that forward.

I’d better declare my interest as a member of several related cross-party groups, but also as a driver, as a cyclist, and as a man-about-town pedestrian in my local constituency regularly, and also as a father of three boys as well. I thank him for stressing in his remarks today the lives saved, the serious life-changing injuries that will be prevented by driving just a little bit slower. BCBC and RCT in my area consulted very publicly, very widely on this. I note they put forward some very sensible local exemptions. But will he confirm once again, so that everybody is clear in this Chamber, that there will indeed be an opportunity, when this has bedded down, for a light-touch review, so if there are much-needed sensible adjustments to be made, they will be made? This isn’t a blanket 20 mph, despite what the opposition say publicly; this is a sensible policy that will save lives, and the saving lives did not feature in the opening remarks of the frontbench spokesman.

I do struggle to understand whether or not the Conservatives simply don’t understand the nuance of this policy, or they do understand it and choose to deliberately misrepresent it for cynical political ends. I oscillate between those two, if I’m honest. But what we do know is they’re wrong, and the evidence speaks for itself. Huw Irranca-Davies is absolutely right, and again his leadership role as chair of the cross-party group on active travel has been important in adding support and joining this with other agendas too. It will be appropriate for us to monitor how this works in practice; it is a very, very, significant change, and it would be naive of us to assume that it’s going to be flawless. We currently feel—and the pilots have demonstrated our confidence in this judgment—that the changes can be made at a local level. We feel there is sufficient discretion in the current exemptions criteria to allow that to happen. There is nervousness amongst some local authorities, and legal advice that makes them nervous about how far they're willing to stray from the exact letter of the guidance, even though we have built in discretion there. And as I say, in Flintshire, Buckley—

Deputy Minister, would you take an intervention?

This is a statement, Joyce Watson. It's the first day back, so forgiveness—.

—has demonstrated that. But if we find, and local authorities find, that they require greater reassurance from a change in the wording, then we will absolutely consider that, and I think we just need to apply common sense to the way this is implemented.

I thank the Minister. 

The next item, therefore, will be a statement—. No. That item, item 6, is withdrawn.

The next item is a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow a debate on the legislative consent motion on the Energy Bill. The Minister for Climate Change to move the motion formally.

I formally move the motion.

The proposal is to suspend Standing Orders. Does any Member object? No, therefore the motion is agreed. 

That allows us to move on to item 7, which is the LCM on the Energy Bill. The Minister for Climate Change, Julie James, to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion. I'm grateful for the opportunity today to move this motion on the UK Energy Bill, and to the Members for agreeing to suspend Standing Orders to enable us to proceed today. I fully appreciate the challenges this Bill has created for effective scrutiny from the Senedd. The Welsh Government is fully committed to doing all that we can to ensure our legislature gets the opportunity to properly scrutinise UK legislation that engages the Sewel convention and requires Senedd consent.

I want to set out from the outset the challenges demonstrated in the past week alone as reflective of our experiences to date. There were nearly 150 pages of amendments published last week, which UK Government pushed through Parliament in a single day session. Despite our request, the UK Government refused to reschedule the Bill's timetable to allow the Senedd to meaningfully consider these amendments. The supplementary legislative consent memorandum laid yesterday is the result of incredible efforts to ensure that those matters could be highlighted to the Senedd. However, I am under no illusion that this is an effective demonstration of the legislative consent process, nor of good law making. I have made that clear to the UK Government in no uncertain terms.

This has been an incredibly difficult Bill to develop a Welsh Government position on legislative consent. As introduced, the Bill was incomplete and then paused for several months as the UK Government responded to the energy price crisis. The Bill has been developed incorporating the views of various Secretaries of State and Prime Ministers. Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister the day after the Bill was introduced into the House of Lords, and we are now on the fourth Secretary of State for this Bill. I have made repeated requests to the UK Government to delay the progress of this Bill. This would have enabled the required scrutiny to take place, and would also have facilitated the much-needed inter-governmental working on the detail of this Bill as it was developed. While the provisions in the Bill are required to help achieve a net-zero energy system, there is no immediate risk to our energy security from delaying this Bill. This is a matter entirely at the discretion of the UK Government. We have always been playing catch-up on this Bill. The UK Government did not engage us in the required detailed policy work necessary for the Bill. The Bill was only shared with us the evening before it was introduced, and there was clearly no consideration for how the overall Bill would be delivered with the devolved Governments.

Llywydd, we have always been committed to working in a way to reach collective inter-governmental agreement. The Bill before us today is important in that it establishes the required regulatory framework for a number of key technologies that will play key roles for our energy security and for achieving net zero. Part 1 of the Bill establishes an economic regulation and licensing regime for the transport and storage of carbon dioxide, with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, Ofgem, as the economic regulator. Part 2 enables the Government to implement and administer carbon-capture business models. However, the Bill as drafted, and Parts 1 and 2 in particular, provide for broad regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State. As a matter of devolved competence, concerning the matters of environmental protection and waste, which include decarbonisation measures such as carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage, the Secretary of State must seek the consent of Welsh Ministers before regulations should come into effect. This is not provided for, apart from in clause 2. 

To be absolutely clear, I am in agreement that CCUS is likely to play a significant part in decarbonising industry in particular. On the need for appropriate regulations to support implementation, Welsh Government policies align with the UK Government. However, I am keen to ensure that the scale of CCUS in Wales is the minimum required, and that CCUS in not in itself deemed as a new industrial opportunity that could risk locking the UK into continued and avoidable use of fossil fuels. That is why we need to ensure new regulations support our policy priorities in Wales and that the Senedd has scrutiny of any new regulations coming forward. With the Bill we have before us, none of that is provided for.

Parts 4 and 8 of the Bill provide for new regulation-making powers with respect to low-carbon heat schemes and heat networks. Again, a number of the clauses in those parts make provision within the Senedd's legislative competence, yet the Bill provides for a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult or notify Welsh Ministers before new regulations come into effect. This is not an adequate reflection of devolution, and does not provide us with the necessary safeguards we have sought.

For Part 13, again, our policy is aligned. I agree we need to streamline and accelerate offshore wind consenting, and I'm committed to working in partnership to ensure there is a level playing field across the UK. However, on the matter of a marine recovery fund, we do have a disagreement on devolved responsibilities. We have set out our position that the Senedd has legislative competence to make a Senedd Bill for a fund for all energy infrastructure projects 300 MW and below in the Welsh inshore region. We believe this is a matter of environmental protection. It is important to highlight that, outside that one example, there is no disagreement between us and the UK Government on where the provisions in this Bill engage the legislative consent process.

In response to our recommendation that the Senedd withhold consent to this Bill, the UK Government offered the very limited consent processes we see in the amended Bill, specifically to clauses 2 and 293. If they agree that consent mechanisms are appropriate for those clauses, why not the other clauses in the Bill where broad regulation-making powers are introduced in areas of devolved competence? It is clear, including through my one-and-only meeting with the UK Government Minister then responsible for the Bill, that the UK Government are not interested in respecting the devolution settlement when it comes to implementing future policy on matters concerning the Bill. Their argument is that the only way to deliver cross-border regulation in a way that avoids regulatory divergence is through the UK Government regulating, even if those regulations are within the devolved competence of the Senedd.

Llywydd, this is, unfortunately, a UK Government that does not want to work with devolved Governments, and instead believes processes of consultation and notification are satisfactory safeguards of our constitution. I fundamentally disagree with that view. I could not be clearer that I want to work on a basis of seeking to reach agreement to provide appropriate cross-border regulation that our industry and our citizens need to help us achieve net zero. I've argued the case for the UK Government to work with us. I've asked for the Bill to be delayed so that we can agree a solution that respects this Senedd and our legitimate devolved responsibility.

Finally, I have reminded the UK Government of their own stated commitment to the Sewel convention and that under no circumstance would it be appropriate to pass this Bill without the consent of the Senedd. Such action would demonstrate a complete lack of consideration of the most fundamental principles of devolution. Llywydd, in drawing to a conclusion, I therefore recommend that Members withhold their consent to the UK Energy Bill. Diolch.

The Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Llywydd. My committee has managed to report on the first three legislative consent memoranda for the Energy Bill. As the Minister said, No. 4 was laid just yesterday.

I note at the opening of my remarks that the Minister explains that she has asked for a delay with the UK Parliament so that we can have proper consideration of this, and that request has been withheld, because that's very pertinent to what I'm now going to say.

Llywydd, a moment ago I did say that my committee has reported. It is a report we’d have wished to write on very, very different terms, particularly as we have been unable to provide a detailed analysis to help inform Members' consideration of the consent motion being voted upon this afternoon. So, I'm going to expand on this point, and I hope the Minister might be able to expand a little on this in her closing remarks.

As soon as was practically possible after the Minister's first memorandum was laid, we issued an invitation for her to come along to our next meeting, which was on 10 July—the final meeting of the summer term—such were our initial concerns about the approach to the Bill, including from the Welsh Government, and the Senedd's subsequent role in the legislative consent process. We thank the Minister for recognising those concerns and agreeing to attend at very short notice just before we all headed off.

Members will likely know that the Bill was introduced into the UK Parliament on 6 July 2022. I'll repeat: 6 July 2022. The Welsh Government's first legislative consent memorandum was laid before this Senedd almost 51 weeks to the day after that date. Now, this is unprecedented. The Minister has put some reasoning behind that, but look, furthermore, the memorandum laid before the Senedd at that late juncture was based on the very first version of the Bill introduced to the UK Parliament almost a year earlier. The Bill by this point had been extensively amended already.

