National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon and welcome to this Plenary meeting. The first item this afternoon is questions to the Minister for Finance and Local Government, and the first question is from Samuel Kurtz.

I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the Welsh Government's budget, and we support local authorities to scale up renewables by supporting free ports, growth deals, investing in local area energy plans, and direct funding through initiatives such as the Welsh Government energy service.

Thank you for that response, Minister. Just last week, I welcomed students from Pembrokeshire College's Destination Renewables course to the Senedd to chat with them about their course and the importance of local government working with the Welsh Government and the UK Government to deliver large-scale renewable projects. The visit highlighted for all of us the significance of policy and politics working in synergy with the industry to provide local opportunities for our young people in education and employment. To enable the supply chain to be in place, Minister, the Welsh Government needs to ensure that the necessary support is there for local authorities, which are on the ground and which wholly realise the needs of the local community so that they can, in turn, support our young people, such as those studying on the Destination Renewables course at Pembrokeshire College in pursuit of their educational and career goals. So, Minister, how is the Welsh Government, through you and the climate change Minister, supporting local authorities to enable them to provide these opportunities to our young people and to ensure that all tiers of government—local government, the Welsh Government and the UK Government—are working together to deliver these strategically important renewable projects?

I'm very grateful for the question and that recognition, which I share, that all tiers of government must work together to make the most of the renewable opportunities that we have here in Wales. I think that floating offshore is one particular area that would be of importance to the Member, to his constituents and to those young people who are studying the Destination Renewables course. I think that the work that we're doing with the industry, the Crown Estate and the UK Government to make floating offshore a reality is really important, and we're working very hard on that, and, particularly, the Welsh Government is supporting our ports in the process of securing funding from the UK Government's £160 million floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme. That won't be enough for what the sector needs, but it will be important. But, Pembrokeshire is absolutely at the heart of these opportunities and we have four test and demonstration projects under review by the Crown Estate in the Celtic sea at the moment. And, in addition, Blue Gem Wind has received a sea-bed licence from the Crown Estate to develop a floating offshore wind farm off the coast of Pembrokeshire too. So, Pembrokeshire absolutely is at the heart of these opportunities and it's wonderful to see those young people engaging, and, of course, we want to work very closely with local authorities to realise those benefits. And a further example, I think, of where we're working collaboratively in important ways is on the free ports agenda and also investment zones, which I know will also be of interest.

Yes, we're on track to deliver the programme of reforms that I set out for this Senedd term, with several initial improvements being made to coincide with the 2023 revaluation. The Local Government Finance (Wales) Bill has been introduced to deliver the range of specific proposals that we consulted on in 2022.

Thank you for that response, Minister.

Discussions that both I and Plaid Cymru colleagues have had with the hospitality sector have been eye opening. UK Hospitality Cymru have told us that the average pub and restaurant business will be £6,800 a year worse off and a hotel at £100,000 rateable value around £20,000 worse off than counterparts in England. UK Hospitality Cymru have been campaigning for help with business rates reform for more than 10 years. The archaic rate structure stood still while the global and domestic commercial world has substantially changed around it. Now, the internet did not exist when non-domestic rates were constructed, and, every year, as the gap extends between bricks and clicks businesses, the injustice increases. We've heard, of course, about that reform, but when can businesses in Wales expect to see that reform put into practice?

Well, reform is already happening, of course, because we had the revaluation come into force in March 2023. We recognised, of course, that that involved some transitional issues for businesses, which is why we put in place a really important transitional support scheme to help businesses with their bills there. And, of course, we'll be taking the legislation through the Senedd very shortly. It's now been introduced, moving through that scrutiny phase. And that really is about more frequent revaluations, responding specifically to the concerns that the sector's been raising with us, but also improved information flows between ratepayers and the Valuation Office Agency, reviewing the existing package of reliefs and exemptions, recognising that that has been in place for some time, and has evolved, and it's important to check that it is still fit for purpose and targeting the businesses that we need to target in the right way, and, also, the potential to vary the multiplier. You'll know that there were changes to the multiplier in the autumn statement in England. We made changes as well, but, actually, we only have limited ways in which we can change the multiplier here in Wales. What the legislation will do will allow us to change it, perhaps looking at other factors, such as geography or business type, for example, which we just simply can't do at the moment. We'll also be improving the accuracy of rating lists and addressing issues of fraud and avoidance through the legislation as well. I do think it is a matter of regret that the UK Government, following consultation, decided not to introduce an online sales tax. That was an idea that had been put forward by stakeholders in the context of NDR reform. I think the decision there, really, related to the concerns about increased complexity and the risk of creating unintended or distortive, unfair outcomes, between different types of business models. But I don't think it's an issue that can be ignored. We can't deal with online sales taxes in Wales with the powers that we have, but I just think that it's something that the UK Government does need to re-engage with in one way or another.

Aberconwy, of course, is the honey-pot for tourism in Wales. Only last week, Betws-y-Coed was named best staycation in the UK. Tourism is vital to our Welsh economy, employing 12 per cent of our workforce, contributing around £2.4 billion to our gross domestic product, and attracting over a million, yearly, international travellers. The potential for Welsh tourism is significant. However, it is being besieged by Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru, who are set against our tourism, our hospitality, and, indeed, our businesses. This will have a devastating effect on our high streets and our employment numbers. The slash to business rates relief by 35 per cent would punish Welsh pubs and restaurants by up to £7,000 more than their English equivalents. We've seen the figures each week—even this new year—of businesses closing. So, given this tragedy, will you reconsider this cut to the funding for our businesses? Will you seek to develop a coherent strategy on countering this spiral of self-destruction for Welsh hospitality and tourism? And, on the point you made there earlier about geography, I would like your guarantee that the majority of businesses in Wales, and particularly those in really good tourism locations, will not see an increase in rates as a result of your revaluation. Thank you.

The revaluation came into force almost a year ago now, so we'll be moving into the second year. Some businesses in Wales did see an increase in their rates, but we did put transitional support in to support those businesses. And I think, actually, the revaluation was welcomed by businesses, because they recognised the importance of having an up-to-date way in which to gauge the bills that they should be paying. But the frequent revaluations have also been welcomed, and that was something that businesses themselves were actually calling for. I'm afraid it's just not possible for us to review the decision in relation to business rate support for next year. We'll still be providing around a third of £1 billion of rate relief to businesses across Wales. And the reality is that the autumn statement provided very little additional funding to meet the pressures that we're facing, and the Welsh Government did in the end decide that we had to prioritise our front-line core public services. You saw the additional £450 million going into the NHS in Wales. The NHS in Wales will receive a 4 per cent uplift in the budget next year, compared to less than 1 per cent across the border in England, and we protected local government services, as we said we would at the time of the spending review. So, those have been really difficult decisions, but, unfortunately, that is where we are because of the lack of funding that we have to meet all of the needs. I would also say that the funding was due to come to an end at the end of this financial year, so what we have done is actually provided an additional 40 per cent of support for a further year, rather than cutting a tax that should never be considered to be something of a permanent nature, because it was there to respond to extraordinary situations during the pandemic, but then extraordinary situations through the cost-of-living crisis as well.

Property taxes are very unpopular with the rich and powerful. The benefits of a property tax is that it's difficult to legally avoid, while taxes where it's easy to reduce payments, such as corporation tax and income tax, are not generally complained about. Does the Minister agree that any reform of business rates must be property related and based upon the turnover of businesses? And listening to Radio 4 this morning, we've seen rent increases of over 20 per cent for music venues in England and Wales. It's rents that are having a huge effect, and, if you give more rate relief, all it does is that the people who own these buildings are going to get more money.

I'm very grateful for those comments, and both council tax and non-domestic rates—our two local taxes—of course, are based on that property footprint, and, as such, they are very stable taxes, which is a benefit to us, and, as Mike Hedges recognises, they are taxes that are then very hard to avoid. We are undergoing a programme of reform for both council tax and non-domestic rates, but, alongside that, we are considering how a land value tax might be a potential replacement for non-domestic rates, probably, in the first instance—in the longer term—but, as we undertake that scoping work, we have to recognise that any replacement system has to be demonstrably better than the one that we have at the moment. But there are definitely very, very good reasons to go with non-domestic rates and council tax as very stable taxes, and unavoidable ones, as they are at the moment.

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

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm going to be building on a little of what Luke has said, and Janet's already come forward. This is such an important issue for us, and all of our inboxes are demonstrating that at the moment. Minister, I appreciate how hard it's been for Governments across the world, having to make really difficult decisions when it comes to finances, but Welsh businesses in the hospitality sector, especially, are crying out for more support. I'm having letter after letter from people in my own community who are really, really concerned, really up against it. And figures do show that up to one pub a week is being lost. Over 63 pubs have already been forced to close down. And this is more than double the rate of pubs declining in England, and there's got to be a message in there somewhere. Pubs are not merely businesses, are they? They are a social hub for communities, particularly rural communities, where loneliness is particularly prevalent. And recognising those real concerns, Minister—and I know you do—what additional consideration is the Welsh Government giving to providing more financial support, or additional support, in whatever way, to this incredibly important sector, recognising the decline I've just outlined?

At the moment, with the funding available to us, we are providing the most generous package of support that we're able to do. And I don't want to not recognise, of course, the pressures that businesses are under, as the Member has described, and as we're hearing from our own post boxes, as he describes as well. That said, in Wales, only around 20 per cent of businesses actually pay their full non-domestic rates entitlement. A large proportion of those businesses are eligible for relief, and, actually, a large number pay no rates whatsoever in any case. So, I do think that the package of support that we have—almost a third of £1 billion—is very significant. It is there and it is available. But, as I say, we are going through a reform process, looking at that package of relief and exemptions, to make sure that it is targeted as we would wish it to be. And I'm open to discussions with colleagues and, of course, with the sector, on that. 

Thank you for that, Minister. I did a little bit of research, obviously, as I would have done, to see how generous our packages are. And whilst there is that discretionary relief fund for smaller businesses, when you look and analyse what's on offer in England and Scotland, both are more generous than we are here. And it's disappointing, then, that that 75 per cent support for that retail, leisure and hospitality sector will not continue, because I know how much it's been welcomed by businesses in England. Unfortunately, as a result of not extending that, we know that Welsh businesses will be paying almost 50 per cent more in business rates than in England as a result of that discrepancy. And, as Janet pointed out, that means a typical local pub will be more than £6,500— nearly £7,000—worse off than their counterparts in England, and this is devastating, especially if they're on the border. So, considering the Welsh Government received the full set of Barnett consequentials from the UK Conservative Government's decision to extend business rates to support the leisure, retail and hospitality sector in England, why has the Welsh Government not provided the same support here in Wales? And can the Minister tell me where that money has been directed to instead?

So, as I described in my answer to a previous question, the Welsh Government is facing a pressure on our budget of £1.3 billion, in the sense of our budget being worth that much less than at the time it was originally set. The challenge there, then, is to identify a set of priorities and we identified the national health service and local government services as our top areas of priority for additional funding. So, that funding, which we had from the consequentials in the autumn statement, went alongside the work that we did right across Government to reprioritise funding. So, that comes back to the centre, then that's allocated. And the key allocations you will have seen at the budget that I tabled before Christmas were the £400 million additional for the national health service here in Wales. That has been our key area of additional funding, and that does, I think, reflect the priorities that people tell us. They tell us that they want us to invest more in the NHS, that they value their local services. That's not to say that we don't recognise the pressures on businesses, but there just simply isn't enough money to recognise all of the pressures that there are.

I recognise it's about choices, and I would hope that the Government would recognise the real importance of the economy as a fundamental part of what we should be prioritising. Because thriving businesses create tax, tax that funds local businesses, and this short-sightedness just doesn't make sense to those of us who understand how this system works. Sadly, small businesses here will continue to be burdened by the highest rates of business rates in Great Britain. I know the Local Government Finance (Wales) Bill gives you the ability to now apply a split multiplier—a welcome tool—but I know in this budget you are freezing the multiplier currently as it is, at 53.5p, I believe. Minister, when will you start thinking about applying the multiplier opportunity you've got to reduce the burden on small businesses, so they don't pay as much as larger businesses do, and to give them some opportunity to be more competitive, especially on the borders, with their English counterparts? 

So, the legislation, which we've just introduced, would allow us to take a different approach in future. In Wales, at the moment, as things stand, we only have the one multiplier set in law, so we can only make changes to the whole multiplier across the whole of the tax base in terms of business. So, that does limit our opportunities and our options, but what the legislation will do is allow Ministers in future to perhaps have differential rates, based on the size of the business or potentially the type of business or location of business. It will give us more options in future to be more targeted in terms of the support we can provide in terms of capping the multiplier or setting the multiplier.

This year, of course, we've taken the decision to cap the increase to the multiplier to 5 per cent, and that's at a recurring annual cost to the Welsh budget of £18 million. That's lower than the 6.7 per cent increase that would otherwise apply from the default inflation of the multiplier in line with the consumer price index. So, that is an ongoing cost forever, if you like, to the Welsh Government, having done that. And we did use all of the consequential funding in relation to the multiplier choices that have been made in England to do that. 

And then, just to reflect as well that you can't always read across from England to Wales, because, of course, the tax base is different here in any case. Small businesses here account for a much higher proportion of the total rates revenue in Wales compared to England—more than double, in fact. So, the cost of small business rates relief here in Wales is fully funded by the Welsh Government, and it does make up around 10 per cent of total rates revenue compared to just 4 per cent in England. So, the choices that we make in Wales when we do support small businesses often cost us more to do in Wales, just because we have so many more or such a larger proportion of small businesses here.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm glad that you've reminded us that a priority area of this Government is to look at local services and local government. As I’ve mentioned many times in this Chamber, local government finances in Wales are currently on an unsustainable trajectory, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss that in greater detail in the debate later.

The erosion of local government spending power as a result of 14 years of Tory-driven austerity, combined with the continued fallout from the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis, means that councils across Wales have to make very difficult and painful decisions over the coming months on the provision of local services and related council tax rates. I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government’s provisional local government settlement for 2024-25 provides an average uplift of 3.1 per cent in central funding, but it’s also worth remembering that this does not create a natural minimum floor across the board, with the likes of Gwynedd and Conwy due to receive a 2 per cent uplift compared to a 4.7 per cent uplift for Newport. Obviously, that would be lower for Conwy and Gwynedd if the floor wasn’t in place.

Whilst I completely appreciate that funding need for each council area will always vary from year to year, the fact that some are having to contend with an uplift that is significantly less than the 3.1 per cent average is causing understandable concern. Having made some rough calculations based on the breakdown of the provisional settlement, there is an estimated total additional cost of approximately £14.5 million to provide a minimum uplift of 3 per cent for local authorities. Could you confirm whether my calculations are correct, and could you also talk about the reasons why the floor was set at 2 per cent and not higher?

So, without the benefit of a calculator at the fingertips, what you say sounds about right, certainly, but I can confirm that outside the Chamber. But I think this is simply a matter of what’s affordable. So, when we saw the figures that arose then from the calculations in relation to setting the local government settlement for each individual authority, we looked at the figures and less than 2 per cent, I thought, was just asking councils to do too much in terms of reprioritising their own budgets and meeting those pressures, and it didn’t feel right. You could have picked any figure. We picked a figure that was affordable to Welsh Government, so we had to provide additional funding over and above the revenue support grant for that.

Now, there are other ways in which we could do that. We could top-slice money from the RSG and redistribute that funding so that there is a higher floor; that’s something that local authorities could request us to do, but I don’t think that that would be a popular request at a time when all local authorities, I think, are going to be struggling. So, this is quite an unusual; I think it’s the first time we’ve ever done this, applied a floor to protect local authorities at a time when budgets are actually rising. Normally you apply a floor below which no authority would fall, but actually we thought that 2 per cent is the least that we could provide to local authorities. It’s just affordability. If there was greater funding available then obviously local government is there as a priority. But I think we’ve gone as far as we can in this case.

Every chunk of additional money that can be spared for local authorities can make a huge difference to their ability to mitigate cuts in services and limit council tax hikes as far as possible. While £14.5 million is by no means an unsubstantial sum of money, it does pale in comparison with the £110 million in additional funding that's been allocated to Transport for Wales over the coming financial year, on top of the £125 million they received in October as part of the in-year rebudgeting exercise. I'm sure council leaders, struggling with extremely limited resources at their disposal, will rightly be casting an envious glance at the vast outlay of public money for rail operators that have been consistently ranked among the worst performing in the UK over recent years.

Furthermore, the contrast between TfW and ScotRail, which is also a publicly managed franchise, is quite stark in this respect. Despite having to contend with a proportionally larger hit to their rail passenger numbers, the Scottish Government have nevertheless been able to make an 11 per cent saving on its spending on ScotRail for 2024-25, as well as introducing a peak fares removal pilot for good measure.

At a time when every penny of public money must be used as effectively as possible, surely there is a clear case for giving a bit more to our overstretched local authorities, even if it's in the form of a one-off payment, rather than throwing so much money into a budgetary hole that is partly of the Welsh Government's own making. In reallocating some of the additional money for TfW—

You need to get to your question, Peredur, please.

Yes. Is reallocating some of the additional money for TfW to support local authorities something that the Welsh Government might consider?

So, the funding that we have provided to Transport for Wales is what we understand through the climate change Minister and the Deputy Minister for Climate Change to be the minimum, really, that Transport for Wales need in order to continue running the rail service as we move through that transformation programme.

I think that what you described—. I do welcome ideas where colleagues put forward areas where they would like to see additional funding, and then come up with areas where they would like that funding to be moved from. I think that is really helpful, so, of course, we will consider all colleagues' suggestions as we move towards the final budget.

But, in reality, I just don't think that reducing the budget that we've provided to Transport for Wales would give us the kinds of results that we want. So, we want a functioning rail service that people can rely on; we want to improve the service and we need to invest to do that. So, I think that the discussion that we're having really speaks to just the tough choices that we have to make to set the budget in this year. And I know that this kind of discussion is going on through our committee sessions as well. But, of course, I welcome these kinds of suggestions.

The provision of public libraries is the responsibility of local authorities. The Welsh Government provides funding to enable the development of library services, including revenue support for the national digital library service, and a capital transformation grant fund to improve library buildings and facilities. Newport libraries benefit from this support.

Minister, community-run libraries can be a catalyst for wider community development. In my constituency of Newport East we have Llyfrgell Maindee Library, which operates in a very multicultural area, and has been the catalyst for much community development—a community cafe, a performance space, the greening of the local area, amongst other initiatives.

Next month, Maindee library will be hosting the launch of a new recipe book provided by Greening Maindee, with funding from Welsh Government and the Heritage Lottery Fund. The recipe book is bilingual and will be a celebration of multiculturalism and community, featuring recipes written by residents of Maindee, many of whom are from different countries and make up this wonderfully diverse area. It will be illustrated by children from Maindee Primary School and local artists and  photographers, and have favourite recipes from different cultures, also containing stories of the lives of Maindee residents.

Minister, would you agree with me that this is a very important and worthwhile set of community initiatives? And will Welsh Government continue to support community-run libraries, such as Maindee library in Newport East, to take forward these sorts of initiatives, particularly with that multicultural dimension?

Yes, I'm really thankful to John Griffiths for raising that example in the Chamber this afternoon. The recipe book sounds wonderful and I think it really shows an example of what libraries can do, which is about so much more than simply books, if you like, because it is does give communities the opportunity to come together, to share their knowledge and to share their talents and so on. So, it sounds like an absolutely wonderful example.

And I know that Maindee library is a community-led library. It's not part of the statutory service provided by Newport. Actually, it's something that goes on over and above those services, which is quite exciting in and of itself. Welsh Government did provide Maindee library with £18,000 as part of the cost-of-living grants to independent museums and libraries programme, and I hope that that's been helpful to the library as it continues to do its important work.

Minister, I cannot agree with you more that the importance of libraries really cannot be underestimated. They are vital venues for so many of my constituents across south-east Wales and the impact of losing libraries poses a real threat to the health and well-being of our communities according to Community Leisure UK.

Council chiefs in Newport are drawing up a raft of measures in a bid to generate extra cash, including squeezing more money out of residents by hiking up council tax by a staggering 8.5 per cent. But not only that, the local authority is looking at closing two of the city's libraries, one in Pill—also known as Pillgwenlly—and the other in St. Julian's, with the possibility of selling off those buildings. So, residents in Newport are being forced to pay more council tax, while seeing the services available to them fall as a consequence. So, Minister, will you join me in calling on the council to go through the cost-saving proposals again with a fine-tooth comb, to ensure that residents aren't going to be short-changed, especially in light of the news that Newport council will receive the biggest percentage funding increase of any Welsh council next year?

I know that councils will be very carefully considering their proposals as they consult with local authorities on their plans for their budgets, and also how they consider council tax, for example. Caerphilly council will absolutely be listening carefully to the representations made by their communities as they go about making difficult choices. Despite where they are on the settlement table, they will, nonetheless, have to make some tough choices too.

I, for one, would agree with the dozens of Conservative Members of Parliament and former Conservative Ministers who have written to the UK Government, calling for additional funding for local authorities. We would hope then that that would mean consequential funding for us in Wales, so that we can continue to invest in public services.

Question 4 [OQ60548] has been withdrawn.

Welsh Ministers use of a range of evidence in monitoring budgets, with our finance system operating on a real-time basis. The robustness of information also needs to be considered. Real time doesn’t always mean more accurate. Real-time data from a small sample may not be as representative as other data.

One of the most repeated lines in this Chamber, when we are talking about the budget, when myself or party colleagues discuss cuts, is, 'Where will you cut instead?' As we discussed in Finance Committee, granular-level monitoring data is not available to opposition parties, and it's disingenuous to ask us to suggest alternative cuts without access to that line-by-line budget of the Government, and access to the officials who help to analyse that data. 

There is an argument for greater sharing of information with opposition parties so that we can perform scrutiny, and possibly come up with potential solutions. I know that local authorities provide financial monitoring updates on a quarterly basis, and there is a compelling argument for the Welsh Government to at least match that. Would you be willing to work towards establishing a mechanism or Senedd budgetary office to share that information and strengthen our scrutiny function?

I would argue that the Welsh Government does provide an extraordinary amount of data to the Senedd. We actually have a number of points throughout the year where we provide that detailed information. We have our draft budget. We have the final budget. But then, alongside that, we have our first supplementary budget and our second supplementary budget, where that very detailed information is available to colleagues across the Senedd. So, I would argue that we provide an awful lot of information.

We did discuss in Finance Committee—and this would be a matter for the Senedd and not for the Welsh Government—in terms of further support for analysis of data, and whether the Senedd would want to explore that further. But, as I say, and as we said in committee, that would be a matter for the Senedd rather than the Welsh Government. But I would say that we do provide an extraordinary amount of information.

When asking colleagues to consider which areas they would cut otherwise, that's really the language of broad priorities, and the kind of areas of Government that you would want to see protected. So, when we talk about public services, we are talking about the NHS; we are talking about local government. But there are other areas as well, and you probably don't need the granular data for that, beyond what we provide in the supplementary budgets and the budget.

I would also say that we have to be careful about how useful it would be. In Finance Committee as well, we talked about how the budget is moving and changing constantly. So, the picture that you have on one day might not be reflective of how things are in a couple of weeks' time. So, I think that there is an argument as well for letting the Welsh Government get on with managing the budget but also providing detailed information through those supplementary budgets and the budgeting process.  

It's a fantastic question that Peredur raises this afternoon. It's important that the Welsh Government takes a balanced approach with regard to fiscal policy, embracing long-term thinking but also responding appropriately when spending cuts have more severe consequences than anticipated. We have expressed our opposition on these benches to some of the spending cuts that have been made in the 2024-25 budget, and have been particularly critical of the cuts to social services, leaving a funding gap of £646 million, and cuts to business rates relief. People in Wales are seeing their tax bills go up, with the Labour-run local authorities raising council tax on average 8.46 per cent across Wales, whilst the productive bit of our economy, small business, is seeing support being pulled out from under it and other vital services being cut too.

I appreciate that the Welsh Government needs to adopt remedial long-term economic plans post COVID-19. Despite my view that these are the wrong budgetary decisions being made, I think that a reactionary approach, where the Welsh Government chops and changes its budgetary decisions frequently in response to real-time data against prevailing trends, makes things far worse. With all of that in mind, if some of these cuts have severe adverse consequences within the next six months to a year, worse than the consequences forecast for small business productivity or the social care crisis, will the Minister respond appropriately and reassess the spending plans of this Government?

I would say that you can't have a £1.3 billion pressure on the budget and for there just not to be any consequences anywhere. There will be consequences from the choices that we've made, but we've had to make those choices, because our budget is worth so much less as a result of inflation. We have prioritised public services. We've prioritised the NHS and local government, and I think that people will understand why we've done that. In terms of revisiting decisions or taking different decisions, I will say that, as we move towards the final budget, we, of course, are considering what our colleagues, through the scrutiny committees, are proposing, and it's right that we do that.

I would also say, of course, that the day after we vote on our final budget, we have the UK Government's spring statement, so, inevitably, I think there will be some changes as we move into the next financial year. I would expect those to be finalised or set out, at least to some degree, in the first supplementary budget for the next financial year. What that means we don't know; we could find ourselves having to make further cuts after we've already voted on our final budget, if our budget goes down in March. But then, equally, there could be opportunities for further allocations if it's improved. So, inevitably, this isn't going to be the final picture for next year.

We continually monitor the impacts of our policies to ensure that we are providing the most appropriate support within our available funding. We engage with stakeholders and partners, including small businesses, to gain insight into the effectiveness of policies, which sits alongside any formal relevant monitoring.

Diolch. Speaking here 22 months ago, I quoted legitimate local north Wales resident holiday let business owners, who stated that Welsh Government regulations allowing local authorities to charge a council tax premium of up to 300 per cent on second homes in Wales would destroy them. I asked you what impact assessments the Welsh Government has therefore carried out of the consequences for legitimate holiday let businesses with properties that are not used as second homes. I've since heard from north Wales constituents, not only of many such businesses closing in consequence, but also of the negative impact that this is having on a range of other local businesses. How are you therefore monitoring the impact of this now on people? A constituent recently wrote:

'I live on the Llŷn. I am another Furnished Holiday Let owner having to sell up. My home going with it. My Furnished Holiday Let is my only income. Then the reduced booking because of Welsh Government policies and the anti-incomer feelings fuelled by Welsh Government policies. I am ill with it, frightened, devastated and I'm heading towards debt. I'm 61 and I'm Welsh.'

In terms of the particular point that the Member was making around the 300 per cent, which we've allowed local authorities to charge on second home properties or empty homes, it's only Pembrokeshire and Monmouthshire that have adopted the maximum council tax premium of 300 per cent for properties, and then only when they have been empty for more than four years and three years respectively. That does seem like a reasonable course of action if you do have empty properties.

The Welsh Government has tried to strike a balance in terms of creating sustainable communities and allowing people to access properties to live in within those communities whilst also supporting a vibrant tourism sector. That balance is a difficult balance to strike in terms of being sustainable. Of course, there are options for people who have second properties, whether they're second homes or holiday lets. Those options might include, for example, letting that property out as a full-time home to somebody in the local community. So, it's not for Welsh Government to be commenting on individual cases, but there are, of course, options available to people. We are making efforts to create those sustainable communities. We've got communities where 40 per cent of those properties are only occupied through part of the year. That's not going to be a sustainable community in the long term, so we have to make these choices to support those communities.

There's a comprehensive framework of assurance and accountability for local authorities set out in legislation and guidance. Local scrutiny is an important part of this, and Audit Wales provides a consistent and valued process of assurance.

Thank you for that, Minister. Sadly, the lessons are not being learned. Thanks to work by Westminster's Public Accounts Committee and analysis by the BBC, we know the staggering levels of debt amassed by councils across the UK. Sadly, Swansea Council has a level of debt almost double the UK average. At almost £0.75 billion, the level of debt is equal to £2,917 for each person living in the city and county of Swansea. Minister, I am sure that you will agree that this level of debt is unsustainable, and with the current proposed local government settlement, it is likely to grow. We have seen the ultimate consequence of this across the border, where fiscally irresponsible councils have been forced to issue section 114 notices, declaring bankruptcy. Do you now agree that it is time for a thorough review of the funding model for local government?

What I agree with, as I said to Natasha Asghar, is the large number of Conservative MPs and former Ministers who have written to the UK Government saying that local government needs to be better resourced. I absolutely agree with that. We haven't seen these section 114 notices being issued in Wales. We do have local authorities that are under huge pressure, but all of the section 114 notices have been issued in England, where English authorities have really suffered in recent years, because the UK Government has absolutely turned its back on local government. We haven't had the same situation here. We're keeping our promise of a 3.1 per cent increase in this financial year. Last year, authorities had a 7.3 per cent increase, and a 9.4 per cent increase the year before. Both of those were baseline. So, we have done absolutely everything that we can to give local authorities the best possible settlements, and we continue to do that again this year. As I say, those section 114 notices are a familiar sight now across the border in England, but we haven't had any here in Wales.

I meet regularly with ministerial colleagues on a range of matters, including these important programme for government and co-operation agreement commitments. This is the toughest financial situation Wales has faced since devolution, but I'm pleased that the funding for expansion of Flying Start in 2024-25 has been protected.

Thank you for that response.

We all want to see good childcare across Wales, particularly for those vulnerable families, which is what Flying Start provides. Compared with the rest of the UK, I understand that Wales has the lowest funding hourly rate for three to four-year-olds, at around £5 per hour, and while the current Flying Start rate is higher than the general childcare offer, the mandated 1:4 staffing ratio is far more costly than the 1:8, which really increases expenses for providers. I am pleased to hear you say and to know that the offer is being protected in the next financial year, but providers are telling us that they're finding it really difficult to deliver that really high-quality childcare. So, with these funding pressures, I just wondered if you could outline what provision the Government is making to ensure fair funding across all providers to genuinely increase childcare access and parental choice. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you. So, during 2023-24 and 2024-25, we’ll be investing £46 million in expanding Flying Start childcare to support the long-term positive impacts on the lives of those children and the families in Wales facing some of the greatest challenges, and the funding commitment, as I say, for the expansion of the scheme remains unchanged. Delivery of phase 2 began in April 2023, and in total, phase 2 of the expansion will allow 9,500 more two-year-olds to access childcare through Flying Start once the expansion is running at full capacity, including over 4,500 more children in 2023-24. So, work is going ahead at pace to improve the access to that scheme.

In terms of the funding of the hourly rate and the staffing ratio, that’s something I know the Deputy Minister is well aware of, and I do understand there’s a commitment to review the funding of the hourly rate at regular intervals, but perhaps I’ll speak to the Deputy Minister to gain some more information on that.

And my question is: Minister, I’ve been in correspondence with the Minister myself—the Deputy Minister for Social Services—with regard to Flying Start, and particularly in relation to two-year-old funding, as you’ve outlined just now. When I had a response from the Minister last month, the Minister said:

‘Ultimately, our ambition is for Flying Start childcare services to be available for all 2 year olds in Wales and we would ideally like to go further and faster in the rollout of services.’

So, I was pleased with that, but as I’ve understood it, if I've understood this rightly, Minister, the funding for two-year-olds is available for all children in England, wherever they are; in Wales, it’s just in those Flying Start areas. So, can I ask for some clarification in terms of when funding will be available to ensure that the roll-out takes place to all areas of Wales, including rural areas in Wales, which are often not classed as areas of deprivation?

Perhaps I should ask the Deputy Minister to write to you again with some further clarification in terms of what she set out in her letter to you.FootnoteLink I understand that in England things are moving at a different rate, because I know that there are issues in terms of the sector itself and the capacity of the sector to be able to respond to what the UK Government is asking it to do. But I’m afraid I’m probably too far away from the detail of this to be able to provide a detailed answer.

We consider the equality impacts of our spending decisions through our strategic integrated impact assessment. Local authorities are under the same obligations to understand the impact of their decisions in terms of equality legislation and under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

Thank you, Minister. I also wanted to touch on the socioeconomic duty, which was brought in as a key mechanism in planning Wales’s recovery from the impacts of COVID, which seems a long time ago to some of us, but it really isn’t, and I think our communities are still feeling that. And the purpose of that was to enable us to move towards the reconstruction of a fairer and more prosperous Wales, and it requires specific public bodies to make those strategic decisions, deciding priorities and setting objectives to consider how fair their decisions are, including education, work, living standards. So, of course we all want a fairer Wales, and I was just wondering, Minister, if you could give us a bit of an update in terms of looking at things through that socioeconomic duty, and the conversations that you have with public bodies and local authorities in order to do this.

Yes, this is a really important part of our work in terms of developing our budget process and particularly so through the budget improvement plan that was published alongside the draft budget. It’s a rolling five-year programme, so every year we update that to set out the new actions that we’ll be undertaking. And I do think that it’s really important that local authorities, of course, undertake this work as well, and I’m really pleased when looking at Bridgend’s approach to consulting on its budget proposals, that its top priority in terms of the principles that it will be using to underpin the development of its budget is to safeguard and protect the most vulnerable people in our communities. I think that it’s really welcome to see that, and that really is what I want to see all local authorities having at the top of their list in terms of their priorities and at the heart of their decisions as they set their budgets, in what are extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

I thank the Minister.

The next set of questions will be to the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, and Trefnydd, and the first question is from James Evans. 

The Welsh Government continues to support young entrants to the agricultural industry through programmes such as Farming Connect and Start to Farm. The sustainable farming scheme will be available to all types of farms and will support young farmers to develop in the industry and establish sustainable businesses.

I'd like to thank you for your answer, Minister. The future of our agricultural industry in Wales depends on the Welsh Government getting things right for our next generation of young farmers. In my role as the constituency Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I meet many young entrants due to my connection to the industry and also the part I played in the young farmers movement. A young farmer called Scott e-mailed me late Monday night to raise concerns, and he asked me if I could put this question to you directly, so I am. He said:

'Can the Minister give me hope that there's any future for me and other young entrants across the agricultural industry in Wales? I farm cattle, but I'm currently afraid to farm them due to the fear of TB. My family is concerned about the payment rates for the sustainable farming scheme and potentially losing 20 per cent of our farm to trees and biodiversity targets from the Government. It also seems the Government is far too quiet and reluctant to support us from the barrage of abuse that we receive from tv personalities for fear of upsetting the environmental lobby.'

So, Minister, what can you say to me and that young farmer that there is a future for them here in Wales to keep farming, because without our next generation of young farmers, we might as well say that the Welsh agricultural industry is closed for business?

I certainly agree with that last point, and encouraging the next generation into agriculture is a very, very important part of maintaining a prosperous and dynamic industry. I've spoken to many young farmers, like the farmer you referred to, who tell me that access to land is a barrier, access to capital is a barrier, and we've worked very hard over the past few years. You'll probably remember Start to Farm in a different form—it was called Venture—and I think that has been incredibly positive in enabling individuals to participate with people who are at the other end of the scale and who want to ensure that we have that prosperous and dynamic industry. So, what I would say is, absolutely, we will continue to do all we can. I don't underestimate what an uncertain and unstable time it has been for all parts of our economic sector, and of course the agricultural industry is no different.

Welsh Government has supported food and drink businesses and their supply chains, achieving our food foundation sector turnover of £8.1 billion. Blas Cymru/Taste Wales, key buyer events such as the Royal Welsh Show and the trade development and export programmes were instrumental in achieving this success. Welsh food and drink continues to be promoted locally, nationally and internationally, and multichannel communication is projecting Wales as a food nation.

Thank you, Minister, and that is fantastic to hear, but I just believe we could be doing more. Now, the UK currently imports around 35 per cent of the beef and veal it consumes, or around 250,000 tonnes annually—2,700 tonnes from Uruguay, 14,800 from Poland, and 2,800 from Brazil. So, for me, it makes absolutely no sense that we are importing beef to eat from the other side of the world when we have 40,300 tonnes produced locally. Similarly, we are importing 600 tonnes of lamb from Spain, 9,100 from Australia, and 31,000 from New Zealand. That is despite 48,700 tonnes being produced in Wales annually. And I believe that Welsh lamb, pork and beef are the best in the world. 