So, when the Minister gave evidence to us on 10 July, she told us a number of things, and I need to briefly summarise this. Minister, you told us that not a single scrap of Welsh Government involvement in the development of the Bill or detailed discussions with the UK Government had happened—not a single scrap. Minister, you told us that the Bill had been drafted without any nod, in your words, to devolution whatsoever. You told us that the first and only meeting, which you repeated today, that you'd had with the UK Minister on the Bill, was in May of this year, with Minister Bowie, and that he, in your quotes,

'Showed no appreciation that any kind of devolution settlement existed.'

Now, I'm repeating your words for very specific reasons, because they were clearly of concern to us. It was alarming, I have to say, for this committee to hear of such poor communication with the UK Government, particularly on devolved matters. So, we undertook to write immediately to Andrew Bowie, the UK Government's Minister for Nuclear and Networks. He did reply very quickly, and he told us that he doesn't recognise the remarks made by the Minister, and that, let me go into some detail here, the Bill respects the devolution settlement, that UK Government civil servants, he says, actually shared draft clauses of the Bill, held deep-dive sessions with Welsh Government officials in advance of the Bill's introduction, and that his officials have sought weekly meetings with the Welsh Government officials since the Bill was introduced. Now, Senedd Members will note there the stark contrast between the information presented by the Minister and that presented by Minister Bowie to our committee.

Now, look, it's not our role as a committee to act as an examiner of who said and who did what and when, but the differences of view are stark. We have simply concluded, however, that the contradictory chronology of events and explanations about co-operation is really concerning, and it does suggest, at best, that the democratic role of this Senedd has not been given adequate consideration during the development of this Bill, wherever the cause may lie. Now, the Minister has also referred in the opening remarks, as she said to us, about the multiple changes of personnel in the UK Government as a problem. We note that, but we simply observe, Minister, that the same challenges confronted Ministers in Scotland as well, but that did not delay them laying the LCM at an early point. So, the delay in laying the required legislative consent memorandum just isn't acceptable; it severely undermined the ability of Senedd Members here to effectively scrutinise the Bill and its impact in Wales.

It is unfortunate that we have to conclude, Minister, as a committee, that we're not convinced by the reasons for the delay being put forward. Now, we do acknowledge the Minister's remarks that she both regrets and is concerned that the timing of the Bill's final stages in the UK Parliament means the Senedd has no meaningful opportunity to consider the position on consent—bear in mind that, no meaningful opportunity; that's where we are—but we do not believe it's appropriate to make those comments solely within the context of constraints of the UK parliamentary timetable. The lack of opportunity has been caused, we would argue, primarily, by the delay in laying the original first legislative consent memorandum, and it's something for which Welsh Government and the Minister needs to be accountable and take responsibility, indeed.

The Minister will want to emphasise the other important aspects of policy in this Bill, and where Welsh Government has disagreement with the UK Government over the detail and substance of the UK Energy Bill. These are important matters, and they deserve greater scrutiny by this Senedd, and that's what we're arguing for. Indeed, should more time have been available to us and to other Senedd committees, we would have been able to give proper consideration to a number of important matters.

Can I just conclude on two or three matters?

I am not going to stop the Chair of legislation when he's talking about scrutiny by the Senedd, so, yes, you carry on.

I am really close to the end. I really am. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

So, we would have been able to give proper consideration to a number of important matters, including, for example, the overlap between the Energy Bill and the Minister's own infrastructure Bill. We would have liked to further consider the Minister's comments on the laying of multiple legislative consent memoranda, which is a genuine issue. And the Minister knows that the view of my committee is that delays in laying such memoranda impede the ability of this Senedd, let alone our own committee, to understand the Welsh Government's approach.

So, Llywydd, I think it's very evident from my remarks that the committee is very concerned with the approach taken in respect of this Bill, and for us it raises questions over the overarching wider processes within Welsh Government regarding the timely laying of legislative consent memoranda, and we do believe Welsh Government should learn lessons from its handling of this Bill to ensure that this shouldn't happen again. Welsh Ministers have to ensure that the Senedd is presented in a timely manner with the necessary information it requires to perform its democratic role. Diolch yn fawr.

Chair of the climate change committee now—Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I find myself in a rather curious position today, contributing to this debate when the climate change committee has not had an opportunity to consider the LCM or an opportunity to report on it. We had intended to consider the LCM and agree on our report in tomorrow's formal committee meeting, and that would have allowed us to meet the Business Committee deadline of 15 September, but bringing forward the debate on the LCM today has put paid to that, of course. My contribution will be short, as a number of the most important points have already been covered by Huw Irranca-Davies, and it is good that his committee has managed to report on the LCM in time for today's debate.

As has already been mentioned, the LCM was laid on 29 June, just shy of a year after the Energy Bill was introduced in the UK Parliament. According to the Minister, the blame for this sorry mess lies firmly at the door of the UK Government. Fair enough. But I'm afraid that the Welsh Government must take some responsibility. Minister, if the Welsh Government had laid the LCM within a reasonable time frame, the committee would not have been denied the opportunity to play a full and proper part in this legislative consent process. When the LCM was first referred to the committee, we wrote to the Minister to ask whether the Bill would impact on the ability of the Welsh Government to develop and deliver energy and climate change policy in the future that meets the needs of Wales, and if so, how. Our letter and the Minister's response, which was received at the end of August, have been published alongside today's agenda. But, of course, the committee hasn't had an opportunity to consider the response or come to any conclusions on the matters relating to policy. Given the motion that is before us today, I'm sure that Members would be keen to know whether any of the concerns that the Minister outlines in her letter have been addressed, and if not, what the next steps are in terms of Welsh policy in the future.

Llywydd, the committee has previously expressed the view that there are fundamental problems with the LCM process, and today, of course, the position we find ourselves in underlines that once again.

How do I follow this one, really? When we hear conflicting perspectives put forward about whether UK Government have liaised with Welsh Government and vice versa, it doesn't inspire confidence, and I'll certainly, from the UK Government perspective, be writing to them, because we have to have this open dialogue on any LCMs that come forward.

So, overall, I do welcome the fact that the Welsh Government is supportive of the broad policy intent of the Energy Bill. The policy scope of this Bill is wide, covering everything from carbon capture, hydrogen production to energy code governance reform, heat networks, regulation and offshore wind electricity generation. The Minister has highlighted, in her letter to the CCEI committee, a concern that the Bill, as drafted, provides for broad regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State, with a requirement to only consult with Welsh Ministers if regulations contain provisions that would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd. The UK Government's intent to co-operate is clear, so I see no need to create a potential barrier by creating a requirement for consent. Concerns have also been raised that the ability of Welsh Ministers to use all the appropriate levers within its competence at the right time to forge a path to net zero is limited by the Bill, as currently drafted. However, the Bill will strengthen the UK's ability to achieve net zero.

Now, I'm sure none of you will disagree with the aim of delivering a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy system for the long term, and that is what this Act will do. More so, there is no reason why the Welsh Government and UK Government cannot work together—and I say this numerous times. You may have different political parties each side, but, at the end of the day, we should all be working to represent our constituents, irrespective of party. In fact, UK Government officials have, we were told—but we're told otherwise now by our colleague Huw Irranca—been already co-operating with you, and, apparently, and whether the Minister can just confirm on this one that they've already shared draft clauses, where possible, and they've held a series of deep-dive sessions with your Welsh Government officials on each measure well in advance of this Bill's introduction. More so, UK Government officials apparently have sought to engage their counterparts extensively about the Bill, including seeking weekly meetings with the Welsh Government since the Bill was introduced. In addition—allegedly, apparently, whatever—there have been many conversations, meetings and e-mails between Welsh Government officials and UK Government officials who lead on the Bill's individual measures.

So, even now, I'm questioning myself whether Andrew Bowie MP, Minister for Nuclear and Networks, is correct when he states that:

'The Welsh Government’s delay in laying the Legislative Consent Memorandum has not helped our discussions. Indeed, the Memorandum presents the first instance I have seen which sets out the Welsh Government’s concerns with the Bill in full. As the Memorandum only covers the Bill as introduced, I still do not know the Welsh Government’s position on large parts of the Bill which have been amended. Close engagement between UK and Welsh Government officials has mitigated these shortcomings to an extent and has allowed for a package of amendments to be shared at official level.'

So, really now, all that remains for me to ask, Minister, is which of those statements that I've read out there are incorrect? How are they incorrect, and what are you doing as a Welsh Government to actually go back to the UK Government and address the situation? I assume this will be on the agenda for tomorrow in our committee meeting, but, frankly, it's really disconcerting as an elected Member to hear one thing from one Government and another one from another. So, I think we're all—. Well, I'm very concerned about it. Thank you.

Diolch, Gweinidog. This is concerning. The Minister had acknowledged in a letter to my colleague and Chair of the climate change committee recently that the Bill's provisions, when they come to Wales, will affect the Government here's ability to develop future energy and climate change policy that meets our needs in Wales. Now, this is yet another example—it is a particularly egregious example—about how LCMs have become a tool for Westminster to bypass the devolved administrations. They often ignore our concerns, they steamroll over our objections, and that's why Plaid Cymru believes resolutely that this undermines the principles of devolution. It disregards the democratic will of the people of Wales, it poses a significant threat to the powers of our Senedd.

Devolution was a hard-fought victory for the people of Wales. It has and it means that there is a mandate that exists to make decisions closer to home, ensuring that Welsh interests are put first. Now, LCMs, when they are abused, as is the case here—that undermines the core principle there. It makes a mockery of our devolution settlement, and we've become so used in the past few years to this happening. That's not how these things are meant to work, but it's become the norm. Plaid Cymru believes in a robust democratic system where elected representatives have the authority to make decisions for their constituents. LCMs do not reflect this ideal. They allow Westminster to impose its will without sufficient scrutiny or accountability. Too often, LCMs result in legislation, as we've heard in this example, that is not tailored to the specific needs and interests of Wales. What might work for other parts of the UK may not work for us. So, we reject this LCM that's before us today, and we would urge other Members to do the same.