Now, the reality is, though, that when you go to a restaurant or cafe now, or a pub, you have no idea whether you're eating Welsh or foreign meat, and if it's foreign, it's got a high carbon footprint, and it's of a lesser quality standard than our meat.  

You need to ask the question, Janet, please.

I am. I have previously asked whether you would consider introducing a scheme where hospitality businesses that are able and want to sell Welsh produce do so and that we do the 'scores on the doors' type of system. This would allow consumers to choose which establishment to eat in and whether they want to buy—and pay a little bit more if needs be—Welsh beautiful local produce, or, you know, are happy with not doing so. But the 'scores on the doors' system would be really effective in that regard. Diolch.

Thank you. I think the scheme to which you refer probably would be quite difficult to administer, but what I am keen to keep doing is promoting, as you say, our fantastic Welsh food and drink, and you specifically referred to Welsh lamb, beef and pork, and, obviously, we support Hybu Cig Cymru to make sure that the message of our fantastic red meat is taken around the world. We have many events overseas: we've got Gulfood coming up in Dubai next month, we have Anuga in Germany, we have Salon International de l’Alimentation in Paris, and HCC always have a presence there promoting our fantastic food and drink.

I have to say, you do see it more often now in restaurants that they are keen to show where their produce is from. I guess we can always ask, as consumers, and as people who use restaurants and hospitality venues, to make sure that they understand that people are asking more questions. I certainly think people are asking more questions about where their food and drink comes from.

I've been approached by some egg producers in my region concerned at the impact on the sale of free-range eggs under avian influenza mandatory housing measures; I know you touched on this in committee last week. You'll know that the proposed changes in legislation in England and Scotland would remove the time limit for free-range hens to be housed in mandatory restrictions, and that change means that eggs produced by hens that are usually free range would still be marketed as such, even if they've been housed indoors for longer than 16 weeks, due, of course, to mandatory housing measures under avian influenza. Now, supermarkets have told producers in my region, apparently, that if the rules in Wales are different and that they can't still describe their eggs as free range, then they'll lose their contracts, and with it their livelihoods. So, will you consider adopting the same approach as England and Scotland to help protect the sector were there, of course, to be a significant outbreak of avian flu?

Thank you. Well, as you say, when a housing order is introduced, farmers may market eggs produced by housed hens as free range for the first 16 weeks of a housing order, and I think 16 weeks is a fair period of time for that to take place. I'm very aware that the European Union have decided to remove that 16-week derogation; that will obviously then apply to Northern Ireland. So, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Government have launched a joint consultation, which we are not taking part in. However, I'm very interested to see the outcomes of that consultation because I don't think either of those two Governments did enough work with consumers; it's far more towards business, if you like, than taking the consumers' views into consideration. But I have asked my officials to keep a very close eye on those consultations—I think it closes on something like 5 March; there's a little while to go yet—but I would be very interested to see that. But I think it's really important that we could have different policies within the UK. I absolutely recognise it could be more complicated, but I do think we have to take these decisions on balance, and that's what I've done.

Minister, you'll be aware that I chair the cross-party group on beer and pubs here in this Senedd, and it's in that capacity, Minister, that I've visited many local breweries across Wales with elected Members and seen first-hand how important they are to our local economy and to their local communities as well. Local breweries like Wrexham Lager in your own constituency, Hafod Brewing in Mold, Tiny Rebel in Newport—they're all becoming famous across the globe for being high-quality Welsh products. I was reminded of this in a conversation I had with Ministers from the Japanese embassy this afternoon, where we have used, in the past, major international events to showcase our Welsh projects, such as Wrexham Lager, and in particular, where we did that at the Rugby World Cup, to some success, in Japan. Minister, can I ask you whether you will commit to continuing to use international events, such as the Rugby World Cup and others, to promote Welsh brewing?

Thank you. Yes, I'm very keen to use every opportunity we have to support all parts of the Welsh food and drink industry, but, as you say, you're referring to Welsh beer. We have a drinks cluster that the Welsh Government supports, and I think it's next week that I will be launching—I think it's the Welsh beer and the Welsh spirits strategies; again, another part of a fantastic range of drink produce that we have here in Wales. The strategies will really show how the sector intends to drive the industry in parallel with the Welsh Government’s strategic vision for the food and drink industry. I think events like you referred to in Japan, when the world cup was held in Japan—the Rugby World Cup—that really has a focus. You had this massive global focus that you really just can’t buy, as a Minister with responsibility for food and drink. But I think it is also important that we do things closer to home as well. I mentioned in an earlier answer about Blas Cymru, and it was great to see the number of new food and drink producers there. And, in fact, I think, the drink producers, we had the biggest number of new products than we’ve had at any other Blas Cymru.

Well, the Minister will be aware of the benefits of game meat. We know that game meat is full of protein, it’s sustainable, it has low food miles, whether it’s pheasant or deer or rabbit or any other type of game meat, and it’s all very local and locally produced. But, unfortunately, we can't see, or we haven’t seen, game meat on menus in schools and hospitals and elsewhere. What thoughts have you given to ensuring that game meat is on the menu in our hospitals and in our schools so that we support local game meat producers and we ensure that game meat, with its low food miles, contributes to the diet here in Wales?

I haven’t done anything specifically with public services around ensuring that game meat is on the menu. I would guess that the cost might be a barrier, but it’s certainly something that I would be very happy to speak with the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language about to see if it is something that is being considered.

Questions now from party spokespeople. The Welsh Conservatives' spokesperson, Samuel Kurtz.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. A £1 million hit to one of Wales’s premier events—that’s the damning analysis by the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society on this Welsh Government’s proposal to change the school year. Now, we all know that the Royal Welsh Show is the pinnacle of the agricultural calendar—Europe’s largest agricultural event, with 250,000 people enjoying the show. Yet this Welsh Government, and your preferred First Minister candidate, would happily see it sacrificed in the name of school-year reform that not even the teachers want to see.

So, given the economic, social and cultural importance of the Royal Welsh Show, what conversations have you, as Minister, had with the education Minister about scrapping these proposals, about supporting the Royal Welsh Show and making sure that the agricultural industry is considered in decisions taken by this Welsh Government?

Well, both I and the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language have met with officers and the chief executive of the Royal Welsh Show. I don’t disagree with what you say about it being the pinnacle of our agricultural calendar. You will be aware, I'm sure, that this is currently out to consultation. The consultation has not closed, no decisions have been taken and those conversations will continue.

Thank you, Minister. It is disappointing that this was even considered, and the diary, the calendar, the event of the Royal Welsh Show is yearly—it's in there every year—and the fact that this has even come this far shows that the Welsh Government gives little consideration to rural Wales.

But, moving away from talking about a possible next First Minister to the current First Minister, he too caused real pain to the agricultural community in 2022 when speaking to BBC Wales, and he said that he needed to justify to Bangladeshi taxi drivers supporting farmers. Yet that justification has now come, thanks to the independent YouGov poll showing that 82 per cent of people support Welsh farming being financially supported to produce food, with 72 per cent thinking that supporting Welsh farmers is good use of public spending. Thankfully, some hard data that flies in the face of Mike Hedges's harmful and hurtful comments on subsidies.

I and the unions have welcomed the basic payment scheme being maintained at £238 million. But, when looking at this support by Welsh Government, it's important to note the context, that being that the Welsh Government maxed out the movement of money away from farmers in pillar 1 to pillar 2 prior to our departure from the European Union. This means that the £238 million, maintained within the draft budget via BPS, is the bare minimum that it could have been. It's completely reasonable, therefore, Minister, to suggest that this figure of £238 million should not be used as a benchmark or baseline for future support through the sustainable farming scheme. In reality, we should be looking at using the common agricultural policy total of £338 million as the absolute minimum figure. So, what figures are you using as a baseline when calculating the support available to farmers from 2025 onwards?

Well, you asked me this question last week in committee, and what I said to you, and I will repeat that for all Members to hear, is that we wanted to protect the £238 million. When I brought forward the figure for the BPS of 2023 in December 2022, I maintained it at £238 million, and I said I wanted to carry that forward to 2024. It hasn't been easy, because of the difficult financial situation, but we've been able to do that. The YouGov poll didn't surprise me, and the way it was questioned, I think, was absolutely—you know, the data that we got from it, it didn't really surprise me, because of course people need to understand where their food comes from. What I will go back to saying is it's really important that we explain to the public where their money goes, and I don't think, ahead of leaving the European Union, that the public did understand the level of subsidy that our farmers got. But I think it is really important to be open and transparent, and that's what I've certainly always endeavoured to do. I have never, ever, said anything other than I cannot see a time, certainly in my lifetime, where we would not need to support our farmers, and that's exactly what I've done as Minister.

Thank you, Minister. You referred to your answer you gave at committee. Something else that I pressed you on was the need to lobby UK Government as to what figure you want to see for the sustainable farming scheme. Now, at that point in committee last week, you'd not made any individual representations to the Treasury as to what money you would like to see to deliver the sustainable farming scheme. So, hopefully, that letter is forthcoming.

Monday's episode of S4C's Ffermio demonstrated yet again the cruel reality of TB on Welsh farms. The horrific scenes of on-farm slaughter of cattle and in-calf cattle even carried a trigger warning for viewers as it was that distressing. My heart breaks for Wyn and Enid Davies, and for every farmer and their family who are suffering under the dark cloud of TB. The outpouring of support for the Davieses on social media was only matched by the anger and frustration felt towards their situation. I've long called—both in and outside of this Chamber—for your Welsh Government to change its policy regarding the on-farm slaughter of in-calf cows and heifers. There are accepted other ways of doing this that your Government, at the moment, aren't entertaining. You mentioned yesterday that, I quote:

'There is also going to be a technical advisory group'

looking into this policy. Yet we've been talking about this group for months and months, with minimal progress. So, that's just not good enough for these farmers and their families who are suffering. So, please, Minister, can you please stop delaying a decision and abdicating responsibility to a group that's not yet formed, and use the powers that you have as rural affairs Minister to change the policy around the way that in-calf cows and heifers are slaughtered on farm? Give the farmers some hope, please.

So, I absolutely understand the distress that the event that you referred to that was shown on Ffermio causes to a farmer and their family—absolutely understand that. And it's not just the technical advisory group; whilst I'm asking them to consider it again, we did look at this, prior to you coming to the Senedd. We did look at this with the agricultural sector, because I absolutely understand how horrendous it must be to see that on-farm slaughter. But, unfortunately, we didn't make much progress, and this is why I'm asking the technical advisory group to have a look at this as a matter of urgency. We're also seeking views from the farming unions—of course, the farming unions have discussed this with me—and other industry representatives, so that they can present to the technical advisory group exactly what they think is needed. In some cases, unfortunately, on-farm slaughter is unavoidable if cattle cannot be transported to an abattoir, or if they're unfit for human consumption. However, I think removing TB-infected cattle from the farm as soon as possible is obviously a key element of our TB eradication programme. And I go back to what I was saying about having to work in partnership—everyone together, not just Government alone—to ensure that we do get a TB-free Wales.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch, Llywydd. Back in December, Minister, in scrutiny committee, I asked you in what way will the sustainable farming scheme recognise the potential devaluation of farmland caused by the requirement to plant trees on it. Because, obviously, there's a significant difference in value between good-quality, productive agricultural land and land that's been planted over with trees. Now, you couldn't answer my question then. You've had a bit of time to think about it; I wonder whether you could answer me today. Where in the proposed new system is that devaluation, or that loss of the value of farmland, recognised?

We are looking at all of the economic analysis of the sustainable farming scheme. We've started to prepare for that. We've had a great deal of analysis done. The analysis that we have done is not going to be reflected in the final scheme, once that comes in, in just over 12 months now. But the modelling that we've done is to provide us with evidence to inform the design of the scheme, and, obviously, we have to take things into consideration, like reduction in stocking, looking at land, as you say, looking at farm business income, looking at agricultural output, looking at what farm labour will be required. So, all that is part of the economic analysis. 

But not necessarily reflected in the final scheme—is that what you're saying? Because, clearly, if you want people to sign up to the sustainable farming scheme—and it's something we all want to see, in terms of the outcomes for nature and climate and the wider public good—then they need to be encouraged to do so. Failure to recognise a devaluation in land value will be driving people away from the scheme. So, I think it's imperative on you as a Government to be able to explicitly answer that question when the time comes for you to be able to do so.

And we can debate and discuss, as we are doing, the proposal for 10 per cent tree cover, which—. Losing 10 per cent of your productive land invariably will have an impact on farm viability. We look at the nitrate vulnerable zones regulations—huge capital investment required for many farms, which they can ill afford. Many will have to de-stock, and that, again, will chip away at the viability of their farm. Bovine TB can have a paralysing effect on farm businesses, and, of course, can have huge consequences in terms of mental health, as we've so graphically seen broadcast this week. 

Now, we can discuss these individual Government policies in their own right, but do you not accept that there's a cumulative impact at play here? Individually, they're chipping away at the industry, but, coming together, they could potentially be a hammer blow for people's livelihoods. So, can I ask: what assessment has the Government made of the situation in the round? How are you assessing the cumulative impact of all of your policies on the industry, which, understandably at the minute, feels under siege?

Thank you. I think you make an important point—and I think you made it in committee—about the cumulative impact. And if we look at the cumulative impact of events that are outside our control—so, if you look at leaving the European Union, the COVID pandemic, the war in Ukraine, the cost of living, all that has had a cumulative impact on all of our economies, but, as you say, the agricultural sector as well. And, obviously, it is a time of great uncertainty and instability, and part of ensuring that the BPS payment was the same was to try and provide a bit of stability for our farmers. 

But I do accept that, obviously, we're having to bring forward new policies, particularly around the sustainable farming scheme. You're probably aware that, at the moment, my officials are out there doing roadshows with farmers to make sure that the questions they have are answered face to face. I think that's really important, and we've seen really significant attendances. I think we've had three—I think today is the fourth workshop—and every one of them has exceeded the number of people that have been registered, which I think is really positive, and certainly the feedback I've had back. 

So, as I say, we've done the modelling assessment around the economic analysis, which was on the pre-consultation, if you like. There will be a further one on the analysis that we have following the consultation responses, following the roadshows, ahead of that final design of the scheme. And it's really important that we take all that information into account. 

You referred to agricultural pollution regulations, which I know you agree are very much needed, and it's really important that we work with the sector. And, again, I've been really fortunate to be able, within the cuts that I've had to my budget, to protect the money to help farmers, who, as you say, have to do significant work to ensure they meet the regulations. However, what I've always made clear is I will not put money towards people coming up to the baseline that they should have been at in the first place. But we are looking closely at the cumulative impact of the different policies, because it is a time of great change for our agricultural sector. 

Our capacity to investigate and stop illegal breeding has increased significantly over recent years as a direct result of the Welsh Government-funded local authority enforcement project. Officials meet regularly with Animal Licensing Wales to discuss progress.

Thank you for that. Well, to begin with, I'd like to congratulate Carmarthenshire County Council for the work that they've done on this issue. They announced a review of the breeding of illegal dogs in the area by the council cabinet, and I understand that they are the first local authority in Wales to do this, so all praise is due to them. 

Research from RSPCA Cymru shows that Caerphilly council received the third highest number of enquiries into dog breeding in 2022, and Carmarthenshire and Cardiff councils received yet more. Now, while the majority of investigations into these enquiries resulted in no further action, six resulted in formal action and two prosecutions were also undertaken. Caerphilly is the only local authority to have undertaken prosecutions relevant to illegal dog breeding, aside from Carmarthenshire, in 2022. I do commend them for the work that they've done. Of course, there have been a number of fatalities in recent years in the area. What do you think the Welsh Government can do, in terms of doing more to encourage councils across Wales to do more to tackle this issue, particularly in terms of conducting reviews into illegal dog breeding to prevent these appalling fatalities happening in the first place? Diolch. 

Thank you. Well, you do raise a very important point, and, as I say, we've had the local authority enforcement project, which I do think has led to best practice being shared, perhaps, in a way that it wasn't before. And I think it is really important that every local authority has the opportunity to undertake the inspections at dog breeding premises. And I think those visits, in particular, have led to a big change at the premises that have been visited. The teams led operations at ports across Wales, because I think that will really help with our local authorities as well. So, I am very keen that we continue the project. Obviously, I'm looking at what more we can do. You mentioned, sadly, the fatalities that we've seen in Caerphilly. You'll be aware I had the responsible dog ownership summit. I'm very keen to have a further one next year, because, whilst we haven't got all the levers, it's really important that we use the ones we do have in Wales.

Minister, illegal dog breeding is a major cause of concern for many across Wales and remains a prevalent animal welfare issue. This can be seen in the number of enquiries made to local authorities about illegal dog breeding, rising from 372 in 2021 to 465 in 2022. With Carmarthenshire County Council now launching a review into illegal dog breeding, I do sincerely hope that more local authorities will follow suit. Giving councillors the opportunity to accompany officers on searches of suspected illegal dog breeding premises will, hopefully, provide people with a better understanding of the issue. So, Minister, in light of Carmarthenshire council's decision, will you be encouraging other local authorities, including all of the ones in south-east Wales, to follow in their footsteps? And will the Welsh Government be making more funding available to local authorities to enforce the new rules on abandoned and stray American XL bullies? Thank you.

Well, in relation to the last part of your question, the UK Government are funding that. We don't have to fund that; it was the UK Government. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is a reserved matter. It's a piece of UK Government legislation, so they are funding that. But I think the point you make around Carmarthenshire, which Delyth Jewell referred to as well, is really important, and we will certainly be doing all we can to share, as I say, that best practice across Wales. But I do think it's really important to remember that the public have a significant role to play here. If they want to purchase a dog, it's really important that they visit the premises, that they look at the mum of the dog, rather than looking online, for instance, or other areas where, unfortunately, we do see an increase in illegal dog breeding. 

My concern is not only about the breeding of illegal dogs, but also all dog breeding on estates in accommodation that is unsuitable for dog breeding, which causes the effect of excessive noise in the neighbourhood. We also have badly trained dogs that may not be an illegal breed, but which cause great concern when they run wild in an area. What action does the Welsh Government recommend for dealing with this problem?

Thank you. Well, I go back to what I was saying about the funding that we gave for the enforcement project to be able to allow more inspectors to visit premises, where they can assess the premises and see exactly where dog breeding is taking place. We have seen improvements in dog breeding premises in the way that you referred to.

Yes, I'm going to join everybody in welcoming Carmarthenshire council for their inquiry, and, as you said, Minister, the public have to play a part here. It's fairly unbelievable that people buy dogs online. I find that incredible, personally, I have to say, but they do. So, I think there's an area here about education and maybe some of that education could happen in the school, because children are very receptive to understanding buying things online and very receptive to taking those messages back home. And I think that there is perhaps a job for us to do there.

But there's another job, too, with the borders with Ireland and the illegal import of puppies. Goodness knows whether they've been bred illegally or not, but they certainly aren't being traded legally. So, those are the two areas that I would like to see some advance in.

Thank you. I did have discussions with the previous Minister for education to see what more we could do in schools. I think you're quite right—it is children. If you think about recycling, it was my children, I remember, when they were in school, who came home telling me about recycling in a way that I had not heard, 25 years ago. So, I think you're right. It's a really good place to be able to start to have that conversation about responsible pet ownership—not just dog ownership.

You're absolutely right about people purchasing dogs online. I just don't understand why a new owner would not want to research the seller and make sure that, in buying a puppy, they saw it with its mother. I think that's a really important piece of research that everyone should do before they purchase a dog.

In relation to the ports, I said in my earlier answer to Delyth Jewell that the local authority enforcement project team have led operations at ports across Wales to ensure that we are right there at the fore, to make sure that we can stop as much illegal puppy smuggling as we can.

Thank you. The Welsh Government supports several important activities to aid mental health in our rural communities. These include FarmWell Wales, an information hub on personal and business resilience for farmers and their families, in which I have invested £45,000, and also the farm support group, which brings together farming charities in Wales.

Thank you very much, Minister. I know that you are very passionate about this particular agenda, and there is a new cross-Government mental health strategy being formed, led by Lynne Neagle. I think it's important that the loneliness and isolation of people in the agriculture sector is a feature of that strategy, and would you agree that it's vitally important that those groups and organisations that provide opportunities for socialising are maintained? And would you be able to outline some of the support that the Welsh Government gives to farmers, and the entire agriculture sector, where there is a prevalence of poor mental health and, tragically, there is also a large incidence of suicide?

Thank you. I'm fully aware that farmers face many barriers, including uncertainty, isolation and loneliness, and that obviously has a detrimental impact on mental well-being. I mentioned some of the funding that I gave in my original answer to you. We do support a number of important activities to aid mental health in our rural communities, and one such activity is the Wales Farm Support Group, which brings together several farming charities under one umbrella. I try to meet with them as often as I can. I met with them at the winter fair last, and during the COVID pandemic I met with them monthly, because we saw a huge increase in the number of calls to all the charities. As you say, we are looking at a new mental health charity across the Welsh Government, and my officials, alongside the Deputy Minister for Mental Health's officials, are working together to ensure that any new strategy absolutely endeavours to support rural and farming communities.

I'm grateful to Ken Skates for raising this important issue here today, and, as you've highlighted, Minister, there are several good charities doing some great work in this area already, and I point to the Farm Safety Foundation and the DPJ Foundation, who have the 24-hour confidential helpline as well, of course. The Welsh Government's support for groups like this is really important. When I speak to farmers and they highlight some of their mental health worries with me, they often point to Welsh Government policy decisions impacting on their mental health. Take the example of your current bovine tuberculosis policy, which really has had, and still continues to have, a terrifying impact on the well-being of many farmers across Wales. So, Minister, I would like to know a bit about—. When you are implementing policies that are impacting farmers, what impact assessment are you taking on the mental health of our farmers when you're looking at these policy decisions?

Thank you. Well, what I want to do is cause as little stress as possible, and I go back to what I was saying to Llyr Huws Gruffydd—it is really important that you look at the cumulative impact. A lot of the events are outside of my control or outside of the Welsh Government's control, and it has been a time of great uncertainty. Certainly since, I think, the referendum back in 2016, when I came into post—that's when I've watched it more closely—I have seen trade deals done that have caused more stress, and I have seen the impact of the Ukraine war, which has clearly had an impact on the cost of food, fuel, fertilizer. So, it is very important that, when you're looking at policies, you do look at that cumulative impact. But, unfortunately, several of them are outside of our control.

Talking of loneliness, it's worth pointing out that it doesn't help that rural pubs are closing, those places where many farmers would go and share their concerns, and those centres are no longer available, very often. So, it would be good to see more support provided to rural businesses of those kinds.

But, to the point of my supplementary, of course, farming is a way of life here in Wales, but they're also small businesses. Not only does the farmer have to care for livestock and the land, but they also need vets, they need to keep accounts, they need to register those animals, along with all of those other things—that significant paperwork—that farmers have to undertake. And that additional stress, along with constant new regulations coming in, in terms of health and safety, farm hygiene, all of them entirely reasonable on their own, but, as a whole, putting huge pressures on a small business, it often means that the time or the resources aren't available to deliver all of that alone, which then causes great stress and means that many find that there is no way out of this anxiety. So, in terms of that additional work of registration and all the paperwork and so on, what additional support do you provide to farmers in order to remove that additional burden from their shoulders and to enable farmers to farm?

Well, everything we've done since we've left the European Union—. If you asked farmers why, in general, they voted to leave the European Union, one of the biggest answers was the bureaucracy. So, it was vitally important to me that any paperwork that we brought in we tried to streamline, we tried to make sure—because most farmers are online now, there are no two ways about it; I've seen a huge increase in the number of farms that have gone online in the past five years, for certain—that we make it easier for them. We're trying to use tested systems. Rural Payments Wales is very well known to our farmers, so with any new schemes that we bring in, we look to use a system that they are used to to try and reduce that stress.

Good afternoon, Minister. I just really wanted to continue the discussion around the pressures on farmers, as has been mentioned by Mabon ap Gwynfor, in terms of the extra paperwork. I wouldn't disagree with you at all that a major stress has been the pressures on farmers in leaving the European Union, but there are also additional pressures around the paperwork that the Welsh Government has put on farmers. So, just in the last 12 to 18 months, we've seen the control of agricultural pollution, we've seen Habitat Wales regulations and the problems there with the mapping difficulties. Tuberculosis—the paperwork for testing is excessive. There's the sustainable farming scheme and the concern at the sustainability, particularly around the 10 per cent tree requirement. Also, I raised last week that paperwork is dropping into farmers' letterboxes around land valuation tax, which is again just putting an extra stress on them. And that's on top of what are everyday expectations around paperwork and bills that all of us have to cope with. In conversation with farmers, I know many of us have heard that these are real stresses for them. So, I do hope that the Welsh Government will do more to reassure farmers that any fresh red tape from the Welsh Government will not exacerbate the considerable mental health pressures that farmers are already facing. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you. Well, that's certainly been my aim. I remember saying to officials that if we increased the bureaucracy around what you've got for the basic payment scheme and if it was more for the sustainable farming scheme, that would not be a good thing at all. I think, in relation to your comments around Habitat Wales, there certainly were issues with mapping. But, in some ways, we can learn those lessons ahead of SFS, and perhaps it was better that it happened with a smaller scheme. It would have been better if it hadn't happened at all, but unfortunately it has happened. But it's really important that lessons have been learnt and I've certainly had assurance from officials that that is the case.

I do have to say, if you're in receipt of public money, we have to make sure that we can account for it. Opposition Members—well, any Member here—would be the first to criticise Ministers and the Government if we weren't able to account for that public money, so, unfortunately, when you are in receipt of public money, in whatever form of support or subsidy, it is really important that the paperwork is correct. And I absolutely understand, as someone who hates doing anything official—it just builds up and builds up—that it does cause a level of stress when—I think Mabon ap Gwynfor put it very clearly—you're looking after animals, you're running a business, you're looking after a home, you've got a family, et cetera, and it's just another worry. So, it is really important that we streamline it as much as we can.

Diolch. I hosted a multi-agency summit in October to discuss responsible dog ownership and what can be done using the levers available to Wales. I issued a written statement on 6 December, setting out our next steps, both for the welfare of dogs and the safety of the public.

Minister, last October in the St Julian's area of Newport East, there was an attack by an XL bully dog on a delivery driver, which left that driver in fear for his life. There are many examples, I know, across Wales, unfortunately. So, we obviously need to think about how we promote more responsible dog ownership. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have been calling on Welsh Government to consider the launch of a Wales-wide public awareness-raising campaign, and that would remind dog owners of their responsibilities and legal obligations whilst also signposting them to relevant advice and online resources, such as the code of practice for the welfare of dogs. That campaign could also advise the wider public on where to turn if they have concerns about dog behaviour, be that their own dog or somebody else's. So, I just wonder what your up-to-date position is, Minister, in terms of whether or not Welsh Government will be carrying out that public awareness-raising campaign, as the RSPCA suggest.

Thank you. Well, the RSPCA were part of the summit that we held back in October. As I mentioned earlier, I'm hoping to hold another summit, maybe not quite on the level we did in October, but I'm hoping to hold another one next month. There were some recommendations that came out of that summit for us, so, for instance, how police forces can reprioritise and report dog-related incidents. So, I've written to all the chief constables. I've also written to all local authorities, so that we can maintain a bit of momentum in this space; I think it's really important that we continue to do that. 

You mentioned an attack by an XL bully. I think it's really important to remember that any dog can be dangerous, and responsible ownership is vital for all breeds of dog. My officials are continuing to work closely with third sector organisations, such as the RSPCA, and local authority colleagues to be able to continue to promote responsible dog ownership and to deliver the short, medium and long-term actions that are highlighted in the summit. We do do campaigns; we do our—I've forgotten what it's called now—Paws, Prevent, Protect campaign. We always do that in the run-up to Christmas. Sorry: we have a campaign in the run-up to Christmas, and then Paws, Prevent, Protect is used the rest of the year. So, we already have that. But it's really about reminding prospective purchasers of the need to research their puppy, going back to what I was saying before, to make sure that we are ensuring that owners are responsible. We saw a huge increase in the number of people owning pets during the COVID-19 pandemic and, unfortunately, as we've seen the cost-of-living crisis worsen, we've seen pressures on household budgets, which has brought forward other difficulties.

I'd like to commend the UK Conservative Government for ensuring that XL bully dogs must be kept on a lead and muzzled in public. From 1 February this year, it will be illegal to own one unless it has been neutered and microchipped. This was following a number of vicious and, sadly, fatal attacks involving the breed, both on other canines and indeed people. The Minister may be aware that I raised the issue of the XL bully dog breed last year in the Senedd Chamber. In 2023, 43 per cent of dog attacks have been caused by large bully breeds, with 11 confirmed human deaths caused by this breed since 2021. Given these frightening statistics, it is reassuring to see regulations introduced to mitigate this danger, something I called for last year.

However, I am sure the Minister is aware that XL bullies are not the only issue regarding dog ownership in Wales: cruelty to dogs in Wales has tragically increased by 10 per cent last year. In 2022, there were 3,379 reports made to the RSPCA in Wales about cruelty to dogs, compared to 3,065 in 2021, so an increase of around 300. We also saw 579 reports of intentional harm in 2022, with 45 abandonment reports. There was an example in my constituency, in Rhyl, when an underweight dog in an extremely poor condition was abandoned. These statistics paint a sad picture of animal welfare in Wales where, clearly, action is needed.

The cost-of-living crisis means that the cost of rescuing animals is at an all-time high and vital services are stretched to the limits. Given this fact, will the Minister therefore outline what financial support the Welsh Government is making available to animal welfare organisations in Wales, as well as outlining whether the Government will consider promoting community policing as a means of tackling animal abuse, such as dog abandonment—

That's enough. I've been very generous here. There were at least two questions there and a long preamble. Minister.

Thank you. Well, unfortunately, we had seen a disproportionate number of attacks by XL bully dogs, and it took a long time for the UK Government to take some action. I had been in discussions with the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Minister on many occasions about ensuring that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was fit for purpose, which it clearly wasn't, and I think even the DEFRA Secretary of State was taken by surprise by the announcement that the Prime Minister made, and I, too, welcomed it. However, I don't think they looked at the unintended consequences that unfortunately have now come to fruition and we are having to work with.

On your second point around animal cruelty, unfortunately, we do see people treating animals cruelly, and we do support a number of third sector organisations. I mentioned, in my earlier answer to John Griffiths, about the responsible dog ownership summit we had in October, and the number of recommendations that came out, and one of them is working with the police in a different way. I think I'm due to meet the chief constable of Gwent in the near future—it might not be the chief constable, but certainly a high-ranking officer—around what more can be done. It's really good that we've got Rob Taylor, the wildlife and rural crime co-ordinator, who does so much work with our police authorities here in Wales to highlight this issue.

Question 6 [OQ60572] is withdrawn. Question 7, Samuel Kurtz.

Welsh Government has prioritised the delivery of our statutory obligations in collaboration with stakeholders, including the delivery of fisheries management plans. The first were for scallop and bass fisheries and were delivered at the end of last year, in line with the timelines set out in the joint fisheries statement. 

Thank you, Minister. And you'll be aware that your rural affairs budget has taken a considerable hit in the Welsh Government's draft budget, announced last month, and whilst all responsibilities in your portfolio have been affected, one given quite little notice is the reduction of the fisheries budget by over £1.7 million in the forthcoming financial year. Whilst fisheries and aquaculture don't attract the same attention as other types of food production, they do make a valuable and worthwhile contribution to our Welsh economy. So, in light of these cuts, what support is being offered to the Welsh fishery and aquaculture industry, to enable it to compete with other UK and EU counterparts and to invest in growth?

We've made £1.5 million available to the Welsh marine and fishery scheme for 2023-24. There have been three funding rounds and, unfortunately—obviously, it's a demand-led scheme—it has been disappointing, the take-up of that funding. That's why I was able to reallocate £0.5 million and, obviously, that has had an impact on the way we've looked at the budget for 2024 and 2025. Those proposals are currently in development. They will offer a broad range of funding activities for the sector, but I want to do it in collaboration with the sector and listen to what our stakeholders think is important to them.

Farmers in Pembrokeshire have received almost £18 million of basic payment scheme payments since October, which is over 99.9 per cent of claimants. This support is in addition to our Farming Connect service, which continues to provide important help and advice to agriculture businesses in Pembrokeshire.

Thank you for that response, Minister. One way of supporting the agricultural industry is to support its future by supporting young people who want to be involved with the industry in the future. And two weeks ago, representatives of the Wales Federation of Young Farmers Clubs launched their annual impact report here at the Senedd. That report shows just how valuable young farmers clubs are in supporting our agricultural industry, and indeed our rural communities, as well as preserving and promoting our culture and the Welsh language. There are plenty of examples of their incredible outreach work in my own constituency.

So, Minister, given the huge impact the movement has in rural communities in Pembrokeshire, and indeed across Wales, can you tell us what support the Welsh Government is providing to help the movement continue to play a vital role in our agricultural industries, and indeed in our rural communities, for years to come? 

Thank you. Certainly, the young farmers clubs do, as you say, play a vital role, and I think in my last oral questions session you raised some excellent work—I can't remember if it was trainers or shoes—that was being done in one of your local young farmers clubs. So, we can see the huge impact they have, not just on themselves, but on the community. I also think that, as an organisation, they are excellent. The skills that they have take them through life. We haven't been able to fund them as much as we would want to. I always try to support their activities. I met with the—I was going to say the new chief exec, but she's probably been in post a little while now. I met with her last year to discuss what their asks are and what funding and support we were able to give them as a Government. 

Finally, question 9, Jack Sargeant. 

Across Welsh Government, we work closely with our local authorities and Natural Resources Wales as lead flood risk management authorities. We encourage RMAs to put forward proposed schemes for funding under our flood and coastal erosion risk management programme.

I'm grateful to the Minister for her answer. Minister, I've been contacted by residents in Mancot and Broughton again in recent weeks, who were impacted by flooding from storm Babet late last year. They were concerned that the recent storms could once again impact their properties, and their concerns are absolutely understandable, as many of them have been flooded twice in the last few years. I raise this matter in the Senedd on a regular basis, and I'm seeking your support today, Minister, for Welsh Government officials to work with NRW and Flintshire County Council to assess whether the planned works and the funding bids from the local authority for the additional work to be carried out can be expedited in any way. Diolch. 

Yes, certainly, I will speak to the Minister for Climate Change within whose portfolio this sits. I know her officials are currently reviewing all applications received from RMAs, and she will be publishing next year's programme in March. So, I will certainly ask, and I would encourage you to write to her as well on that point. 

Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Minister. 

The next item is the topical questions, and the first question to be answered by the Deputy Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, and the question to be asked by Heledd Fychan. 

Can I thank Heledd Fychan for that question? The decision not to include the six nations in group A of the listed events regime is disappointing, especially given the cultural and social importance of rugby in Wales. We have urged the UK Government to ensure that the competition remains free to air, and will continue to make the case. 

Thank you very much. I would hope that nobody would disagree with you or me in terms of the importance of ensuring that our national sports teams, both men and women, are available to view free of charge, because as we know, supporting our national sides encourages people of all ages to become involved in sport, not just as fans. And we take pride as a nation when our team wins and also sympathise with players as a nation when things don't go in our favour. 