Jenny Rathbone. 

Can I withdraw? Thank you. 

Yes, of course you can. Joyce Watson.

Diolch, Llywydd. I agree, actually, with Huw and with Llyr and others that it's unfortunate, hugely, that the committee has not had an opportunity to form a view on legislative consent. And the point here, and it's been made several times, is that the majority of the levers relating to energy policy are indeed already reserved. We should have had a wider opportunity than the one that has been afforded us, and that is simply reading the memorandum laid by the Welsh Government in June and all the subsequent supplementary documents that the Minister has given us sight of.

There is a problem here, of course, and Delyth outlined it nicely. We do have the powers already. This is trying to take them back. And the point here is, when we look at the Tories at the moment, and their inaction on the net-zero scrutiny group, they're just looking to block onshore wind and solar development at every single turn. So, if we were to approve this, what exactly are we approving? Because even the party who is governing, who is trying to impose this on us, can’t agree with themselves. So, there's a big, big issue here. I’m not sure—and I don't want to do anybody an injustice—but I thought that Janet Finch-Saunders did say—and if I've misunderstood, please tell me—that we can ask for permission. But the point is we have the permission. We are not going to go, every single time we want to do something where we already have the powers given to us by a clear mandate on devolution, to Westminster and say, 'Please, do you mind if we do—?' whatever we've already had a mandate given to us on behalf of the people of Wales. That's not devolution at all.

So, those are the comments I want to make. It is disappointing that we're here, and it is somewhat confusing, I have to say, from what we’ve heard from Huw Irranca.

The Minister for Climate Change to reply.

Diolch, Llywydd. Forgive me, Llywydd; I'm just going to go through the history again because I do think it’s important, and an apology is due from the Welsh Government as well, just to be clear. But I do want to put that in context, and I did do that in the committee, as you said, Huw.

It is important to recall that this Bill was first introduced when Kwasi Kwarteng was the Secretary of State for the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The UK Government then paused work on the Bill to rush through the Energy Prices Bill, so the timing of that was that they introduced the Bill at the beginning of July—6 July, I believe, from memory—and then, by 7 September, they were pausing it. Now, we could have put an LCM in at the beginning of September, but at that time we were having a correspondence with your committee and others about the fact that we kept putting multiple LCMs up on the same Bill. So, I do feel we’re a little bit stuck between a rock and a hard place there. So, in trying to comply with the ‘don’t put 14 LCMs up on a single Bill’, we’ve now fallen into the ‘we didn’t put one up fast enough’ on the draft Bill. So, hands up, we didn’t. But I do think, in fairness, we were actually trying to put an LCM that encapsulated the Bill as we thought it would be presented rather than a sequential set of LCMs. I came to the committee, we discussed it, and we then did put up a set of sequential LCMs. So, I’m happy to apologise that we didn’t put that first one up, but I do think you should acknowledge that we were actually trying to comply with an earlier problem of the sequential LCMs. So, I’ll just leave that little bit there.

And then, in terms of the communication from the UK Government, well, you know, truth is an interesting thing, isn’t it? I absolutely agree that they consulted us on clauses in the Bill, but not the Bill. So, what I’ve said to you is that we kept having clauses in isolation given to us, but not within the context of the Bill. Well, there’s a very limited amount of work you can do on a clause that isn’t within the context. The Bill itself we were never given. So, yes, there were deep-dives on this bit of the Bill, but how can you work with that when you don’t know what the overall context is? Why didn’t they share the whole Bill with us? I’ve made these points repeatedly to them.

The other problem is that there are Henry VIII powers in it. So, trying to get behind the policy intent for giving the Secretary of State sweeping powers so that we could or couldn’t consent to that is really problematic. So, trying to engage the officials with what exactly is it that the Secretary of State intends to use these powers on—in exactly the same way as your committee would respond to me if I was trying to do that here, well, we have the same difficulty with that.

So, I absolutely do regret the lack of scrutiny possible on the LCMs, but this was laid yesterday, so in what universe was I able to do anything other than put us in the position that you're now in? I don't want to be in that position either. We asked for the Bill to be delayed; they were refusing to do that. 

Over recess, we've responded to an exceptional amount of amendments, and we are where we are. So, it's been impossible to move it. But there are some real fundamentals here as well. The Bill was a skeleton on introduction. It was clearly not complete. A series of discussions were ongoing at introduction, so even the UK Government was accepting that this was not a complete Bill at introduction. We then had to understand both the intent and analyse the extent of the provisions and try and understand whether it did actually engage the devolution settlement. The UK has consistently argued all the way through that this is to do with electricity and, even where the policy has quite clearly engaged with both waste and environment, they've tried to argue that, because the overarching issue is the generation of electricity, that somehow that doesn't engage the devolution process. Well, I would say that that was sophistry of the worst sort, and I think Delyth pretty much set out my view on that as well. So, we are not happy with that and we don't agree with it. And so an ongoing discussion ensues. So, the Minister who wrote to you is absolutely right, an ongoing discussion did ensue. What he didn't tell you was it was us saying, 'Don't be ridiculous, that's devolved.' So, the nature of the discussion is also important. 

We also had—. We had no full text of the Bill before it was introduced. We had small extracts shared in isolation, but the full text, which is 346 pages, was shared the evening before it was published. And it's now infamous in the Welsh Government that you are summoned to speak to a Minister of the UK Government for a 15-minute conversation and that must happen at 6.30 p.m. on a given night because they're clearly about to announce something the next morning and they've hitherto forgotten to tell you about it. That happens, I'm afraid, rather more frequently than you'd imagine. So, he is right, they did tell us, but what was I supposed to do with it at 6.30 at night, 346 pages? So, truth on both sides, I think, but the import of the truth is rather different.

You can hear that I'm cross about it, and I'm cross about it for this reason: it's not necessary. We broadly agree with the policy direction here. We agree that the UK needs to do this together. We agree that we need these provisions. This is not necessary. All the UK Government actually had to do was understand devolution from the start, engage with us properly and then ask for our consent—not consult us, ask for our consent in devolved areas. Now, they've conceded that consent in some areas and not in others, and it's a mystery to us why we have not had that conversation with them. And I'm afraid that's why we're not recommending consent to this Bill, because in two very important areas that I laid out in my original opening we disagree. And what I am most fundamentally upset about is the idea that somebody causing environmental damage in the Celtic sea pays into a fund that goes into the Treasury and that that somehow does something about the degradation to the environment. I don't believe that anyone in this Senedd, including you, Janet, thinks that's an adequate environmental protection. And on that basis alone, I do not like this Bill and I do not recommend that the Senedd gives its consent. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore defer voting until voting time. 

The next item is a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow a debate on the LCM on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill. The Minister for finance to formally move.

On the Standing Order suspension. 

Yes, I move the motion. 

Thank you. It's been moved. 

The proposal is to suspend Standing Orders. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed. 

Which allows us to move to the debate on the LCM on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill. The Minister for finance to move the motion. Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion. I'm grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, the Finance Committee, the Local Government and Housing Committee and the Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee for considering and reporting on the memorandum. I welcome the committees' proactive engagement and I recognise that, due to the summer recess and parliamentary timetabling, the opportunity to scrutinise the supplementary memorandum has been limited. 

I thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for the report published this morning, which recognises that I had already set out the Welsh Government's position on the subject of the supplementary memorandum in response to questions that arose during the scrutiny of the first memorandum. 

The UK Government introduced the Non-Domestic Rating Bill on 29 March to provide for a number of changes to the NDR system in Wales and England. The Bill provides an opportunity to bring about certain reforms earlier than would otherwise have been possible and when new functions will be conferred on the UK Government bodies to ensure that ratepayers in Wales are not disadvantaged compared with ratepayers in England. The provisions extending to Wales include powers to establish new rate relief schemes and make certain reliefs available to ratepayers on the central rating list. Subject to ongoing consultation, we intend to use powers provided by the Bill to introduce improvement relief and heat networks relief from 1 April 2024. This could not be effected through primary legislation in the Senedd until 1 April 2025 at the earliest.

New functions conferred on UK Government bodies will enable information sharing on the same basis across Wales and England. Requiring the Valuation Office Agency to share more information with ratepayers will improve transparency and understanding of the NDR system. Enabling the exchange of information between HMRC, ratepayers and billing authorities will ensure that we're able to benefit from the shared aims of the digitalising business rates programme. 

The Bill also refines the process by which the annual multiplier is set, removing unnecessary timing constraints and a dependency on the local government finance reports. The changes will help ensure that the Senedd has appropriate time for scrutiny of any regulations and allow for more timely clarity for billing authorities and ratepayers. I believe that these provisions fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd. However, I am content that these provisions should be made in the UK Bill to ensure that ratepayers in Wales are not placed at a comparative disadvantage, and I ask the Senedd to approve this legislative consent motion.

The Chair of the Local Government and Housing Committee, John Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'll be speaking in my capacity, as you say, as Chair of the Local Government and Housing Committee. We laid our report on the legislative consent memorandum for the Non-Domestic Rating Bill on 22 June. As the supplementary LCM was laid on 1 August, regrettably, we did not have sufficient time to consider and report on it ahead of this debate today.

We noted in our report that most Members felt that they were able to recommend that the Senedd gives its consent for the UK Government to legislate on these devolved matters. Mabon ap Gwynfor, who was a member of the committee at that time, disagreed with the majority view. It is unfortunate that the supplementary LCM was laid during the summer recess and therefore, as a committee, we were unable to consider it. However, I note that the SLCM confirms the Welsh Government's updated position in relation to clause 13, which was outlined by the Minister in correspondence to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee on 1 June, which we were able to consider. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

The Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Llywydd. My committee has produced two reports on the Welsh Government's legislative consent memoranda for this Bill.

We agree with the Minister that the clauses of the Bill and the Schedule to the Bill set out in the memoranda fall within a purpose within the legislative competence of the Senedd and therefore require our consent.

A significant portion of our first report focuses on the Welsh Government's approach to the Bill. The Minister requested provisions for Wales in the Bill and confirmed to us that discussions with the UK Government began in March 2022 and provisions for Wales, with the exception of those relating to the digitalisation of business rates, were sought in June 2022. So, we're still not clear why the Welsh Government chose not to bring forward, in the last 18 months, its own Bill, and it's with regret that we say we have not been convinced yet by the arguments put forward by the Minister.

Back in March 2022, the Minister announced, indeed, a programme of non-domestic rates reform that would be delivered over four years, and this reflected in its part an ambition outlined in the Welsh Government's programme for government. So, Welsh Government's intent was clear. When making the announcement to the Senedd in March 2022, the Minister was already in negotiations with the UK Government about requesting provisions in that Government's Bill. These negotiations were taking place, we understand, even though the Welsh Government's legislative programme for 2022-23 was yet to be announced. Now, the Minister told us that it was unclear if and when the UK Government’s Bill would be finalised and introduced, so, in that respect, we're similarly unclear why the Welsh Government didn't simply just take action and pursue its own Bill.

The Minister told us that the changes made by this Bill would be introduced during the course of the 2023 rating list and only potentially prior to Royal Assent of the planned local government finance (Wales) Bill. It does appear to us, therefore, as a committee that there was an opportunity for Welsh Government to use its forthcoming Bill to make the provisions it has now requested in the UK Bill, unless we are missing something. To add to our concern about this approach, the Minister confirmed that she has not pursued other 'desirable' provisions in the Bill and, indeed, has acknowledged that this will lead to discrepancies between the ratings systems in Wales and England.

Now, Welsh Government, as a whole, is aware of our view that it should be possible to look for opportunities for the Senedd and the UK Parliament to legislate in parallel, rather than going down the route of an England-and-Wales Bill: legislate in parallel, talking together, engaging together. This approach would still allow for co-operation between Governments and, if this is the desired effect, would not lead to inconsistencies for citizens or in the law of England and Wales. Just as importantly, it would allow Members of the Senedd to properly scrutinise a Bill made here and to test the legislation at amending stages. So, once again, the focus of our committee is on what is the best, most transparent scrutiny we can do here in this Senedd.

Our first report also focused on the delegated powers in the Bill. The Minister told us that the provisions relating to clause 13 and the digitalisation of business rates programme were not developed until earlier this year and that, on 17 March, she formally sought the extension of the provisions to Wales. The Minister also confirmed to us that the Welsh Government’s discussions with the UK Government on this matter concluded during the Bill’s passage through the House of Commons and that no amendments to the Bill were required.

So, while the Minister did provide an explanation of the new position she held, we respectfully suggest that the explanation was not as fulsome as we would have expected. Recommendation 2 of our first report asked the Minister to provide further detail to the Senedd, and the Minister told us that this is a complex matter, where a devolved policy area and the functions of a reserved authority are intentionally connected. The Minister also said that this means that any of the options to enable the digitalisation of business rates programme to be delivered in Wales must involve compromise. We understand that. The Minister concluded that, on balance, the delegated powers and duty to consult Welsh Ministers are appropriate to facilitate the administration of the DBR system. Members will be aware that these provisions are the subject of memorandum No. 2.

So, my final comments relate to the Minister’s request for the Bill to alter the scrutiny procedure for a regulation-making power that was delegated to Welsh Ministers via the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021. There was no detailed explanation given in the memorandum as to why the Minister is using a UK Bill to make this change. The Minister’s correspondence to us does provide an explanation, and I would direct Members to our report for the detail. But our committee does believe that it's regrettable that what we're seeing here is the Minister seeking to use a UK Bill to change the scrutiny procedure for a regulation-making power that Members of the Senedd only agreed in 2021.

I'll again say to the Minister that proper and full detail could have been set out in the memorandum, and, through this, could have been more explicit and transparent with Members of the Senedd about the Welsh Government’s intentions. So, Llywydd, the time has disappeared; I won't carry on ad nauseam. I just hope that our committee's analysis contained in our two reports is helpful for Members of the Senedd, and, once again, I thank all committee members, clerks and the support team for their work on this.

I wish other Members would keep an eye on the clock as well as you do, Huw Irranca-Davies. You even notice when it's not even on—[Laughter.]—which is very impressive. Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Thank you, Llywydd. As I've said previously, Plaid Cymru opposes LCMs as a point of principle. Decisions about Wales should be made in Wales.

In the case of the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, it is disappointing that the Welsh Government has not sought to introduce its own legislation on this matter, especially given the significance of non-domestic rate contributions to the Welsh budget. As was noted in the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee's report on this LCM, and also by Huw Irranca just now, the Welsh Government opened discussions on Welsh-specific provisions within this Bill 18 months ago. Can the Minister explain why such an extended period of time was not sufficient for introducing Welsh legislation in parallel with the UK Bill?

There also seems to be something of a contradiction in the Government's position. While the decision to seek these powers through the UK Bill was justified on the grounds of expediency, the Minister has nevertheless acknowledged that there are other desirable provisions in the Bill that won't be extended to Wales. This will inevitably lead to a period of discrepancy between the rating systems in Wales and England. While I note the fact that the absence of these particular provisions is considered to be low risk, it would be helpful if the Minister could elaborate on the nature of these discrepancies. Can she also confirm whether it is the intention of the Welsh Government to legislate for these powers in any future Senedd Bills?

Turning to the broader implications of these powers, and specifically to the provision to enable liability reliefs for new improvements, what is your expectation of the impact that exercising this power will have on the Welsh budget? I'd also be interested to learn more about how the Welsh Government envisages the use of this power within their broader strategy for fostering domestic business growth in Wales.

And finally, in relation to the provision for establishing the HMRC-led digitalisation of business rates programme, could the Minister clarify the mechanisms through which relevant data will be shared with the Welsh Government? Diolch.

The Minister for finance.

Thank you and, again, thank you to all colleagues for their contributions, and to our committees for their scrutiny work. And in the light of the previous debate, I should, I think, just recognise that the experience with this particular piece of legislation has been a very positive one in terms of the collaborative working between Welsh Government and the UK Government. So, I just wanted to put that on record, to demonstrate that it can be done, and I think in this case, it has been a very positive experience, I hope on both sides.

In terms of our approach to this, I was very keen that we were only going to introduce an LCM in cases where the businesses in Wales would otherwise be disadvantaged or if there were things that we needed UK Government departments to be doing for us here in Wales, and I suppose therein lies the issue in terms of those other things and the discrepancies that were mentioned. So, there were lots of things that are desirable in the Bill, and things that we will want to perhaps do for ourselves in Wales, but I really did want to only have the UK Government legislate where it was absolutely necessary to do so, because, obviously, we have a huge piece of reform work going on in terms of local government finance, which stretches across both council tax reform—and there will be further consultation on that later this autumn—but then also non-domestic ratings as well.

We've listened very closely to calls from stakeholders for more frequent revaluations, ensuring that the tax base that we have here in Wales reflects the economic conditions and the environment in which businesses and not-for-profit organisations are operating, and so we intend to bring forward legislation to move towards a three-yearly revaluation cycle, but then considering how we can do it even more often as well. Also, we're looking to explore how we can reduce the gap between the valuation date and the new rating list coming into effect. And those are examples of things that weren't time-critical, and although there's a discrepancy in the legislation, it won't mean that there's a disadvantage for businesses here in Wales. And that was something that was very much at the forefront of my mind: ensuring that there weren't cases of disadvantage.

We're also intending to undertake a review of our rate relief schemes, and that's obviously been a crucial part of our support for businesses, and that's something that, again, we're taking forward as part of this work. But reforming local government finance in such a fundamental and all-encompassing way really is a huge piece of work, and it is taking us years in which to develop and years in which to deliver. But while we're doing that work, we're making sure that our businesses here aren't disadvantaged.

There's so much more I wanted to say in terms of giving examples. I did touch on, I think, in my opening remarks, in terms of our ability now to introduce heat network relief and improvement relief from April of next year. We've consulted on that, so that's something we wanted to do. We could do it from next year, not having to wait until the year after.

And then in terms of the digitalisation agenda, again, this is about having the necessary information gateways, ensuring that the programme that is operated by HMRC across England and Wales is able to benefit us, so we have the ability to use those really powerful databases for the benefit of businesses here in Wales. And again, the multiplier is about ensuring that the Senedd has the opportunity to scrutinise in a more timely way, and I think that's something that I hope colleagues will recognise and appreciate as well.

So, we're only seeking to legislate in these areas where we don't want to be at a disadvantage, but we have a huge programme of exciting reform work also going on at this point.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore defer voting until voting time.

Now a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow a debate on the general principles of the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Bill. And I call on the Deputy Minister for Climate Change to move the motion formally.

Formally.

Thank you. The proposal is to suspend Standing Orders. Does any Member object? No. 

Standing Orders are therefore suspended to allow the debate on the general principles of the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Bill to be introduced by the Deputy Minister, Lee Waters.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd, and I move the motion, and I'm very pleased to open the debate on the general principles of the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Bill. And I've now taken responsibility for the Bill as it continues to pass through the Senedd, and I look forward to working with Members on trying to secure as ambitious a Bill as possible. 