In terms of S4C, I know—and I'm sure that you will also know—many non-Welsh speakers and new Welsh speakers who do view sport on S4C, normalising the use of the Welsh language as a living language that belongs to everyone, whether you speak it or not. What assessment has the Deputy Minister made, therefore, of the impact of this decision on the right of the people of Wales to view matches through the medium of Welsh, and, more broadly, the impact that this will have on the target of a million Welsh speakers by 2050 and increasing usage of Welsh? And secondly, now that we've had this decision, will you also be writing again to request that the UK Government reconsider this, so that nobody in Wales is deprived of the right to follow and support our national teams?

Diolch yn fawr, Heledd, for that supplementary question. She is absolutely right—of course you’re absolutely right. The cultural importance of sport in Wales and the popularity of rugby and football is well understood. Those benefits are not just felt by audiences; they support future sustainability, the growth of sport at community level, all the things that you’ve been talking about. And again, you are right; the fact that we saw international rugby and international football on S4C being commentated on in the Welsh language, and actually having English subtitles for those who can’t understand, but being able to listen to Welsh and incorporating that in our everyday lives, is very, very important, which is why we are determined that we will have a greater role in the appointments process on S4C as well. I discussed this earlier with your colleague Cefin Campbell. That is very important as part of the work that we’re doing on broadcasting in Wales. So, all of that is very important, because S4C and the Welsh language are synonymous, and it’s something that we want to support.

I think absolutely we see as well a lot of our sporting national governing bodies embracing the language. We’ve seen the fantastic work that the Football Association of Wales has done around that, and we’re seeing it with other governing bodies as well. The two things link very closely and absolutely we want to support that. I’ve made it very clear that I absolutely support Welsh rugby and football and all of our national sports being free to air to anybody who wants to do that.

You’ll be aware that the First Minister wrote to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about this, following a letter, actually, from Rhun, back in November or December of last year. Interestingly, he didn’t get a response to that letter, but we will continue to work closely with the UK Government on that, and I’m more than happy to follow that up with the Secretary of State, for however long she’s in her position. I’ll follow that up with the Secretary of State to follow up from the Welsh Affairs Committee report, which was clearly supporting free-to-air six nations rugby. Even Stephen Crabb was saying we really need to follow this through. So, I’m quite happy to do that. I’m quite happy to work with the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Senedd culture committee, who I know are also very keen on this. I think you had an evidence session from John Whittingdale, didn’t you, on this very point, and he was saying at that point that if the Senedd was to support free-to-air for the six nations rugby, he would be happy to consider it. Now, we know that they’ve considered it, and they’ve rejected it, so we’re going to have to go back to them and ask them to reconsider it.

Wales is a rugby nation, and it is part of our national story. I think Welsh rugby is part of who we are as a Welsh nation. You'll know, and you made reference to it there in the answer to your previous question, that when John Whittingdale came to the culture committee he made the case that if the Welsh Parliament could put forward a compelling case for Wales games in the six nations to be included as a listed event to ensure that it is shown on free-to-air television here in Wales, the DCMS would consider it. I can tell you that the Welsh Conservatives have tabled a debate for next week to solidify that, so that we as a Welsh Parliament can come together, make that call on DCMS, and ensure that the case that the DCMS Minister at the time asked to be made is made here, by the Welsh Parliament. Can I confirm today whether the Government is willing to support that?

I think that's an excellent move, Tom. The point that we can make to the UK Government is that this has cross-party support in this Senedd. As we heard, Stephen Crabb was saying, and John Whittingdale was also saying, that if the Senedd supported this then they would be pressing the UK Government to reconsider. Obviously the UK Government have only just made this decision, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't, while the iron is hot, so to speak, strike again and say, 'We do need you to reconsider this in light of the will of the Welsh Parliament'. So, I very much welcome a debate along those lines. Is it next week? I look forward to it. That'll be two debates we'll have next week. Thank you. 

Tom Giffard, I'll be supporting you as well. Can I suggest that you give serious thought to calling for a named vote on it, so that it actually shows everybody voting for it, rather than it going through without a vote? I'd ask you just to consider that.

We've seen what's happened with the loss of free-to-air sport, haven't we? Live premier division football has gone from free-to-air channels. Going to subscription sport providers will provide more financial support to the six nations competition, including the Welsh Rugby Union. As cricket found, however, it drastically reduced the number of young people watching the live matches.

How important is the six nations to us in Wales? I would come to the conclusion that it's very important to us. It is part of the thing that we do collectively. And watching television collectively is not something that happens a great deal now in a multichannel world. But this is one of the times when we do tend to watch it together.

I'm pleased the Minister accepts the importance of the six nations to Wales, and joins with those of us calling for six nations rugby to be in the free-to-air category for broadcasting. Has the Minister contacted the Labour shadow Cabinet member regarding this? Because I think that the Labour shadow Cabinet member could well become the Cabinet member before this year is out.

Can I thank Mike Hedges for that question? I've actually been in conversation with the Shadow Secretary of State for Wales and the Shadow Secretary of State for DCMS on a range of issues. Unfortunately, I haven't caught up with them yet on the free-to-air issue, but I will do, because I can guarantee you that they will hold a similar view to us on that particular point. Thank you.

I agree with many Members in this Chamber. It is very disappointing that the UK Government did not add the six nations to the free-to-air category for our premier sporting events. As a proud rugby player myself, it's very important that we have rugby on the telly to encourage those future generations of players to don their boots, don the shirt and get out there on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon.

But one thing that is also very important to me, Deputy Minister, is our pubs and our clubs across Wales. If the six nations moves to pay-per-view channels, pubs can, on average, pay  between £20,000 and £21,000 a year for BT subscriptions and Sky Sports subscriptions. So, I'd like to know what analysis the Welsh Government has done of what impact this could have on our pubs and our clubs across Wales. Because a lot of people do frequent them to watch these matches, and if people cannot watch them, this is yet another nail in the coffin of the hospitality sector in Wales.

I think James Evans is absolutely right on that. Lots of people do like that getting together in the pub, whether it's the pub or whether it's the local rugby club or the local football club—anywhere where they can gather as a crowd to sing and cheer on the national team is great. And, of course, if that isn't available then that is clearly going to impact on those organisations, those pubs and clubs that air those games. All of that adds to the case for why we should be pressing for the six nations and other major international sporting events to be held free to air. But I don't think we should underestimate the difficulty that this also presents to the nations themselves, and to the six nations and to other international sporting events.

When Nigel Walker, for instance, was the interim chief executive officer of the WRU, he gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry last year, and he noted the importance of broadcasting revenues to sport, and stated that that accounted for something like 40 per cent of their income. He recognised that there was this tension between tournaments being free to air to audiences and the revenue that it then generated for the governing bodies of those sports. That's probably quite a difficult circle to square, but nevertheless, I think, first and foremost, the focus should be on the fans that support our sports. I very much hope that that review of listed events can be supported by this Parliament and we can make the case in a much stronger way to the UK Government.

Just like Mike Hedges was mentioning, live sport gives us those water-cooler moments, those iconic lines. The late, great Eddie Butler's line sticks in my mind: 'Shave away, Gavin, shave away', when he kicked the winning penalty in 2005 against England. That for me is what live sport is about—those memorable moments. 

But I was just wondering, Deputy Minister, if you've given any consideration to how we could work potentially with the Scottish Parliament to lobby as well, and showing that there's a Celtic connection here as to why keeping the six nations free to view is really important, not just from a Welsh perspective, but from a Celtic perspective as well. I think that there could also be an opportunity there for us to work collaboratively with another devolved administration and Parliament in the United Kingdom.

I think that is again a very important and valid point. I'd be more than happy to speak to my counterparts in Scotland, Northern Ireland, hopefully, as well, once we get them, and the Irish Government. I was actually on a call with the sports Ministers of the four nations and Ireland this morning, on the Euros. These sporting connections between these islands are very significant, and I'm sure that Ireland and the other nations of the UK, apart from Wales, would be very keen in having those kinds of discussions as well. So, I am happy to do that.

Thank you to the Deputy Minister. I look forward to the much-trailed debate for next week. If I can confirm to Mike Hedges, if he objects to the motion next week, that will guarantee an individual vote by all Members in the Chamber. There are hidden tactics within the Standing Orders that can make these things happen.

Natasha Asghar now to ask the second topical question, to be answered by the Deputy Minister.

Diolch, Lywydd. As I said two weeks ago in this Chamber, there was always going to be a bedding-in period, and built into the powers that councils have as local highway authorities is the ability to make changes. We know that local authorities are already collating lists of roads where 20 mph doesn't feel like the right speed. They understandably haven't wanted to act hastily, as people were getting used to the change, but they do want to review and revise their local speed limits. Nobody anticipates that this will involve wholesale changes, and it will focus on addressing anomalies.

The Welsh Government has appointed a small team to work with highway authorities, as I said two weeks ago, to consider the way that the policy has been implemented, and how the exceptions guidance has been applied. The review team includes Professor Peter Jones, professor of transport and sustainable development at University College London. Professor Jones has had no involvement in the 20 mph implementation or work, and will provide independent challenge to the process. The other two members of the panel are Kaarina Ruta, transport adviser at the Welsh Local Government Association, and Phil Jones, chair of the 20 mph taskforce group that made the initial recommendations. The team will work with Welsh Government officials, local authority officers, and other experts and partners.

A series of meetings have already been held with local councils to gain an understanding of the application of the guidance in different parts of Wales; to reflect on that application, and consider whether clarifications to guidance are needed to encourage greater consistency across Wales; to look at the approach taken to roads on the threshold between 20 mph and 30 mph; and to share initial findings with local authority officers. If people feel that the street that they live on is better suited to 30 mph, they should get in touch with their local council and let them know why. I expect an interim report next month, with a final report to be presented to the next First Minister.       

Thanks, Deputy Minister, but frankly, your response lacked lustre for me, and perhaps for all the residents, visitors and businesses across Wales who have been seriously affected by this change. The Welsh people don't want a review of 20 mph. They simply want it reversed. It's undeniable that your Labour Government's blanket 20 mph speed limit has caused confusion and controversy up and down Wales. With more than 468,000 people now signing a petition to have it removed, it's high time, Deputy Minister, that you park your ego and simply scrap your vanity project.

People in Wales already have very little faith in a review led by a man who recommended that the Welsh Government adopt this policy in the first place, alongside two other Welsh Government devotees. Let's be honest: it's hardly going to be fair, and it's hardly going to be impartial. While I don't doubt for a single second Professor Jones's credentials, his appointment as part of this review risks undermining the legitimacy and trustworthiness of it in its entirety. It also further risks the credibility of the potential candidates that you mentioned, who are going to be taking part in this review.

So, Deputy Minister, if we are destined to have this 20 mph review, can you confirm that the panel will indeed consist of individuals who are not linked to the Welsh Government and who have not previously been, or are currently, on the Welsh Labour Government's payroll? Thank you very much. 

Llywydd, I don't think that Natasha Asghar has any credibility to question the professional credentials of three highly respected individuals. As I've said all along, it was intended that the process would be reviewed as it went, to look at how it was being implemented. It's right that the chair of the initial task force, who has provided challenge to the Welsh Government throughout, is part of that process to judge against the recommendations his panel made and judge whether or not the Welsh Government has implemented them well and whether local government has implemented well. And I think it's right that that voice is part of the review team. It's also right that local authorities are represented on that panel to give first-hand experience. And we've introduced a new independent member also to provide independent challenge, and they are free to make any recommendations that they wish and those will be based on the feedback of the public and of local authorities.

Deputy Minister, we know that, at the moment, local councils are very challenged in terms of their budgets and budgets are tight with the Welsh Government as well. Could you set out for us, please, how you'll ensure that local authorities are properly resourced so that they can have that support and so that they can decide on which roads it makes sense to keep the 20 mph and on which roads it would be better to revert to 30 mph so that they can engage fully in that review process?

Of course, there was an amendment that Plaid Cymru put down for a review process to take place. The Government supported that. I still can't quite understand why the Conservatives chose not to support that amendment at the time.

Okay, thank you for the question. And, of course, we have said to local authorities that we will stand by them as they make the changes that they feel are right for their local authorities. It is important that the public are involved. I think one of the lessons from which I've certainly drawn—and indeed it was one of the lessons from the pilot projects in Flintshire—is that consultation with the public in advance of these changes is critical for them to be accepted by communities and for them to work well. There has been a variation of approaches by local authorities in advance of this in the level of consultation that they carried out. It's not too late to consult, and I hope that the people who live on those streets will be asked what they think and will provide reasons if they think there's a change. And in my experience, much of the feedback from local authorities has been about the policy in general, not about specific roads. That's why it would be helpful if residents gave specific examples of changes that they want to see. But, of course, there will always be people on those roads who want to keep the speed limit as it is and local authorities do have a very difficult balancing act to strike. And they have the powers to exercise that flexibility and they're in the best position to do that because they are local roads.

Well, before the 20 mph default, there were an awful lot of 20 mph roads in Swansea. There were also 20 mph roads in other areas. And, as you know, Presiding Officer, there was a 20 mph speed limit going through Aberaeron. I'm sure that, in your personal capacity as a resident of Aberaeron, you probably thought that that was a very good idea because it's quite a dangerous road to cross. But we've also got estate roads—20 mph on estate roads works well. I don't think anybody reasonably would think that on estate roads—. Although, I have had somebody tell me that they believe that 20 mph is not right for a road that is 30m long and that that needs to be 30 mph. I think they're a danger to themselves as well as to everybody else.

But the Conservatives' request to remove all road humps and all chicanes, because that's what you mean if you want to stop 20 mph—you need to make sure that traffic can move and is unencumbered until there are crashes—. But I think there is a need for a review for A and B roads. A and B roads are different: they are main roads and I think the concern of many people, including myself, is that there are A roads and B roads that are down to 20 mph where there does not appear to be a good reason for that, and Llangyfelach Road, where it goes up to 20 mph to the traffic lights and then it goes up to 30 mph—. I think that looking at A and B roads, and letting councils looking at A and B roads, will solve most of the problem. There are those, including one of my constituents, who say, 'I'm an experienced driver, I don't need a speed limit at all. I should be able to drive at what I think is the required speed and safe speed.' I think he's a danger to himself and to others, but, unfortunately, the Conservatives are giving succour to people like that.

My thanks to Mike Hedges for those comments, and he's right: local authorities have that discretion to make those judgments about their local roads. That's why this isn't a blanket approach, as has been so misleadingly said by the Conservatives. And I've driven on roads in Swansea, in Rhondda Cynon Taf, in the Vale of Glamorgan, which are main roads, which are, in fact, 30 mph. So, there is flexibility there. 

I think his suggestion that all main roads should be 30 mph is difficult, because on many of those roads, there are houses, there are playgrounds, there are shops, there are schools. And so I think that taking a unilateral approach like that probably isn't the right approach, and that's why we've set out guidance, which gives a guide to local authorities of where an exception might be appropriate, but it's for them to interpret that guidance locally. The power is clearly there, because authorities have exercised it. It hasn't been applied consistently, and there are a number of reasons for that, and that's why this review is going to understand that better. Some of the reasons have been a real caution by some local authorities about deviating from the letter of the guidance—they've taken a very literalist approach because they fear they may be liable for challenge if there in fact is a collision. And I think we need to tease that out and understand the level of risk at play, and what support can be given to encourage them to look at things like bus routes where that is an appropriate thing to do. Again, you don't want all bus routes to return to 30 mph because that wouldn't be appropriate either. I think that, when it comes down to the fine-grain implementation of this policy, these are complex judgments to make, because some roads are not straightforward, and that's why it's the local authority that's best placed to make those judgments.

I'm pleased this subject has been raised by Natasha Asghar today. I want to raise with you again, Deputy Minister, about the regional disparity of 20 mph exemptions. You said yourself a fortnight ago that just 0.6 per cent of roads in Denbighshire are exempt, whereas it's up to 10 per cent and more in areas of south Wales, such as Swansea and Bridgend. So, I'd be grateful if the Deputy Minister could expand on what specific components of a potential review will do to address this disparity, and what support is the Welsh Government prepared to give local authorities to increase exemption rates for my constituents and get people moving again?

Well, again, this is the purpose of the review—for local authorities to feed back to the panel why they've taken the decisions they have and why they think the guidance may be an issue, and if there's a case for changing the guidance, or, indeed, whether we can help them with a more consistent interpretation of the guidance. One of the things we've discussed with Flintshire, for example, is working with another local authority, such as Rhondda Cynon Taf, who've taken a different view—for their officers to buddy up, if you like, to exchange good practice and to work through problems together. And I think that could be helpful to some local authorities. There is no problem in principle here; this is all about interpreting things for local circumstances. This was always going to be a difficult and complex policy to implement. It's the most ambitious road safety policy in more than a generation, and it's one that has had the support of this Chamber, of all parties, at various times.

I wasn't initially intending on coming in, but I'm interested in the answers you've given to some of the questions here today, where you've said that the focus for the consultation will be that people living on particular roads, where that road is 20 mph, will be asked to express a view. Now, obviously, a lot of people across Wales will have views on a whole range of roads, but particularly people who live on a road or cul-de-sac that might be just off a 20 mph road. So, can I be really clear, Minister, today that the views of people who live on a 20 mph road, and the people who use a 20 mph road, will be weighted equally in the consultation?

Well, the consultation is a matter for the local authority to take any views they want. But I think Tom Giffard is somehow suggesting that the people who drive through an area have greater rights than people who live in an area. And I know people often will say, 'I want my route to work to be 30 mph, but I want the street outside my house to be 20 mph', and that is neither just nor fair. These are the difficult weighing-up, balancing judgments that local authorities have to make, and that's why I think it's important that everybody is able to respond to the local authorities, to give their feedback, to provide reasons why they think it should be changed, and that's what we'll encourage them to do.

I thank the Deputy Minister.

The next item, therefore, will be the 90-second statements, and the first statement today is from Jayne Bryant.