In helping to shape the earlier stages of the Bill, I made clear to the cross-party group on clean air that I'm keen to achieve cross-party consensus on this important legislation, and I hope that we are well on our way to doing that. I would like to thank the Finance Committee, the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their scrutiny of this Bill. I also thank stakeholders and members of the public who provided evidence and feedback on the Bill. 

Let me first address the title of the Bill. I think many of us would have preferred to call this the clean air Bill. But, of course, the scope of what we're proposing goes way beyond that. By considering air quality alongside soundscapes in Wales, we are breaking new ground. Noise pollution is regarded by the World Health Organization as the second biggest environmental contributor to poor health in western Europe after air pollution. By tackling both in this Bill, we are setting out an approach to environmental regulation that recognises the quality of life of our communities as well as the needs of future generations.

Llywydd, in my first meeting with officials to discuss the Bill, I asked what is the difference between sound and noise. And the answer is that sound includes what people want to hear; noise is a sound that we don't. So, I hope that the official opposition bears that in mind in their interventions.

We've received a series of questions and challenges from committees, and Welsh Ministers have agreed, where possible, to respond to reports from the Finance Committee before the general principles debate on Bills. But in a departure from usual practice, the Minister for Climate Change, in a flurry of candour, has already responded in writing to most of the recommendations in the reports from all three committees that have scrutinised the Bill, although civil servants are keen to make clear that this does not establish a precedent, before you get carried away. [Laughter.] So, this allows me to concentrate on what I see as the principle recommendations from each of the committees this afternoon. As I've said, we want to find a consensus. Where we don't agree, we'll say so—we'll say why and we'll commit to continue a dialogue. 

So, turning first to the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee, I'm delighted to say that we support the recommendations, that the Senedd supports the general principles of the Bill. We got off to a very good start with that one, we thought. We think the main tension to work through in this Bill is the extent to which the Bill commits to specific details on its face and how much is better left to measures that flow from the legislation. And this is a familiar debate in this Senedd.

We want to work with Members to secure a strong Bill. Our view is that a national air quality strategy with statutory underpinning provides the best of both worlds: a firm commitment in law to achieve cleaner air in Wales, as well as the flexibility to update the targets as the evidence and the circumstances change. Can I assure Members that where there is a difference, it is not one of ambition? The debate to be had is one of the most practical way of achieving our shared objectives. We are committed to targets that take account of the World Health Organization's stretching recommendations in the context of Wales.

We believe that our approach to considering new air quality targets is highly ambitious. We are leading the way in the UK on a project, which is already under way, to assess the case for bringing forward target-setting regulations relating to all World Health Organization air quality guideline pollutants and ammonia. Consideration of new air quality targets is taking place in parallel to this Bill to deliver our broader ambition for clean air in the quickest possible time. The main benefits expected from air quality targets are related to health: reduced mortality and morbidity, reduced healthcare expenditure, reduced absence from work due to illness and increased productivity at work. There will also be clear benefits to the environment, and new air quality targets will contribute to our broader response to tackling the climate and nature emergencies. 

We also need to think clearly about the impact our targets will have on those sectors that generate the pollution. Road transport vehicles, domestic heating, agriculture and industry are all significant emission sectors of air pollutants in Wales. The amount of pollution from each of these sectors is affected by many policies that influence key activities in areas such as transport, industry, energy, climate and agriculture. And a number of these policies are already part of wider policies we have under way: the clean air plan, the Net Zero Wales transport strategy, 'Planning Policy Wales', the nature recovery action plan and our sustainable farming scheme. We are not starting from scratch here. Setting effective targets is therefore a very complex piece of work with a range of policy interdependencies, and it's important that we set targets in a way that minimises unintended consequences. 

Now, we want to work this through in a transparent way with committees and stakeholders, as we have to date. The work to scope and develop cases for change and potential target options for air pollutants is expected to be completed for ministerial consideration by spring 2025. It's therefore likely that Ministers will consider the advice and determine the next steps during summer 2025. So, I can't agree the timescales recommended by committee for new air quality target duties ahead of the advice in relation to the individual pollutants. I'm also unable to predetermine the outcomes from engagement and consultation associated with this work. There is no disagreement about the need for targets. However, if we act in haste, it won't help to deliver clean air and we will, in all likelihood, repent at leisure. We have a complicated set of practical challenges with many different interested parties. Picking arbitrary dates for target setting could be counterproductive. Therefore, I do not agree with placing a duty on Welsh Ministers where we cannot guarantee this obligation will be met. That's in no-one's interests.

Will you take an intervention?

Happy to.

With regard to the practical measures and the powers Ministers have, the Bill amends the Environment Act 1995 to give Welsh Ministers the power to prescribe penalties for stationary car idling, and particularly—and it's a huge problem—stationary car idling outside of schools. I think the explanatory memorandum says it's currently set at a fixed penalty of £20. There's no detail on what the Ministers might plan to introduce as fixed penalties alongside an education programme, so what kind of fixed penalties would you suggest might be effective for that?

So, clearly, this is for discussion, but our current thinking is that we want to give local authorities the flexibility to tackle this in a bespoke way in their area. So, the current penalty of £20 will remain. However, we're intending to give them powers to levy higher fines of up to £80 where they think it's appropriate, particularly in areas of sensitivity—outside schools, for example. So, that's the toolkit approach we want to give at the moment, rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach. That's something that we're working through and obviously will continue to debate as this goes through committee. But I hope I've given some indication of the current thinking. 

So, as I was saying, whilst we do not agree with the target setting that has been recommended, we do propose an alternative duty that provides a stronger basis for ensuring progress is made to protect public health, which we think is more likely to deliver better outcomes. So, Welsh Ministers will be placed under a duty to provide an annual report to the Senedd, setting out the consideration they have given to using section 1 to set long-term targets in relation to the WHO air quality guideline pollutants, as updated in 2021, and ammonia. These pollutants would be named on the face of the Bill. This amendment means that no future Government will be able to neglect their power under section 1 of the Bill, and reporting annually on the consideration the Government has given to setting long-term targets for World Health Organization guideline pollutants and ammonia provides a robust basis for the Senedd to hold the Government to account for decisions it takes in relation to the use of the power under section 1.

Recommendation 7 suggests bringing forward an amendment to reduce the time period for setting PM2.5 targets to two years. Now, the three-year time period for setting targets for PM2.5 is based on detailed planning of a significant number of steps that need to be undertaken to gather necessary evidence and make regulations. Our analysis shows that laying regulations within two years of Royal Assent is just not achievable. Actions taken to achieve PM2.5 targets are also expected to provide associated reductions in emissions of other pollutants.

Recommendation 11 suggests bringing forward amendments to ensure the Bill provides for regular reporting to the Senedd on progress towards the delivery of air quality targets. Now, in addition to reporting requirements in sections 5 and 6 of the Bill, section 7 places a specific duty on Welsh Ministers to make arrangements to collect data about air quality in Wales. This enables them to monitor progress towards achieving set targets, and ensures data is published. I appreciate the committee's desire for regular reporting that is set out in this recommendation. They also acknowledge that the Bill is silent currently on further reporting requirements once a target has been met. So, this is a helpful challenge, and I intend to bring forward a Government amendment that will ensure that Welsh Ministers will be under a duty to maintain any standard achieved by virtue of any target set under the Bill, and, in addition, Ministers will be under a duty to ensure reporting requirements are in place in relation to their duty to maintain standards after a target has been met. So, I hope that provides some reassurance. I also commit to reporting annually on the national air quality strategy, which will include updates related to promoting our awareness delivery plan.

Recommendation 18 suggested an amendment to ensure other organisations—the NHS, the office of the future generations commissioner, and public services boards—are listed as statutory consultees when reviewing the national air quality strategy, and we plan to table such an amendment at Stage 2.

Turning now to the recommendations made by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, we are happy to accept a significant number of their recommendations. For instance, as set out in recommendation 3, an explanation has been provided of why we need the Bill. Similarly, as requested in recommendation 6, we have been able to confirm the committee's understanding that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents Welsh Ministers using the Environment Act 1995 to set long-term targets for air quality. Consolidation of legislation and accessibility of the law are, rightly, topics of interest, and the Minister for Climate Change has provided detailed responses to committee recommendations 4, 5, 6 and 7 that deal with these topics.

Turning to the response to recommendations 9 and 10, we have provided confirmation to committee that no issues arise in relation to preservation of retained EU law within this Bill. Recommendation 11 highlights the committee's concerns regarding the potential confusion of defining retained direct EU legislation as primary legislation in light of section 9 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. I agree with this point, and we will be tabling an amendment to remove reference to retained direct EU legislation from section 26 of the Bill.

I believe I've already spoken to recommendations 14 and 15 in relation to air quality targets. While I'll not be making an amendment in response to recommendation 18, to include a definition of 'ambient air' in section 2 of the Bill, I do accept recommendation 19 and intend to table an amendment to the Bill making it clear that a regulation setting a PM2.5 target must make provision defining 'ambient air'. So, I hope that achieves the objective in a different way. 

Looking ahead to recommendation 21, this recommends the Government should table an amendment to the Bill to require a superaffirmative procedure to apply to the making of regulations under sections 1 and 2 of the Bill. The affirmative procedure, coupled with our commitment to consult on regulations, we believe, provides sufficient opportunity to the Senedd to scrutinise target-setting regulations made under sections 1 and 2 of the Bill. A superaffirmative procedure significantly lengthens the timetable for making regulations, and increases risk of failing to comply with the statutory duty to lay regulations for PM2.5 by three years post Royal Assent. Additionally, the superaffirmative procedure is only used in rare cases when affirmative procedures are judged insufficient, and we don't believe that this is one of those cases.