Last week I attended the launch of the Be Heart Happy charity in Newport. The charity was previously known as the Royal Gwent and St Woolos Cardiology Fund, which supported patients in Newport and the surrounding area for over 40 years. This fund is renowned in the local area, and any mention of it is always met with warm words and appreciation from patients, families and NHS staff. The purpose of the fund has been to raise money to help with the purchase of special equipment, books and training for staff, which otherwise wouldn't be funded. This rebranding to Be Heart Happy is about ensuring that the charity will be there for cardiology patients and their families for many years to come. An estimated 63,000 people are living with heart conditions and circulatory diseases in the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board area. Since 1983 they have raised and spent more than £2 million for the direct benefit of heart patients in the surrounding area. Special mention must be given to the dedicated chair of Be Heart Happy, Steve Richards, and the charity's brilliant fundraising volunteers for their unwavering commitment to helping cardiology patients live longer, healthier and happier lives. Diolch yn fawr for all you do. 

This is a new chapter for Be Heart Happy, and I've no doubt that the charity will continue to touch the lives and legacies of people across our community. 

John Griffiths is next.

Diolch, Llywydd. I would like to pay tribute to Newport East's Lliswerry Runners—a local running club for people of all backgrounds, ethnicities, ages and abilities. They provide opportunities for members of the community to keep both physically fit, through regular exercise and movement, and mentally well, through the community and friendship that members will find by joining the group.

Lliswerry Runners welcome well over 500 members, across seven sessions, every week, in a safe and supportive environment, forged entirely through the organisation and selflessness of local volunteers. Last Sunday, 21 January, Lliswerry Runners's Lliswerry 8 run took place. I had the pleasure of going along to support and cheer on the runners as they took the eight-mile route through the country lanes of Goldcliff and Nash villages. The Lliswerry 8 has been run for over 35 years, and is a fun and inclusive race for runners of all abilities. This year, over 750 runners took part. 

Llywydd, I would like to put on record my appreciation for, and thanks to, Lliswerry Runners for all the terrific work their generous volunteers are doing to improve the mental and physical well-being of members of my constituency of Newport East and the wider area. 

Yesterday marked 15 years since the death of Paul Ridd. Paul was a man with a learning disability from Baglan, who died in Morriston Hospital in 2009. Paul's death was avoidable, with an inquest in 2013 confirming he had died from natural causes contributed to by neglect. Paul's family established the Paul Ridd Foundation to help improve health outcomes for people with a learning disability. Supported by Mencap Cymru, they have worked tirelessly in highlighting the inequalities faced by people with a learning disability when accessing healthcare, with the aim of ensuring that no other person with a learning disability dies from avoidable causes in Welsh hospitals. 

Fifteen years on from Paul's death, the progress in this area is to be welcomed. On April 1 2022, the Paul Ridd learning disability awareness training was launched across the NHS in Wales, becoming mandatory for all healthcare staff in a public-facing role. There is, however, still much more that needs to be done. People with a learning disability continue to face health inequalities. The life expectancy for adults with a learning disability is just under 63 years, with recent figures showing that men with a learning disability are dying around 19 years earlier than men in the general population, and the figure standing at 23 years earlier for women with a learning disability, compared to women in the general population. 

As we mark 15 years since Paul's death, I would like to offer the support of this Senedd to Paul's family—Jonathan and Jane—and would like to restate our shared commitment to working towards a Wales where people with a learning disability are valued equally, listened to and included. 

Diolch.

The urgent debate is next this afternoon on job losses at Tata Steel and the future of the steel industry. And I call on Luke Fletcher to open the debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you to Members for agreeing to make time for this debate. As I mentioned yesterday, in proposing this debate, we did so because of the strategic importance of the steel industry, an industry whose products we all rely on every day. To illustrate, did you drive to work or take public transport? Well, your car, your bus, your train is steel. Did you turn your radiator on, or use your fridge to grab milk for your cereal? Well, your fridge, your radiator—steel. The capacity to produce steel is fundamental to any plans any of us might have in our own homes, but also to develop our infrastructure, protect our national security or grow and green our economy.

To put it as plainly as I can, there is no path to net zero that doesn't involve domestic steel production. That's why it's important for us to think about the future of this sector. And I say this with all due respect, but that's why the lack of urgency, vision and ambition over the last decade or so from central Government has been disappointing. We're not talking about a nice to have; we're talking about one of the most important resources and production capabilities a country can have. 

Now, I fully recognise that the UK Government have stepped in with £500 million and £100 million transition fund as well. We heard from the economy Minister and First Minister yesterday about the £3 billion on the table for the UK-wide sector from UK Labour, if they win the general election, but these sums come nowhere close to meeting the scale of the challenge. And I'm not saying this to make a political point; I'm saying this because it's fact. We're either serious about green steel or we aren't.

We only need to look at what's going on elsewhere to see the scale of investment needed. Take Germany, where we have a range of state-aided projects to protect domestic steel production, approved in 2023 and 2024, that we can compare our situation with. And I'll apologise in advance for my pronunciation of some of these places. The first one was a package of €2.6 billion to Stahl-Holding-Saar in one region alone, approved this year. The second was a €550 million direct grant, with an additional conditional payment mechanism of up to €1.45 billion, to support the ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe in 2023, and a third, in 2023, of €1 billion to Salzgitter Flachstahl, all of this for decarbonisation. We also heard yesterday about the €50 billion fund to support decarbonisation in high-energy sectors, also in Germany. We have a long way to go to match that ambition. 

Of course, another concern we have around the proposal at Port Talbot is the focus on the electric arc furnace. It's not a concern directly with the furnace itself, because electric arc furnaces have an important role to play in the steel industry. The concern is with the loss, as a result of an electric arc furnace, of capacity to produce primary steel. Diversification of steel production is important. If we lose the capacity to produce primary steel, we will be the only G20 country unable to do so. And this isn't merely a symbolic point; it's an important point to consider, especially in an increasingly hostile world.

Electric arc furnaces rely on a supply of scrap steel to recycle it into new steel. We've heard much about the quality and the grade of that steel. Now, according to Tata, the technology has come a long way over the years, to a point where they believe the grade won't be as big of an issue as initially thought. While that is welcome news on the quality of steel that may be produced under current proposals, though we do wait to see the reality, there also remain questions that need to be addressed: firstly, do we have enough scrap steel available to us in the UK currently to meet demand? Some would argue that we don't. Secondly, what happens if demand for scrap steel increases globally, which it will, because we aren't the only ones investing in electric arc furnaces?

Putting all our eggs into the electric arc furnace basket is a costly gamble. Investment needs to be diversified. We know that other options are available. DRI has been discussed—direct reduced iron—hydrogen, another. And of course, on hydrogen, yes, it's true it's a way off from being ready, but it's precisely at this moment that investment in it is needed to make it viable. If investment isn't forthcoming, we'll fall even further behind the rest of Europe and future generations won't thank us. We come back to this point of investment. The reality is that the state will need to step in. That's recognised across the world. I've briefly touched on how the world is becoming increasingly hostile. Given these factors, given the strategic importance of steel as a resource, it makes sense that the state increases its stake in the industry.

Now, of course, Plaid Cymru has talked about how all options, including nationalisation and co-operatisation, must be on the table. And these are not new ideas, by the way. For those of us in post-industrial communities, nationalisation is not a foreign concept. Look at Tower colliery in the 1950s, which, subsequently, in 1994, was bought out by the workers, the only deep mine to survive the wave of closures. And, if you want a steel-specific example, look at the Basque Country, where co-operative steel thrives and underpins a successful industry. For much of their history, communities like Port Talbot have had decisions made for them. As we move into the future, that needs to change.

Llywydd, as I said at the beginning of this contribution and during my pitch for this debate yesterday, the need for a serious debate on the future direction of the steel industry in Wales is desperately needed. I've spoken with many Members here over the course of the last few months and, on this subject, there isn't actually much that divides us. We all agree on the importance of the steel industry, but, if we are serious about its future, now is the time to take a new path. I look forward to Members' contributions today and to continuing much of this work beyond today's session. Diolch.

Thank you, Luke, for calling for this debate this afternoon.

For the first five minutes, I agreed with everything you said, wholly. Llywydd, since last week's announcement from Tata, communities across my constituency of Aberafan wake up every day with anxiety and uncertainty for their futures. For my entire life, I have lived in a community where the steelworks has always been in sight. I pass it every day when I come here. I see those two steel dragons breathing fire from their bellies and producing the liquid iron that is used to make the steel that goes all over the globe—actually, including this building. The works has given a livelihood to family members, neighbours, friends and people I see every day. I have met constituents who are third and fourth generation steelworkers, children who've aspired to work in the works, and brothers and sisters have been there, their mothers and fathers have been there. There are local companies whose order books are almost entirely based upon their work in the steelworks, and the retail and hospitality businesses surrounding the plant, which count on steelworkers coming in and spending their money. 

Now, Port Talbot is known as a steel town, but it's not just a term to us; it's a proud badge of honour that we wear. It's a way of life for many thousands of people, spanning over generations. And as Alan Coombs, Community union officer has said, steel is in our DNA; it has shaped the community of Port Talbot the same as it has shaped many others across Wales—Llanwern, Trostre, Shotton. But following the announcement, people ask, 'What now for steel?', 'What now for our town?' And for the UK economy, not just for Wales's, it's a foundation industry and the consideration of the UK not having the ability to make virgin steel is one that we should all regret and challenge. 

Llywydd, this is not the first time I've stood in this Parliament to speak about the future of this plant and its workforce; Members will remember 2016, when we were recalled before the election, and that was because there was a threat from Tata to sell the site or close it. The prospect then put at risk 6,000 jobs in Wales and up to 40,000 jobs throughout the UK. There were many questions that I put to the Government then and they're still applicable now. However, we overcame that threat and we will overcome this threat. Today, we do need to look at the future. I welcome the £500 million deal between the UK Government and Tata that was announced last September and an investment that was for the installation of a single electric arc furnace and formed part of a £1.25 billion deal. Investment is always welcomed. But steelworkers felt, naturally, uneasy about what the proposals were, because we didn't know the details—no matter what I've heard from Ministers in the UK Government, there were no details at that point—but they accepted that steel needed a green future. However, there were different options available on how we get to that future, what will a transition look like. And here we are, January, and Tata have now announced their plan to shut down both blast furnaces this year, with 2,500 jobs to go from Port Talbot alone. That is totally unacceptable. What we will now see in Port Talbot is a plant that will, until the EAF is built, import virgin steel from Tata's thriving plants elsewhere, in Holland and India, and that's to be rolled into coil here. That's not a fair and just transition. How can 2,500 job losses in less than nine months be a fair and just transition?

What a sorry position we have found ourselves in. We will have gone from one of the leading countries in the world for the production of quality steel to mere importers of it. There is another way, and I'm grateful to my trade union colleagues in Community, GMB and Unite, for working hard over the last several months to produce that credible alternative plan for steel in the UK, which could save jobs and keep us as a country that produces its own steel. They commissioned leading experts in steel production—it's not them, it's experts in steel production, Syndex, who produced the report that came up with that alternative to this drastic, cliff-edge decision. Now, I encourage everyone to follow and support that. I'm also encouraged by UK Labour's £3 billion green steel pledge. I know Luke said it was not enough, but it's more than enough from what is being put by the UK Government at the moment. I understand what he said about the €4.5 billion in Germany, at which part, if we were still in the EU maybe we could get some more money from them as well, but there we are. Now, that directly invests in proper technology, in new technology, and it won't be just for EAF, it'll be for the reduced iron as well, and that is important; it's just like Holland is actually doing with Tata.

My community, Aberafan, deserves to know what future they face and what the Tories have in store for them, because, at present, all they can see is the UK Government essentially giving Tata money to export jobs abroad, import carbon emissions, and saying to them, 'Here's the money, cut the emissions,' and that's it. It shouldn't be that way. Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, the only prospect is a general election where Labour get into power and actually have a plan and put that plan into action. It's a credible plan, working with the trade unions. In the meantime, I will continue to fight for everybody in Port Talbot, for every single job, every single business, every family affected. I urge Tata to carefully think about their plans. Don't make irreversible decisions now that will ruin so many lives and ruin so many businesses. There is a credible plan: take advantage of it. 

Port Talbot is a town built on steel, and a town shaped by steel. Having visited the Port Talbot plant on a number of occasions since I was elected to this Senedd nearly three years ago, the stupidest question I ever asked was, 'How long have we been making steel in Port Talbot?' Because the answer is basically forever. Before the mass industrialised plants we see across the world today, our Celtic ancestors used a primitive method of steel making, using the raw materials they found in the hills overlooking the site of the current steelworks to make a very early form of steel.

Port Talbot is a town where steel is wrapped into the history and into the culture of the place. The blast furnaces dominate the skyline, towering over the streets where people go about their daily business. Even if you don't work in the steelworks yourself, they're such an ingrained part of the town of Port Talbot that being without them would be unimaginable. For many of us that grew up in south-west Wales, seeing the steelworks out of your window on the M4 after a long trip away was the sign you knew you were home. Imagine San Francisco without the golden gate bridge or Paris without the Eiffel Tower. Port Talbot isn't Port Talbot without the steelworks in its skyline.

So, the loss of jobs we've seen announced by Tata Steel will not only be devastating to the workers directly affected by them, it will challenge the very notion of what Port Talbot is. A loss of 2,800 jobs in a town the size of Port Talbot is a loss that will be heavily felt, there's no doubt about it. But it particularly looms large when you consider how integral those jobs are to the town itself. In these difficult times, I think it's really easy to be a pessimist about the future of a town like Port Talbot, but, despite everything, I continue to be optimistic about the town and what its future could look like. The UK Government has unveiled an almost unprecedented £100 million support transition fund to support workers to help train them to find new employment. That's nearly £36,000 for every one of the 2,800 jobs that look set to be lost. The general job market in the UK at the moment is one where there are more job opportunities than those that can fill them, so training workers up to be able to fill those roles will be vital.

But, for the town itself, I genuinely believe the proposed free port has the opportunity to change the game for the town of Port Talbot and for the region as a whole—the Celtic free port project, which will see an investment corridor built across the ports of Port Talbot and Milford Haven, with green energy projects at their core. The free port could see 16,000 new jobs delivered and £5.5 billion-worth of investment, making a transformational difference in a pair of communities that sorely need it.

Thank you for taking the intervention, Tom. I appreciate what you're saying, and I'm looking forward to the free port; I've supported it from day one. But do you agree with me that that is years down the road, and it's not going to happen next year or the year after or the year after that? It's still a long way off. It's the future, but it's a long way off, and this cliff edge is now, and there's a huge gap between the two.

Yes, thank you for your intervention. The very next line of my speech addressed that.

I appreciate the ambition here is longer term, which is why the short-term measures, like the UK Government transition fund, are so essential. I called it a UK Government fund, but, of course, it has Welsh Government representatives as part of it. But I call it a UK Government fund because it's the UK Government that has put forward the money—£100 million of it, to be exact. But not one single penny has been put in by the Welsh Government—not one penny. We heard yesterday, and I'm sure we'll hear it again from the economy Minister today, that the Welsh Government stands ready to support workers in Port Talbot, but, unless those words are matched with their cheque book, they're nothing but empty platitudes. Workers in Port Talbot deserve the Welsh Government to literally put their money where their mouth is, step up and financially support the steelworkers by contributing to that transition fund. Otherwise, workers and the town of Port Talbot will ask the same question that the BBC put to the economy Minister last week: where has the Government been?

It has been a tortuous few weeks for thousands of people I represent since we heard that announcement that the heavy end of the steelworks would close entirely. So much uncertainty then, so much worry, but also a desperate hope that the plan that was presented by the unions would persuade Tata to change their decision, to make a more gradual change, thus avoiding such sudden and significant redundancies, and avoiding the catastrophic situation we are now facing. There was also hope that the Governments at both ends of the M4 would be able to deliver that just transition to the green future that they are fully aware is needed by their industry and our planet to ensure fairness.

But what we had was contempt: Westminster’s contempt towards Wales, with Rishi Sunak refusing to take a call from the First Minister of Wales. It’s appalling. Contempt also towards the workers who have been thrown aside in the same way as our miners and their communities were thrown aside. And they are angry; they feel that a major injustice has been done here because there are other options available. Losing these jobs, and losing them in this way, was not inevitable. They remember that the Westminster Government bailed out the banks in 2008, so why not rescue their industry, why not save our steel, steel that is vital for creating that green future that is now seen as the altar on which their livelihoods, their skills, their identity and their communities are now being sacrificed?

We cannot afford to lose the skills or the jobs, nor can we afford to lose faith either in a net-zero future, but this will be the inevitable outcome if we don’t see a proposal on the table that will enable us to pause, take stock and overturn this decision. As well as the proposals put forward by the unions, it is clear that additional investment is needed to make this a reality. There are also alternative models that could be adopted to ensure that we retain jobs and retain our ability to produce primary steel here in Wales and in the United Kingdom. This could happen via nationalisation, and by doing so, creating a co-operative Welsh steel company. We need to think creatively and consider all options. Wales and its workers are being betrayed once again by the Westminster Government, and our communities are, once again, powerless to prevent the economic and social devastation that will follow as a result.

We must remember that the Tata steelworks are located in a county that has employment levels below the Welsh average and that levels of economic inactivity have increased there. Neath Port Talbot is overrepresented in every category under the Wales index of multiple deprivation, and this is also true in terms of local income deprivation, salary deprivation and health deprivation. So, what is the Welsh Government here doing to urge the UK Government to step in to consider all options, including public control, stepping in to do more to avoid the devastating impact on the local community, on Wales’s economy, on the UK’s ability to produce steel and on our journey towards net zero?

As Rhun ap Iorwerth put to the First Minister yesterday, it's not just about the money—it's also about a plan. And it's now even more crucial that we see support for initiatives that retain and increase the skills base needed for the future in the Port Talbot area.

Last Thursday, on the day the news started to reach us from London, I was in Port Talbot, meeting with a local fabricating and welding company, JES Group. They've launched a skills academy, a centre of excellence, for the development of fabrication and welding skills, of which there is a shortage across south-west Wales—an industry that is one of the very few offering commensurate salary opportunities higher than the mean average quoted for workers in the region. The academy they're developing can run a full range of specialist training courses for anyone, from local school pupils and apprentices, right through to existing welders requiring continuing professional development, and all those looking for pathways into the industry. The objective is to deliver a programme that can upskill and reskill workers, who could then take advantage of the opportunities presented by the renewable energy industry. 

Will these kinds of initiatives be supported in any future Welsh Government strategy? Would the Minister support the use of funding available, from Government, Tata or the transition board, for this type of local development? We can't hope to benefit from the opportunities provided by the renewable energy industry and the drive to a net-zero economy without a highly skilled labour force, which is now being put at risk by the Tata announcement. Because people have left already. They are leaving, and may be forced to leave to support their families, to find a future for themselves. So, what solutions do you have, Minister, for them if the will and needs of Wales are once more ignored?

Primary steel making in Wales, and in the UK, indeed, will be destroyed once and forever by the decision of the UK Government to enable Tata to shut down the blast furnaces in Port Talbot. With the end of primary steel making on these islands, we will be the first developed country in the world to stop producing its own raw steel. The implications are seismic for Wales and for the UK. In respect of national security, our defence sector will be exposed to the geopolitical perils of imported steel, as will our car industry and other sectors. The hoped-for manufacturing using UK steel for our latent offshore wind industry in Wales will be undermined before it even begins.

The thousands of direct jobs in Port Talbot, hundreds of which are in the Bridgend area, plus the supply chain across the region, and, indeed, the UK, will be calamitous, and the ripple effect through the local and regional economy will be felt for generations, again. Under former Prime Minister Thatcher and MacGregor, there was at least a rationale—it was a hard, neoliberal rationale, but a rationale nonetheless—of causing deep pain through harsh cuts to the steel industry to make it competitive in the global economy. Whilst the steel industry was decimated and steel communities were devastated, it was done by the Conservatives of the time under the pretext of creating a more productive but much reduced steel capacity. 

But this time, under Prime Minister Sunak, there is not even the flimsiest attempt to save primary steel making. The Conservatives of the UK Government have given up entirely on steel and on these communities. Whereas Prime Minister Thatcher believed there was some sort of future for steel, slimmed to within an inch of its life and with a workforce having to accept massive cumulative changes over the years to their terms and conditions, the current Conservative Government and Prime Minister are condemning primary steel making on these islands to the history books. 

The former Chancellor, now Prime Minister Sunak, does not believe our steel is worth the cost of saving. This is unadulterated, unrestrained capitalism at its most brutal: 'Let the market decide. Governments are impotent. Communities will suffer, families will suffer, but hey, that's just the way of this globalised, free-market world.' But there is an antidote to this unfettered global capitalism, and there always has been, if we—we—choose to use it, because it's us—our democratic voice and the actions and inaction of our Governments, too. We can choose to shape what happens here. But, at the moment, inaction is the order of the day for the UK Government.

The failure to invest in primary steel making is a political choice made by the current Conservative Prime Minister and his Cabinet. The current Secretary of State for Wales is today going around the tv studios as a cheerleader for the demise of the industry, asking us to applaud as the curtain comes down for the final time on primary steel making, because the UK Government has provided £500 million for another show across the street, because that's what we're now being offered. Electric arc and recycled steel is a vitally important part of a decarbonised steel future, of course it is, and we should be investing in this, but to turn out the lights on primary steel making at the same time when other countries are maintaining their investments, and the best are indeed seeking to decarbonise primary steel making—well, this is unforgivable. We are being presented with a false choice by the Conservative Government: it's electric arc or nothing. [Interruption.] I won't, because I need to—. Go ahead. Yes, I will. Go on, please.

That's a highly politicised attack on the record of the UK Conservative Government when it comes to steel making, but shall we have a look at Labour's record when it was last in government? I know you were a part of it, Huw. Under Labour, steel production between 1997 and 2010 fell by almost 50 per cent; half the number of people worked in it in 2010 compared to 1997. And Ed Miliband—you might remember him—the whole time he was leader of the Labour Party, never mentioned steel at the despatch box once. Labour have an abysmal record when it comes to steel in the UK and it's time your comments reflected that.

The Conservative Government is now shutting the doors entirely on primary steel making, and that's the hard reality. There are no romantic words about the steel industry that will make up for that. There is a political choice being made by the Conservative UK Government—his UK Conservative Government—at this very moment.

We have been given £500 million in exchange for losing thousands of jobs. 'Be grateful for small mercies', we are told. 'Accept the pain' once again. But there is a different and a better way forward should this UK Government, or a different UK Government, choose it; there's a different political choice. The choice is to invest also in green primary steel making. It's put forward in the alternative multi-union plans supported by the steel unions, Community, Unite and the GMB. This would secure the future of Port Talbot steel making, protect production capacity and the future of all the downstream plants, which have to be mentioned as well, and avoid any compulsory redundancies. The company has acknowledged it proposes a credible alternative strategy for steel decarbonisation, but it needs a UK Government to step up with the backing for this plan—a UK Government that believes in the necessity of primary steel making as a matter of sovereign security, as well as economic importance. A Government that believes in and invests in active industrial strategy. And, by the way, the German, the French and the Spanish Governments are all committing billions to secure the future of this strategically important steel industry.

The Labour Party have committed £3 billion in the green steel fund, and to using it to support a just transition at Tata Steel. Tata, to their credit, have stayed, despite difficulties, with steel making and with Port Talbot, until now, but they are now talking to the only government at a UK level, the Conservative Government, which is looking for the cheapest option, not the best. So, I say to Tata, as David, my colleague, said, 'Pause; because there is another plan on the table. The steelworkers will not surrender so easily our sovereign steel and there is another Government around the corner. Wait; sit down with the unions, sit down with the Labour Party, plan for a better future and a just transition for Port Talbot and for Welsh and British steel. Let's not export our jobs or our carbon emissions overseas.'

Chair of the economy committee, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’m grateful to take part in this extremely important debate as Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee.

There can be no underestimating the impact that Tata's announcement will have on the workers and community in Port Talbot, but also at Tata's downstream sites at Llanwern and Trostre and the wider supply chain. As has already been said, producing steel has been the lifeblood of the community in Port Talbot for decades and decades; however, the impact of the steelworks stretches far outside the town. Tata is an economic titan in Wales, currently making up 3 per cent of Wales's economic output. The jobs in their plants are highly skilled and well paid, and the knock-on effect of the production of steel is that it supports thousands of people and many, many local businesses.

Yesterday, the Minister referred to Professor David Worsley from Swansea University, who has said that there are at least three additional jobs reliant on every one direct job in the steelworks, and, on some counts, potentially up to five. And so there are enormous ramifications from Tata’s announcement for the whole steel industry, the wider Welsh economy and for UK steel making. So, firstly, I want to reiterate that the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee is united in our support for the workers affected by this announcement and our thoughts remain with them at this very difficult time.

Last year, the committee heard from the Secretary of State for Wales when the UK Government announced its £500 million support package for Tata Steel to decarbonise and move to electric arc furnace production. The committee also heard from the unions about the potential impacts the job losses announced last week would have, and about their proposed alternatives. And in response to the announcements last week, the committee has now called on Ministers here in Wales and Westminster to meet with us again as a matter of urgency to look at what more can be done to seek a more just transition—a transition that saves Welsh jobs and protects our national interest. [Interruption.] I give way to the Member for Aberavon.

I thank you for taking the intervention. Can I ask you whether, in committee, you asked the Secretary of State for Wales were there any conditions placed upon the agreement? And if you didn't ask that, will you ask it next time he comes?

Well, I just want to reassure you as a committee that we will be scrutinising this issue as much as we can, and we will certainly ask those questions. Of course, the committee will continue to engage with Tata Steel, and senior executives have confirmed that they will engage with the committee and answer questions as well on their plans, and I'm grateful that the Minister for Economy has agreed to come before the committee again on this critical issue, and it's positive to hear that he has been able to secure a meeting with Minister Ghani to discuss the future of Welsh steel.

Now, as Members know, Port Talbot steelworks is the biggest single carbon emitter in the country, and I think all Members agree that the production of steel needs to be greener in the future, but the important thing is that there is a fair transition that ensures there is still virgin steel-making capacity in Wales and indeed in the UK. Wales simply cannot afford to lose the skills critical to delivering a future green economy or to see irreparable harm to the communities that have been reliant on steel making for so long. This is especially true for apprentices, who are learning skills to support our green future, and the uncertainty they currently face is indeed heartbreaking. Developments must be made to retain and redirect that skill capacity for the jobs of the future. Now, crucial to this is the need for constructive dialogue on all sides, and there must be meaningful engagement between Tata Steel, the UK Government, the Welsh Government, the unions and, more importantly, the workforce. It's so important that all avenues are being fully explored to mitigate the very worst possible outcomes of last week's statement.

Llywydd, the committee is keen to play whatever role it can to ensure that this matter is fully scrutinised and that the committee gets the answers that the steelworkers, their families and the wider community deserve. It's absolutely essential that the UK Government and the Welsh Government work together to support the workforce and the wider community, and I hope that the transition board will have a very important role in developing that relationship so that a fair and just transition can be made.

I understand that the Minister for Economy is one of the vice-chairs of the transition board, which has already started meeting to consider how steelworkers can be supported in the move to decarbonise operations at Port Talbot. As has been rehearsed, £100 million has been allocated to that transition work to date, and perhaps in responding to the debate the Minister could tell us a bit more about exactly what he wants to get out of the transition board's work and how that money will be spent.

Of course, as the Minister said yesterday, there are no guaranteed outcomes, just a series of proposals, and nothing is actually set in stone. So, now is the time for urgent conversations to take place on how Tata can deliver a fair and just transition to greener practice in a way that supports workers and retains those vital skills.

And so in closing, Llywydd, I can assure Members that the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee will be monitoring the developments very, very closely indeed. We will leave no stone unturned in scrutinising Tata Steel and both Governments and do whatever we can to help secure a longer, fairer transition for the Welsh sector for years to come. Diolch.

I want to talk briefly about the wider impact of the decision by Tata. Whilst there is no immediate impact reported on the Llanwern site in my region as a result of the decision to close the blast furnace at Port Talbot, the picture does not look good in the long term. Tata Steel said that around 300 jobs at Llanwern could go in three years' time as a result of the cold-rolling assets being consolidated and rationalised once investments are completed at Port Talbot. I'm devastated for the future of Port Talbot and other Tata sites like Llanwern. These are well-paid jobs that cannot be replaced easily, so losing them will be a big blow.

On the day that the news broke out in Port Talbot, I spoke to an ex-worker at the Ebbw Vale steelworks, who described the impact of the steelworks closure on the town two decades ago, and the implications for the vast supply chain. He described how the job losses at the steelworks, whilst being devastating, only told part of the story. Many more jobs were lost in the supply chain, and the knock-on effect on the town centre was catastrophic. That is my worry for Port Talbot. That's my worry for Newport, if job losses at Llanwern come to pass in three years' time. This is why we need to ensure that everything is on the table now when it comes to saving our jobs and saving our communities. Diolch yn fawr.

I think we all agree in the Senedd, cross-party, that the UK needs to produce its own steel, as the WLGA states, for so many reasons: security of access to product rather than relying on the market; importing from across the world in boats, which add more carbon, and maybe created in a less environmentally sustainable way.

I was disappointed about the misinformation being shared again that it's down to a green energy strategy and net zero, which it's not. We need virgin steel produced here to make wind turbines. We all support the move to arc furnaces as an additional process to be able to recycle and recreate steel, but it should be transitional. I don't think the electric arc has planning permission yet, and could be four or five years away. Job losses will be in the thousands. Many are high skilled, well paid, and difficult to replace. Their loss will be hard for many years to come, and Wales still bares the scars of the 1980s and Thatcher.

We need to take a reality check. Lives will be devastated, communities will be devastated, and we are talking people, their livelihoods, their way of living—devastated, gone. We need to measure the impact on health, welfare, families, children and anxiety. What measure is being given to that? What impact assessment? Only yesterday we were discussing rising child poverty in Wales. Public services that would normally step in and throw a blanket of security are struggling from austerity and inflationary pressures. Welfare benefits have been under attack for years. It takes five weeks for universal credit to come through.

The UK Conservative Government said they're investing £0.5 billion, which isn't enough. They are investing £20 billion in carbon capture and storage—a technology that is well behind the curve of advancements. It's not been developed yet properly. There's new better technology coming forward all the time, from turning carbon dioxide into pellets to restore soils and increase crop yields, through to using carbon dioxide in precision fermentation to create food. Progressive technology solutions are constantly being developed that threaten to make a large and expensive project such as HyNet obsolete before it's even started. It's raising many issues regarding undergrounding of pipes and offshore storage in north Wales and greenwashing charges.

So, I call upon the UK Government to take stock, move that investment now to where it's immediately needed now to save communities, to save people. The alternative is unthinkable. Thank you.

As I said yesterday, the announcement on Friday was widely trailed as a devastating blow for Port Talbot and my wider region. My thoughts are with those steelworkers and subcontractors who face losing their job in the coming months.

While there has been much criticism of the deal struck with the UK Government, let's be real—it is better than no deal. Without significant investment from the UK Government, we could be debating the closure of the Port Talbot steelworks. This worse-case scenario is a real possibility, and Plaid Cymru's talk of nationalisation and strike brings it ever closer. Do I think the rescue plan is perfect? No, it's not. It's far from it. While I accept the need to transition to cleaner, greener steel making, I don't accept that we have to take this cliff-edge approach. I would like to see a fair transition that maximises jobs at the plant that would see blast furnace 5 remaining operational until it reaches end of life.

I know that Tata have commissioned independent engineering studies of the proposals put forward by the union, which concludes that continuing blast furnace production while constructing the new electric arc furnace was not feasible due to the cost and risk involved. Well, I am sure we can collectively find a way forward that maximises production and minimises job losses. Minister, the most important issue seems to be around the coke ovens and the fact that work on the arc furnace can't be undertaken safely whilst they are in operation. This would mean the plant would have to rely upon imported coke to continue blast furnace operations. What can the Welsh Government do—[Interruption]. Yes.

I thank you for taking the intervention, and I'm listening to you here very carefully, but I will say this: there is imported coke now. They're actually not using just the coke from the coke ovens; they're importing it now, so they can keep going, as they are, without those coke ovens, for one blast furnace. No. 4 can keep going. It was built in 2014; it's still got a long life to go.

What can the Welsh Government do to ensure that Port Talbot can import coke as simply as it can be produced on site? We have to accept that keeping blast furnace 5 running is just a stopgap until the arc furnace is operational. BF5 is end-of-life, and will have to shut down in a few short years.

The unions would have us believe that we can carry on making virgin steel at Port Talbot, and even double production by switching to hydrogen-powered direct production of iron. Whilst this technology is promising, we're still many years away from it becoming commercially viable. The closest to production-ready are the Swedish hydrogen breakthrough iron-making technology, or HYBRIT, a corroboration between state producer SSAB, mining company LKAB and Vattenfall. They envisage being comercially viable by the end of the decade. It is clear that Tata are not prepared to take the risk of investing in this unproven technology, and are wedded to the steel recycling route. The UK is the biggest exporter of scrap steel, so from an environmental standpoint, it makes sense to go down this route. Hydrogen-based iron making might not appeal to Tata, but there is nothing stopping the Welsh Government and the universities investing in developing the technology and spinning out their own green-steel production. Whatever route we take, we need a credible plan, and that will require everyone working together to secure the future of Welsh steel, finding solutions rather than apportioning blame. Diolch yn fawr.

Yesterday I chaired a net-zero round-table in the Senedd where we discussed the actions needed to achieve Wales's net-zero ambitions, and the point was made, and it was made powerfully, that many of the technologies needed to move us towards net zero require steel. If we end up with a furnace that can only produce recycled steel, the point's been made, we won't be able to use that for the construction of things like wind turbines—all of these different products that are so necessary for the net-zero future that we all agree we have to reach. How could anyone think that we can do this now apart from exporting our pollution elsewhere? Where's our strategy for low-carbon steel for our future low-carbon economy? We cannot get rid of our emissions by shutting down our industry and destroying our communities. Now, I appreciate the frustration of the Welsh Government that they are, in large part here, shut out of decision making on this issue, just like the workers in days gone by, who were locked out by the large steel owners in the industrial revolution, but they must demand action.

Now, isn't it a rich irony that those workers yesterday going to London to demand that action went on train tracks that were probably made here in Wales? And what happens when we cannot provide those tracks? We have to question whether we can afford to lose the ability to produce virgin steel in the UK. We won't be able to move towards net zero without it. This is not a luxury resource. If we lose control over it, all that's going to happen is that we will have to import dirtier steel at extortionate prices from companies like Tata in places with worse working conditions, all the while contributing to importing emissions. It is far cleaner, more efficient and more logical to produce it here.

We need Port Talbot to be fully functioning for the future of Wales, and my colleague Liz Saville Roberts said yesterday in the Commons, and my colleague here, Sioned, has made the point as well: if the Conservative Government can take over the banks when the markets fail, why not steel? There is hypocrisy in Tata's position to close operations in Wales on the basis of a green transition while continuing to export blast furnace-manufactured steel from non-green sites in India and the Netherlands. This decision is not about net zero; it is about politics and money, and Rishi Sunak couldn't pick up the phone. He could not find the time to speak to Wales's First Minister about the thousands of jobs that are on the line. He didn't think it was worth his time to speak to him. What an insult to the people of Port Talbot. What an insult to the people of Wales. Entire families will be worried sick about what the next 12 months will mean for them. Local businesses won't know where to turn for certainty. This isn't only a problem for Port Talbot, it doesn't only affect that one town or this one industry. The consequences of Tata's negligence towards their workforce will be profound, and Rishi Sunak couldn't pick up the phone. That tells you all you need to know about what Westminster thinks about us.

We in Plaid Cymru believe this is not as good as it gets. We will continue to fight for the people of Port Talbot, for steel makers across Wales and for our communities not to be thrown on the scrapheap. We've been here before in Wales. The story of workers being abandoned is only too familiar to us, as is a negligent, cruel, cold Government in Westminster. It is a story we cannot allow to be repeated. People's lives should mean more than this.