Finally, to the Finance Committee recommendations—we're getting there, folks—I really am pleased the committee was broadly content with the financial implications of the Bill, and I accept all of the recommendations in this report. The Minister for Climate Change wrote to the committee to provide information and clarifications requested, and I have not covered all the recommendations in the respective committee's reports. However, I believe the written responses supplied do cover the broader details, and I'm happy to address that further in writing.

So, may I end by repeating that this is a Bill that crosses party divides? It is critical for the well-being of future generations, and I look forward to working with all Members who have an interest in passing an Act that works for Wales. Diolch. 

The Chair of the climate change committee first—Llyr Gruffydd. 

Thank you very much, Llywydd. At the very outset, I think it's fitting for me to thank Heledd Fychan, who stepped in as temporary chair for much of the environment committee’s Stage 1 consideration of the Bill. So, thank you for your work. I also, of course, want to thank those who gave evidence to inform our consideration of the Bill, and members of the public too who took time to complete our online survey. Finally, I’d like to thank the Minister for responding to our report ahead of today’s debate, and I acknowledge that the Deputy Minister will now lead on this Bill, and I look forward to working with him as the Bill, after today, hopefully, moves forward.

Now, at first glance, it does appear that the Government's response is fairly positive, but once we looked in more detail at the Minister's response, the Bill as tabled, it would appear, in the Minister's view, is as good as it's going to get.

Our report, as you will know, I'm sure, contains 35 recommendations, 20 of which call on the Government Ministers to introduce Stage 2 amendments. These proposed amendments are based on the evidence that we've received from experts and those working in the field. Now, to date, in the Minister's response, the Minister noted that she was willing to accept only one of the 20 recommendations.  So, I can only hope that the Deputy Minister will keep an open mind in terms of amendments as the Bill makes its way through the remaining stages of the scrutiny process. And I note some of the constructive comments that he has made in some cases—not all, perhaps—and, clearly, we will need to consider those as we move forward.

But, turning now to the general principles of the Bill, Members will be aware that the Bill has been highly anticipated. Stakeholders have campaigned for many years for a clean air Act, and, yes, that title is shorthand now for a Bill that is slightly broader for that. But for them, of course, for those campaigners, the Bill is a much needed step forward, but it does fall short. As Healthy Air Cymru put it, it’s a good start, but it could be better, it could be stronger, and it could be more detailed. And the recommendations in our report, of course, seek to address this lack of substance on the face of Bill, and lack of ambition too. And I accept the point made by the Deputy Minister that, perhaps, the substance and ambition are there in terms of the Government's intention, but don't, perhaps, appear on the face of the Bill. But given time constraints, Llywydd, I’ll focus on some of those key recommendations that we have in our report. 

First, recommendations 5 to 10 deal with the setting of air quality targets, and we heard the Deputy Minister referring to some of this. There are no targets on the face of the Bill. Instead, there is a requirement on Welsh Ministers to set the target for PM2.5 within three years of the Act receiving Royal Assent. Now, along with this, there is a wide discretionary power to set long-term targets in respect of, and I quote, 

'any matter relating to air quality'.

You couldn't be more vague than that. We already know, don't we, what the most damaging pollutants are, and we also have a pretty clear idea about the standards that we should be aiming for, thanks to the latest World Health Organization guidance, as we've already heard reference to. But, as it stands, the Bill fails to provide the certainty that stakeholders are seeking, that ambitious targets for key pollutants will be put in place, and that that will be done soon. Our recommendations seek to address this. We have called, for example, for the inclusion of a duty to set targets for all the pollutants covered by the WHO guidelines. And you could do that on the face of Bill and allow that broader flexibility that you are seeking.

But to return to the PM2.5 target, this target, as we've heard, if I've worked this out correctly, won't be introduced until December 2026. That's the seventh Senedd. The evidence that we received suggests that setting the target within the next two years is entirely achievable, using existing data. I think the Deputy Minister's description was 'to act in haste', but that would be acting on expert evidence that already exists. So, clearly, we need a further discussion with the Deputy Minister on that particular point.

The Minister has rejected recommendation 7, if I've understood things correctly, noting that there's a three-year programme for the development of the target that's already been agreed. But our point, Deputy Minister, is that you could and should accelerate the programme. The reality is that waiting three years, in the view of many of us, is simply too long to wait, and I hope you will be willing to reconsider that during the amending stages.

Moving on to reporting requirements, the Bill doesn't provide enough opportunities for the Senedd to scrutinise the work of Welsh Ministers on progress towards targets and delivery of its national air quality strategy. That's a problem. The committees had first-hand experience of difficulties with effective scrutiny on progress towards delivery of climate change targets and the net-zero plan due to weaknesses in the reporting requirements in the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. There's an opportunity here to avoid repeating that mistake. Recommendations 11 to 15 call for a duty to report annually on progress. Unfortunately, once again in the written response, the Minister has rejected our recommendations. But, the Deputy Minister has referred that we could perhaps look again at some aspects of this, so we hope that he'll be open-minded in that regard too.

I want to move on now to what some would consider the most contentious provisions—those on trunk road charging schemes. Whilst the majority of stakeholders supported these provisions, that wasn't true for the majority of those members of the public who responded to our online survey. It's understandable that the prospect of paying to use trunk roads is of concern to the public, particularly in the context of the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, and the vociferous response to the recent expansion of the ultra-low-emission zones in London is a stark illustration of that. We often hear the Welsh Government's mantra that it's important to take the public with us. We've heard it earlier in another context. Undoubtedly, when it comes to introducing charging schemes, that would be a challenging task. Recommendation 28 calls for a duty to consult, including the public where they are affected, before introducing charging schemes. It's not much to ask, particularly given the Minister has already committed to public consultation. But, yet again, the Minister has rejected our recommendation. She told us that a duty to consult would not add value considering the existing imperative to do so. But, again, this misses the point. A future Minister, in a different Government in Wales, would not be obliged to honour the Minister's commitment. Minister, if you're happy to commit to consulting, then why are you so reticent to including a duty on the face of the Bill? Once again, I hope that the Deputy Minister will reconsider.

To finish, I move to the second part of the Bill, dealing with soundscapes. This was a new concept for the committee, but we quickly understood that soundscapes are an essential component of our environment, contributing immensely to quality of life. Local authorities and public bodies will be on the front line in policy implementation in this context. However, stakeholders were concerned about the lack of expertise and resources. Even the best-intended policies can fall short without adequate training, resources and an understanding of the situation. So, recommendation 34 has highlighted this potential gap. We understand that the Deputy Minister will need to wait until the consultation on the draft strategy before responding fully on this issue.

Llywydd, the committee recommends that the Senedd agrees the general principles of the Bill, and in the event of the Senedd doing so, we'll have an opportunity, over coming weeks and months, to ensure the Bill is better, is stronger, and more detailed, helping to provide cleaner air for our communities and for nature. I look forward to returning to these issues during the amending stages.

The Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee next, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you again, Llywydd.

I'm speaking only as Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, not as a Member of Llyr's Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, and not with a CPG on active travel hat on either—we'll do that some other time, Minister. We're looking forward to getting our teeth into this in different contexts. The remarks I'm going to make are recognising that our report drew four conclusions and made 32 recommendations, and it probably reflected our role—we come at it from a different angle than other committees—in reflecting the priority that we give to this legislature to scrutinise the Executive, and avoiding the Executive taking too many powers themselves, including for reasons such as futureproofing. But some of them do go to some policy-related issues as well.

The Minister was famously open and engaging and willing to listen to arguments, so that's what I'm going to put today, recognising, as he's actually said, that, indeed, the Government has accepted many of our recommendations, but there are some I want to focus on. We recommended that the Minister explain why the Bill is needed at this time. This is curious, because there is big support out there for this, myself included, but why it's needed at this time, given that regulations under sections 1 and 2 may not be brought forward within the next few years, as has been explained to us, and given also that there is an existing legislative framework, as the Minister has mentioned, in Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, which permits the setting of targets on air quality. We have not yet been persuaded by the Welsh Government's arguments in this regard, not least because, in the response to recommendation 6, the Minister confirms, as indeed he has repeated here today, that that 1995 Act could be used to set long-term targets for air quality and targets for the annual mean level of PM2.5 in ambient air.

One consequence of these parallel legislative vehicles is that a future Government, as the Minister indeed confirmed in his remarks, could decide not to use the powers in this Bill to set long-term air quality targets, but some Minister could decide instead to use powers under the existing framework in the 1995 Act. So, why should we be concerned? Well, it's particularly important, because the Welsh Ministers, if they acted in that way in future, would not be under a specific duty to meet future targets set under the 1995 Act, whereas they would be if they did it under this Bill. So, that's why we recommended that the Minister should bring forward amendments to incorporate Part IV of the 1995 Act into this Bill, as a way of delivering a consolidated, bilingual, accessible piece of law on air quality, consistent with the Government's own objectives on the accessibility of law. We've had many of these discussions with the Counsel General; he is at the forefront of this within the UK agenda. So, in that case, let's try and make it consistent across all the pieces of legislation we're doing. And notably, the Bill is already seeking to amend existing provisions in Part IV of the 1995 Act, so just bring it in.

One substantial benefit of such a consolidation exercise, I would argue to the Minister, is that it would have avoided having regulation-making powers to set air quality targets in two different Acts, and enabled a more consistent regime for reporting and reviewing and monitoring targets. We do not believe that such an approach would be confusing or result in a partial retelling of the story about air quality, as has been suggested to our committee. In our view, those consequences are more likely to happen if we don't undertake the consolidation. So, we're just asking you to keep an open mind, reflect on recommendations 4 and 5, as the committee believes. Otherwise, this could be a missed opportunity to provide clear, accessible bilingual law on air quality.

Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill provide broad framework regulation-making powers—and this always sends a shiver down our spines—permitting important policy to appear in subordinate legislation rather than on the face of the Bill. We've continually expressed concern at the inclusion of such powers, not just in this Bill, particularly for the purpose of futureproofing, and, accordingly, we've made recommendations to address this issue. And we note that the Minister agreed with the spirit of recommendation 12, but stated that the policy and the principles in relation to setting targets under section 1, which we advocated be placed on the face of the Bill, are

'already contained within the explanatory memorandum and regulatory impact assessment.'

I simply ask the Senedd to note, and the Minister to note also, that a future Government’s actions are dependent on what is required by law and not what is described in non-statutory documents. So, we would ask you to reflect again. We are disappointed that this recommendation has not been accepted, and we remain concerned that the regulation-making power is far too broad. So, we hope that there might be some reconsideration of this.

Finally, Llywydd, given the lack of detail on the face of the Bill, and the importance of targets for delivering the improvements in air quality, which we all support, we recommended that regulations under sections 1 and 2 should be subject to the superaffirmative procedure. The Minister has not accepted this—he's explained why today. We think that it would enable scrutiny by committees, including through engagement by stakeholders, and could be achieved within the three-year statutory deadline referred to by the Ministers. As it currently stands, that three-year deadline applies to the more specific section 2 regulation power, rather than the power to make regulations in section 1.

In closing, Llywydd, I ask the Minister to reconsider the rejection of recommendations 22 and 29. I have no doubt the Minister will undertake appropriate consultations. Placing duties to consult on the face of the Bill will place no additional burden on the Government, but it will ensure that future Ministers, of any Government, will be required to do so. So, I thank again our committee members, clerks and support team for their work, which I trust is of help to the Senedd. I thank the Minister for his responses, and his fellow Minister for her responses to date, and continue to ask for his engagement, with, as Llyr has said, an open mind.

The Chair of the Finance Committee next, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Thank you, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate. In our report, we came to one conclusion and we made six recommendations, and I thank the Deputy Minister for his comments so far. As has been the case recently with other Government-sponsored Bills, I'm very grateful to the Minister for responding to our recommendations prior to today's debate. This is a positive development, which greatly enhances the debate on the general principles. I also note that the motion on the financial resolution for this Bill will be considered next week, rather than immediately after the motion on the general principles as is normally the case. I appreciate that this has likely happened by accident on this occasion, but the Finance Committee has previously called for these motions to be considered on consecutive weeks. I would call on the Deputy Minister, therefore, to turn this administrative error into a positive, by applying this approach for all future Bills, so that the Senedd has more time to consider the financial implications of a Bill and reflect on the response by the Welsh Government to the Finance Committee's report.

Turning now to our specific recommendations, the committee notes that improving health is a key driver for the Bill, alongside mitigating the economic impact of air pollution and its impact on nature, as well as noise pollution and the wider implications of air quality on the climate. While we note that the Bill contains some detailed provision, other elements are framework in nature and with the details to be set out out in future regulations. Therefore, it is disappointing that significant elements of the Bill cannot be fully costed, as the full financial implications will only become known once the regulations are made. We took evidence from the Minister Julie James, and thank her for the evidence given. During oral evidence, the Minister said she was very happy for regulations to be made by the superaffirmative procedure. This gave the committee some reassurance that sufficient opportunities would be provided for the Senedd committees and stakeholders to scrutinise the regulations made under the Bill, and we recommended the Minister provided further information on how the enhanced procedure would work. However, the Minister has now concluded that she will not apply further enhancements to the regulation procedures. Given that scrutiny could not be undertaken on parts of the Bill that will be made by regulations, this change of mind is extremely disappointing.

The largest area of costs associated with the Bill is the air quality monitoring capabilities. The RIA provides a range of costs for this activity. We heard that future targets for additional pollutants could increase estimated indicative capital purchase and installation costs. We therefore recommended that further information was provided on the costs relating to the air quality monitoring capabilities, including the circumstances that may lead to higher cost in this range being incurred. I'm grateful to the Minister for her explanation that the lower monitoring cost estimate in the regulatory impact assessment covers a PM2.5 expansion only, and that the upper monitoring cost would allow scope to deliver additional air quality needs in the future. Naturally, we expect to see a full cost analysis of any future targets.

Finally, Llywydd, in our recommendation 6 we have asked the Minister to provide further information on the impact of the estimated cost for local authorities and other stakeholders of considering and implementing a smoke control area. We note the Minister's view that the costs associated with implementing new smoke control areas will vary, depending on factors such as location, population density and the number of non-compliant stoves. We are pleased to hear that the Minister has committed to developing the smoke control guidance for local authorities, and that a full assessment of the potential costs associated with this provision will be published alongside the draft guidance for consultation. Thank you very much.

I have to be honest—that was really well worth waiting for. I thought it was very well put, and I'd like to thank the Minister, her team, and of course, you, Deputy Minister and your team for bringing this forward. The contributions here, I have to say, in particular, and I'm going to mention again my colleague—you've had two name checks from me today—Huw Irranca-Davies, because I found that quite fascinating about the different Acts. 

Stop it. [Laughter.] 

Anyway, it is a bit disappointing, though—and I'm sure other Members feel the same—that it has taken five years from when our First Minister committed to bringing this forward. Anyway, we are where we are. In its current form, we cannot support the Bill, but it is my genuine hope to be able to work with you, Lee, and your team to be able to amend this legislation so that it is the most appropriate Bill coming forward for Wales. 

The CCEI committee—and again, excellent contribution by Llyr Gruffydd, our Chair—and I was part of this, we made a series of recommendations, stating that the Bill fails to fully meet the expectations, and we expressed concern that the Bill still lacks substance and ambition. Now, in the spirit of constructive scrutiny and challenge, I will outline why. According to section 1(1), Welsh Ministers will be given authority to set long-term targets in respect of any matter relating to air quality. I suppose, for me, long term being 10 years is rather concerning. Where there are targets in the legislation, I feel they're rather generous, having waited so long for this to come forward, and not withstanding what we've heard this afternoon from Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Section 3(8) gives you three years to set PM2.5 air quality targets. Despite your response to recommendation 7, why not look again? We've waited a long time. I always worried when they joined it and it became the soundscape—. You know, we've all been wanting a clean air Bill for very obvious reasons. I can understand the justification, because noise nuisance is something—and this is noise nuisance now—. Noise nuisance is a big issue for us all in our constituencies, so to have some parameters in place is a good thing. Short-term exposure to high levels of PM2.5 has been linked with an increased risk of heart attacks, and that's even after just a few hours of exposure. Section 5(4) gives you a year to lay a statement explaining why a target has not been met, so why so long? And section 14 seems to give local authorities an unlimited window to prepare an action plan and send it to you for approval. I believe that it is good to have strict targets in place for a Bill so important.

We need to see effective enforcement and monitoring. Far more detail is required as to how often Welsh Ministers obtain data about air quality. I believe if we're going to bring a Bill forward, we should set in law the consequence of public bodies not providing the data that Ministers require. This legislation should furnish you, and any future Government, with the information it requires so to be able to judge confidently what steps are being taken to benefit Wales.

I agree with promoting awareness, but you’ve not listed how or where. One suggestion I have is that we create a duty for schools, colleges and universities to promote awareness of this. Rather than try to dismiss the CCEI recommendation 3 by referring to section 8, why don’t you be bold, then, and use the Bill to encourage active travel?

More detail is required in section 13. I have no problem whatsoever with air quality reviews, but I would like to work with you to add a clear penalty for local authorities that simply do not comply. It is true that I believe that this Welsh Parliament has become a legislative body that produces too much law for local authorities, and usually at a huge cost to them. However, if we’re going to do it, I want to ensure that the law is tight enough to hold all 22 public bodies to account if they fail to act. Look at section 23, which creates a duty for a local authority 'to have regard to national strategy on soundscapes'. That wording is too vague, and perfect for a local authority to get away with doing very little on this. This remains my opinion even after reading your response to recommendation 16.

The penalty on burning solid fuel for use in a fireplace in a smoke control area seems excessive, so whether you can just outline today whether you will be considering any exemption for households where they already have a fireplace fitted—. Will you be introducing a grant fund to help households afford to shift from burning solid fuels in control areas? There is a real risk that this aspect of the legislation could hit the poorest the hardest. The same is true for section 19. We are firmly opposed—and I speak for all of us on this bench—to trunk road charging schemes. So, if you honestly wanted to listen in the first instance to the public, you would not be refusing recommendation 28. It should be made clear in this law that you do have a duty to consult before making a trunk road charging scheme.

Finally, British Heart Foundation Cymru have contacted me to raise concern that there is no reference to the World Health Organization guidance being embedded into the Bill. You’ve been unable to respond to recommendation 5. Therefore, are we correct to assume that you and your team have not considered in detail the WHO air quality guidelines?

Five years down the line, and I keep reiterating that, because we’ve all been keen to see a clean air Bill, and I’m not opposed at all to the soundscape aspect to it—. Whilst we are voting against the Bill today, I truly hope that we can work really positively on this legislation so that this Bill is actually fit for purpose. Thank you.

I'm sure that many people across Wales will welcome this legislation, and I'd like to thank those people who have worked on this Bill, those who have supported the need for legislation on air, the cross-party groups under Huw, and a number of people who have worked on a cross-party basis on it, as well as the work done by Healthy Air Cymru and others on this. This has all brought us to this point. I'd also like to thank the climate change committee and the work that Llyr has done with the help of his team.

Of course, we waited far too long for this legislation—that point has already been made tonight—but I'm very pleased to see that we have reached this point now.

Now, I was very glad to work with the climate change committee to scrutinise the Bill. Our report provides a series of recommendations, as has been ably set out, and though we do really welcome the principles behind this Bill, we have put forward some critical recommendations, in all senses of that word. We do have concerns about what is missing from it.

We've heard already, Llywydd, why this legislation is needed. Air pollution is one of the biggest environmental threats to public health, second only to smoking, and it contributes to the climate and nature emergencies we face on a global scale. The World Health Organization says 

'the combined effects of ambient air pollution and household air pollution are associated with 6.7 million premature deaths'

every year. The burden of poor air in the UK is estimated to be equivalent to between 29,000 and 43,000 deaths every year, and at a cost of £1 billion per year to the NHS, air pollution is draining our resources, straining our health system and cutting short almost 2,000 lives a year in Wales. It's a public health crisis.

And it's also a question of social injustice. Research shows that air pollution is higher in those areas in Wales that are described as deprived. The link between air pollution, poverty and health is clear, and people from less privileged areas are more likely to suffer from air pollution, and therefore are more likely to suffer from poor health, particularly lung diseases.

I'd like to echo the concerns of public health organisations like the British Heart Foundation and Healthy Air Cymru that the Bill as drafted isn't strong enough and that there are so many missed opportunities. I really hope that, as the Bill progresses, as we're able to talk and scrutinise this further with the Deputy Minister, we'll be able to get into the detail of this and see where those missed opportunities can be made up. Improving our air quality and reducing harming pollutants is something that is going to be, yes, important now, but as the climate and nature emergencies continue to get worse for generations of children yet to be born, it's going to be a legacy that we leave for those generations whether we've done enough now.

I was disappointed with the Welsh Government's approach to some of the scrutiny earlier on, and I share the concern that we have not had sufficient time to properly consider and scrutinise the arguments put forward by the Government for whether they've accepted or rejected each of those recommendations, although I appreciate that there are time pressures. I know the Government want this legislation to pass as soon as possible, and I know that the Minister has felt very strongly about this and that's been made very clear by the Minister to us in committee. I'm sure that the Deputy Minister will echo that sense of urgency. I do understand about the need to get this right as well, but scrutiny is very important to make sure that that process happens properly.

On some of the specifics—and some of these points have been made already—I was disappointed that the Government rejected the climate change committee's recommendations 9 and 12, which, as has been set out, call for the legislation to provide that Welsh Ministers have regard to World Health Organization air quality guidelines when setting and reviewing targets. It seems strange that we should not want to benchmark ourselves against this standard. I take on board what the Deputy Minister has said on this, but it is what a number of specialists have suggested is necessary, and again, I hope that, as this progresses, we will be able to look in further detail at this. I take on board what he said.

Further to this, there are issues surrounding named pollutants, or the lack of them, in the Bill as it stands—again, this has been rehearsed. Fundamentally, we have to accept that there is no safe level of air pollution, with particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide being particularly damaging. Without an expanded set of pollutants, and timelines for their delivery specified in legislation, we risk further delay.

Now, Llywydd, I realise that I am out of time for this, so I would just echo again the points that have been made by the Chair of the climate change committee and many other Members in this Siambr, and I do welcome the principles and the fact that we are doing this. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I think recommendations 5, 6, 9 and 12 are the pivotal ones, really, which are about how we benchmark our legislation in line, or not, with the WHO guidelines. So, for those of you who are not on this committee, I think the key issue is how we are going to ensure that this legislation is fit for purpose, bearing in mind that we know that some people die of air pollution, but we don't know the full story yet, and there's considerable evidence that it isn't just the obvious chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma that people are dying of, but that there is also a potential link with cancer, miscarriage, low birth weight, obesity and dementia. So, the evidence is catching up all the time.

But, frankly, the WHO don't collect data on harmful pollutants because they can't think of anything else to do. We need to remind ourselves that it is WHO guidelines that have enabled us to understand the illegal levels of air pollution that were routine in my constituency, around Westgate Street in the city centre and also on parts of Newport Road, for many years, where there were—where there still are—two primary schools, a major health centre with lots of out-patient services, as well as residential homes and sheltered accommodation. So, it was the WHO guidelines that forced Cardiff Council to take action by ensuring that the first electric buses that came on stream in Cardiff were put into these areas, because it was understood that this was not a situation that could continue. So, it is the WHO that has set the standard, and therefore there have to be very good reasons why we ignore the work and the body of evidence that the WHO has built up over the years.

I appreciate there are consequences of proceeding to Stage 2 on this basis because of the impact a suite of air quality targets would have, not just on modes of transport, as well as the benefits of cleaner air; it would also pose considerable challenges for (a) agricultural pollution and (b) industrial emissions as well. In these unprecedentedly austere times for public funding, we all need to recognise that there are costs as well as benefits to raising the bar on air quality. We certainly can't afford to go blindly in on any unintended consequences of legislation. There is yet a great deal we do not know about the interaction of different pollutants from, say, agricultural fertilisers with those of vehicle emissions. Does it create an even worse toxic cocktail of harmful air than what citizens already experience? We know that more research is needed on this.

But, ultimately, in my view, we have to address all these pollutants as part of our journey to net zero by 2050, anyway, so this is something we're going to have to do in any case. Whilst I understand the concerns expressed by my colleague on my right that we can't simply use futureproofing legislation to throw in absolutely everything, nevertheless, we need to ensure that the legislation we produce is going to be fit for purpose for the next several years, based on the evidence that we have to date.

Lastly, I just want to congratulate the Welsh Government on being brave enough to address measures around noise pollution. Soundscapes, not noise, very much depends on the eye of the beholder. I can remember, as a local councillor, being constantly barraged by residents who didn't like the fact there was a cock crowing further down the street, which was an unusual sound in an urban environment, much to our pleasure for most of us, but I can understand if you live next door to it and are constantly woken up at five in the morning, there could be problems. But I think that that's something that will enrich the discourse that we're going to have moving into Stage 2 of the legislation, because there is no doubt that this is something that really does impact on citizens' well-being and, therefore, it's entirely appropriate that we start to address that in our legislation. 

The Deputy Minister for Climate Change to reply to the debate.

Diolch. I'd like to thank all Members who have contributed. I thought that was a very mature and constructive debate, and, clearly, there's far more that unites us than divides us on this issue, and I look forward, with the support of the Senedd, to be able to go through these issues in detail at Stage 2 scrutiny. I will give Llyr Gruffydd the assurance he's asking for about keeping an open mind in exchange for a focus from all Members in scrutiny of what we can practically achieve, because I think that now has to be where the weight of discussion is happening. I don't think we're very far apart on the ambition, on the principle, of what we're trying to do. It's how we do it and, particularly, the issue, I think, of unintended consequences, because we've seen in this Chamber before a great ambition when it comes to high-level principles. We've certainly seen it on climate change targets, and perhaps I can just respectfully point out that, when it's come to the detailed implementation of some of those in some policy areas, it's proven to be more difficult and more controversial, and the consensus falls apart. I think we need to be mindful of that here. There's no point passing something that is not sincere in our willingness and ability to follow through. I just simply point to the ammonia regulations as an example. We know this will have a significant challenge for the farming sector, and we've seen the difficulties this Chamber has had in getting a consensus on dealing with various elements of pollution coming from agriculture. And it's all very well to call for us to put the targets on the face of the Bill for ammonia, but I'm not sure those implications have been fully thought through by every Member.

So, I make that point in a genuine spirit of not wanting to score a point, but just as an example of 'let's be careful what we wish for here', because we are firing with live ammunition here, and we need to be very careful about what we agree to and what we set in law. And I think we will have those debates in committee. As I say, we'll be more than happy to look again at the responses we've put, but any counter-responses need to be rooted in the practicable, of what can be achieved. And of course, this doesn't stop us from taking action now. We already have powers to do many things. We already have strategies and action plans covering these things and work is under way. And can I just assure colleagues that we will consult on PM2.5 draft regulations in this Senedd term? So, not everything is on hold while we get the right framework right for the future.

As always, we need to make sure that the perfect is not the enemy of the good, but I think we do have here the makings of a consensus on a very ambitious and powerful set of reforms that will improve all our communities, and I hope we're able to support it this evening and proceed to the next stage and continue our debates. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore defer voting until voting time.

That brings us to voting time, and unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will proceed directly to voting time. And the first vote this afternoon is on the LCM on the Energy Bill.

Before I open the vote, I will just pause for a moment to ensure that all Members in the Chamber are able to vote. [Interruption.] Yes, there are some technical issues in the Chamber at the moment, so we will just pause for a moment.

For those in the Chamber, can you identify yourselves if you do have a problem?

Who's got a problem in the Chamber? If you can show by—. Problem? Yes, lots of problems. I know you have lots of problems. Anybody with a problem in being able to cast their vote in the next few seconds, anybody need to indicate, other than those of you who already have technical support?

[Inaudible.]—the power of the oral vote at this point, so I'm minded to move on and allow the oral vote for, I think, three Members in the Chamber. No, maybe we're down to two Members in the Chamber. So, the first vote then—. Yes. The first vote, then, will be on the legislative consent motion on the Energy Bill. So, I call for a vote on that motion in the name of Julie James.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions, and 36 against. And therefore, the LCM is agreed.

The next vote is on the—[Interruption.]

It's obviously the first day back for more than one of us. [Laughter.]

So, the LCM on the Energy Bill is not agreed, with 16 in favour and 36 against. So, the motion is not agreed.

We will now move on to the LCM on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 42, no abstentions, 10 against. And therefore, that LCM is agreed.

The next and final vote is on the general principles of the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Lee Waters. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no abstentions, 15 against. And therefore, the motion is agreed.

That concludes our work for this afternoon. Thank you all very much.