We've heard some very powerful contributions already today, haven't we, in terms of the effects of the announcement by Tata and the approach of the UK Government. I thought my colleague David Rees spoke incredibly powerfully on behalf of those steelworkers in Port Talbot and all those other dependent businesses and the local community. I was very pleased as well that David described the situation right across Wales, including Llanwern in Newport East, because, obviously, Port Talbot is at the eye of the storm, but the ramifications spread right across our country, as Delyth Jewell has also said, and many others.

What strikes me, Llywydd, is, when you talk to people, it's not only the steelworkers and their communities that very readily understand the argument that the UK needs a steel industry, for those reasons that other Members have set out, including Huw Irranca. It's so obvious to so many people that, in this modern age, with all the uncertainties, with all the war and conflict that's going on, a country that's serious about having a strong economy and looking after its people must have a thriving steel industry, including primary steel production. It's so important for defence, for manufacturing, for infrastructure, for construction, for renewable energy. It's not about the past; it's about the present and the future. And we know that that future can be a green steel future, and that's why I'm so grateful to the multi-union Syndex report that sets out not just the importance of getting to the green steel future, but how we get there. They've done some of the heavy lifting, haven't they, in setting out how that can be achieved, that we're not stuck with the current Tata-UK Government approach.

One of the huge frustrations is the timing issue, isn't it, that, as well as having that Syndex report, we have a UK Labour Government committed to providing the sort of investment that will see us through to that future that protects our jobs, our communities, our economic future. But we are where we are. It's up to the UK Tory Government when that next UK general election takes place, and it could be a year away. Trying to bridge that gap is just so frustrating and so incredibly difficult. And when we see our competitor economies, as we've already heard, putting forward that scale of investment that's necessary to protect their economies and their people, and knowing that we could and should do the same, but we're hamstrung by that current Tory UK-Government approach—.

And the other thing that I hear a lot from people that I think is so powerful and important—I hear it in Newport, which is still a town, a city, that very much values its steel heritage and its current steel jobs, several hundred well-paid jobs that we want to protect for the future, and all the dependent spend and suppliers in the local economy—. People in Newport understand all of this, Llywydd, and what they say to me is, 'Can we not learn the lessons from the mining industry, for example?' Communities didn't count for the Tories, did they? Jobs didn't count for the Tories. Timely transition that protected people for the future and found a way through to better times—none of that counted for the Tories then, and it doesn't count for them now. And in Newport, we have the example of the Orb steelworks producing electric steel. The case was made at the time: 'We need that electric steel for the UK for the electric car industry, for the renewable energy sector.' It wasn't accepted, it wasn't understood by the Tories in the UK Government, and now nearly everybody laments the loss of the Orb steelworks not just for Newport and the surrounding area, but for the whole of the UK.  

Llywydd, please let's learn those lessons. The UK Tories must think again. Look again at that Syndex report and take the decisions that Port Talbot, Llanwern, the steel communities all across Wales need for our futures.

I'm pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon, and I'd like to put on record my thoughts and sympathies with the workers at Port Talbot affected by the news of the closure of the blast furnaces. As a Member for north Wales, Shotton steelworks isn't too far down the road from my constituency and it still employs over 700 people. So, I'd be pleased if the Minister, in responding to today's debate, could address the north Wales aspect and what that means, and what discussions you will have with the UK Government and Tata Steel to look at the prospects for people in north-east Wales as a result of this news from Port Talbot.

I anticipated the predictable attacks on the UK Government from Labour and Plaid Cymru politicians over the last five days, who have deliberately politicised this issue where there was no reason or benefit to do so. Whereas the Welsh Government and Plaid have been sniping from the sidelines and contributing nothing financially to the transition board, the UK Government have led the way in investing £500 million into the industry, £100 million into retraining and supporting affected workers, and a long-term ambition to invest in a Celtic free port with huge potential for the people of south-west Wales. 

This feeble and flimsy argument that the Prime Minister hasn't spoken to the First Minister is unfair. You have the phone number of the Secretary of State for Wales, and could phone him at any time, but have failed to do so as far as I can gather. He is a member of the cabinet with direct responsibility for Wales. How more senior can you get? That's the political—[Interruption.] That's the political point. [Interruption.] Nice to see that Plaid Cymru see this issue as funny. I don't—I don't, unfortunately. That's the political point of my contribution, but as a nation—[Interruption.] No, I won't, Hefin, no. Since you were also tweeting inaccuracies about me yesterday, I won't give you the pleasure. 

And in the nation of Wales and, indeed, Britain, we have a rich industrial history dating back many centuries, which has been and continues to be eroded away by global economics. There was one time when nearly every major city and town in Britain was characterised by the product it made—shipbuilding in Glasgow, potteries in Stoke-on-Trent, mining and steel making in south Wales and Yorkshire, to name just a few. And I'm interested in cars, and recently I've been refamiliarising myself with the history of car manufacturing in Britain, an industry that relied on British steel. 

On the way to the Senedd I recently swung by Longbridge near Birmingham, as it's only five minutes off the M5, and sadly there's not much to see these days as a lot of it has been replaced by housing. It's only used now by the Chinese-owned company, MG Motors, for research and development, but this was once home to one of the biggest car factories in the world, and at its peak it employed 25,000 people and was responsible for the manufacturing of well-known former car brands such as MG, Austin, Rovers, Minis, Metros, Maestros et cetera—you probably all remember them from history.

But, unfortunately, production stopped in 2005 and the previously well-known car names were then consigned to the history books. The only car that has survived is the Mini, which is now owned by BMW, and was long rumoured to be the only reason why BMW bought Rover in 1994, because they wanted to redevelop the Mini into the model that we see today. The political edge to this is the now unthinkable decision that the Labour Government decided to buy British Leyland, as it was then, and effectively nationalise it, making the company subject to crippling union influence and strikes during the 1970s and 1980s, which is also largely blamed for its eventual demise years later. Modern business and markets now dictate otherwise, and these car brands were often unreliable performance-wise and had many faults. But at least they were ours and we could say the now nearly extinct phrase, 'made in Britain’.

While that may be seen, as Members are alluding to, as a divergence from the subject matter by some, it’s a highlight of the generic decline of British manufacturing, of which Port Talbot is the latest casualty. [Interruption.] Yes, David.

Thank you for taking the intervention. I partly enjoyed the history lesson, but do you agree with me, and as just highlighted there, that there is a future industry—not a past industry, there's a future industry—if the investment in green steel and different approaches to green steel is made appropriately and no cliff edge happens? We'll have a workforce that can be trained, we'll have a place that can take it, we've got all the infrastructure in place—it's about the UK Government telling Tata, 'Hold your horses; let's do this properly.' 

Yes, I agree, and it's been spoken about by Members on our benches in the last couple of days, looking at the possibilities of a transitional phase, and I can't see why that couldn't be achieved.

But that's the factual reality, for which no specific political party, person, is to blame, necessarily—as I alluded to, global economics and global factors. It's just a sad consequence of Britain becoming an importing nation, which I hope to see reversed, particularly with the new-found freedoms we have after leaving the European Union with Brexit in 2016. We've got huge potential for trade deals across the world, and, as I often say, the world is bigger than just the European Union. Thank you. 

Presiding Officer, from the other end of Wales, my community stands in solidarity with the people of Port Talbot. It stands in solidarity with the families David Rees has once again spoken up for in this Senedd. Presiding Officer, we too are a community built on steel. Many in Deeside live with the memory of the closure of Shotton steelworks in the 1980s, a closure that saw 6,500 jobs go in one day. Presiding Officer, this experience taught many that a Tory Government with no understanding of what a just transition looks like, with no understanding of working-class communities—in fact, with no care for working-class communities—. I heard the Member for South Wales West in the Conservative Party talk about records this afternoon, and I say to him that the record of the biggest industrial redundancy in a single day in western Europe is surely, for him, not a record to be proud of. And what we see today is exactly what many people saw in the 1980s, and I welcome my own party’s commitments, and I echo those calls for nothing irreversible to be done today, ahead of an upcoming general election.

I plead with Tata Steel’s executives to give Labour’s investment plan a chance. Presiding Officer, colleagues have already stated on these benches about my own unions, Unite and Community, and how they have worked closely with Keir Starmer and his team, and how they’ve worked closely with the Welsh Government and our economy Minister, Vaughan Gething. It is now vital, Presiding Officer, that Tata and their executives listen—they listen, they stand up and they protect steel production in the United Kingdom.

Presiding Officer, workers in my own community at Shotton steel have been in touch with me, rightly concerned about the impact of this Tory-backed Tata plan, and what that could have on their own jobs and their own families’ lives and life chances. Steel production on both sites is linked. I was grateful yesterday to the Minister for his response when I raised the important matter, and, following my own discussions with union reps of Unite and Community at Shotton, I’ve called many times for Wales and the UK to lead the way in developing the carbon-neutral steel of the future for all the things that we've discussed this afternoon, from wind turbines to all the other things in front of us, and the green technologies of the future.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course. 

In his speech, Gareth Davies said that you can't get higher than the Secretary of State for Wales. Of course you can. You can get the Prime Minister's interest. Would he agree that it's vital that the UK Government takes an interest in this at prime ministerial level?

I think it's absurd that the Prime Minister hasn't actively sought to speak to the First Minister, never mind—

Will you take an intervention?

Happily. 

I'm not going to defend the Prime Minister not taking the First Minister's call. I think he should have taken the First Minister's call. But by the same measure, the Secretary of State for Wales called the First Minister on Friday and that call was not returned. Do you condemn that?

I will go back to Hefin's intervention, and I say to him I find it absurd that the Prime Minister hasn't made a conscious effort—[Interruption.] I'm answering Hefin David first—to speak to the First Minister of Wales.

And I will say, collectively, that everyone needs to get round the table to protect jobs. I'll say that's everyone. I say it to you, I say it to all Members of this Senedd, I say it to all Members of the Westminster Government. Because this needs to happen, doesn't it Presiding Officer? And it needs to be done in a way that protects jobs, but not only protects the jobs now, it protects the jobs of the future, it grows the industry of the future.

I thought the economy committee spokesperson delivered a very good speech today and I welcome his committee's inquiries. But I say to the Conservatives Members that the Tory-backed Tata plans as they stand at the moment ignore the opportunity to protect jobs. They ignore the opportunity to grow the industry. What they do is they plan to make thousands of people redundant in a cost-of-living crisis.

I ask them to think again, and I hope the Senedd will support that. If they are so confident in these plans that they've put forward and supported, perhaps they should test them more widely with the general public. Give steelworkers the opportunity to put their case to the public. Call a general election now. Diolch yn fawr. 

Many people have spoken eloquently about the devastation that happens when you chuck thousands of people on the dole, not least David Rees in defence of his own community in Port Talbot. But I remember covering the steel devastation that took place in the 1980s. I went to Shotton, which was then a bustling town, and saw what was happening.

We do indeed have a rich industrial history. The trouble is we've been far too arrogant in trying to maintain that. We simply haven't modernised our industrial economy. We've been plagued by short-term decisions, which have driven our descent from being the most prominent manufacturing economy in the world to being a complacent, arrogant service provider. And given all the challenges that face us as a result of the climate emergency, this simply will not do.

Tom Giffard, you talked about the opportunities of a free port. What future would there be for a free port if there was no steel? Because we should see the whole of the south Wales industrial cluster like a pack of cards. If we don't have steel production, where will the south Wales industrial cluster be? And I absolutely applaud Sioned for saying that there was a bailout of the banks into 2008, so why on earth are we not bailing out the steel industry. 

At lunchtime, many of us took the opportunity to go and speak to Wales & West Utilities about their proposals for a hydrogen pipeline running to Port Talbot from Pembrokeshire. Why is it going to Port Talbot? Because they know that there's steel production going on there and they need the energy that can be provided as an alternative green solution to the green production of virgin energy. That 130 km hydrogen pipeline won't be available until the early 2030s, so we have to have a proper transition plan, which is what is so sadly lacking from the UK Government. We have to—[Interruption.] Altaf.

When I was here last time, I met Tata directors, and they wanted to have lunch with me. They came here, and I had to do that. At that time, one simple question I asked them, because at that time they were saying again that there would be 8,000 job losses. I don't know, with the UK Government, how much money they have put in, and with the Welsh Government, how much they have given them. One question that I asked them was, 'What are you doing for technology?' There was no answer. That was in 2015, and from there, they have not done anything to change the technology, and that is why we are suffering. 

I think what's happening, though, is that Tata is modernising. It's simply modernising elsewhere—in Holland or India—rather than in Port Talbot. As it's such a strategically important industry, it is vital that the UK asserts the need to have a strategic industry like steel.

The south Wales industrial cluster is the second biggest in the UK after Humberside. How can it survive with this short-termist decision of the UK Government to do nothing to save steel? And what will it mean for our net zero targets? How are we going to decarbonise our steel globally? Are we simply going to leave it to other countries to do it? More of that arrogance—that it's somebody else's responsibility.

The UK Government seems to think that we can simply dump our net zero obligations onto other countries. As has already been said—I think by Delyth, although it could have been by somebody else—. Anyway, the point is that if we are simply importing steel from countries where it's made with poorer working conditions and much higher carbon emissions, we are clearly not meeting our obligations to save the world from overheating.

Even China is taking this seriously. They are reducing their steel production because they know that they have to reduce their carbon emissions. What happens then? If steel production worldwide decreases, guess what? The price goes up. It leaves us completely at the mercy of the market.

The Syndex report, which I'm glad to to hear Altaf Hussain was supporting as well, gives us an alternative solution to enable us to continue with the expansion of our wind turbine industry. Where are they going to get the steel from, and will they simply go elsewhere if they can't get the steel locally?

What about our ambitious proposals offshore in the Celtic sea? They sure as hell need quality steel for the resistance of the waves as well as the wind. I really fear that the closure of virgin steel production in south Wales at Port Talbot could cause the south Wales industrial cluster to fall like a pack of cards.  

The Minister for Economy now to contribute.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'd like to start by thanking Members who have contributed to this debate, and to recognise a range of high-quality contributions, I think, to this debate, in both opening it, and recognising both Delyth Jewell and Sioned in the Plaid Cymru group for their own contributions, and, I thought, a very measured and impressive contribution from Paul Davies, Chair of the economy committee, and, indeed from colleagues behind me. Obviously, having direct steelworks in their constituency, John Griffiths and Jack Saregant can be expected to make contributions showing a real level of understanding. But I really do think that the standout contribution thus far has been from David Rees, and understandably so, given where Port Talbot is, and his history and connection to the workforce.

That leads me on to my first substantive point: the human impact of what has been announced, and what could still happen. It is raw and it is real in steel-making communities across our country. All of us need to start by saying that this is not over. There is a proposal that is yet to be formally consulted on; there is not a decision that is being implemented today. The worst thing that any of us, or people talking about the situation, can do is to collapse into a counsel of despair that this is somehow already over, and all we need to do now is to think about what to do with jobs that are guaranteed to go. The consultation must be meaningful. There is an alternative that I'll go on to describe and discuss again. Our job, surely, in this Parliament is to make the case for Wales, for the communities that we represent and to call on others to recognise not just our demand for justice for Wales from our geographic point of view, but actually, to recognise the cost of what would take place if those proposals were to be implemented. And the cost, as well as the human one, is a significant economic one.

I was pleased to hear Paul Davies recognise the words of Professor David Worsley from Swansea University that, of the 2,800 jobs that could go within the next three years, with 2,500 potentially going within the next 18 months, there is a multiplier of at least three and potentially more. So, within the next 18 months, we're talking of north of 10,000 jobs going from our economy right across south Wales. And then, if the job cuts that are slated for Llanwern go ahead, there will be 300 jobs, with likely an extra 900 on top of them in that wider economy. I don't think we should forget that economic cost and what it means in human terms if those people lose their jobs. And it's not just the volume of job losses, it is the reality of the fact that these are well-paid jobs that other people are then reliant on. And again, the point was made by a whole range of other people, from hospitality to steel fixers and contractors, to a whole range of other businesses. I was particularly interested in ITV Wales covering a window business that recognised that, without the money that comes from steelworkers in that town, they would be unlikely to have the business that they have, if they had a business at all. So, there's a real and significant economic impact. I've already discussed with the Confederation of British Industry, with Make UK and, indeed, with the Federation of Small Businesses about what might happen if these proposals were to go ahead.

I want to make clear again that this is not the Welsh Government's view of what a just transition looks like; it is far from that. I believe that offshoring jobs and offshoring emissions is exactly what we should not be doing in getting to a lower carbon future for our economy and our way of life. That is why we say again that we look for a bridge to the future, not a cliff edge. And the future economy will be one where we have to find lower carbon ways of generating wealth for us, for our families and for public services for our future. It's why I created Net Zero Industry Wales—to help set out a practical path to that future, with advice that gathers businesses together to think about what it is possible to do, because there are imperatives for those businesses, for their customer demands and expectations. And actually, Net Zero Industry Wales is already making progress on showing a path to a future that we could and should all be prepared to sign up to. And you think about those opportunities—we've described some of them already: from electric vehicles to hydrogen and what could happen with much greater generation of hydrogen. That's linked to floating offshore wind, and a free port opportunity that I think will be undermined in its impact if we don't see a significant level of employment and capability in the steelworks. And then also, of course, that future for people. Think about the apprentices who are already in the steelworks today, think about all those people who have young families and commitments, rents, mortgages—all of those commitments that will be undermined if they lose their work and cannot replace it with work of the same value. That was made very clear to me on Friday and on Monday when I met directly with steelworkers in Port Talbot.

It is also, of course, about today's economy. As I said yesterday, cans, cars and construction—they all rely on steel that is made in Tata's plant in Port Talbot today. The material that goes to Trostre to make every single can of Heinz baked beans and others comes from Port Talbot. You can't yet make those products just with steel from an electric arc furnace; you need virgin steel. You can't deliver all of the materials for our auto industry today, and again, Llanwern is one of the suppliers there. Again, they need virgin steel to be part of the mix to create those products. And when it comes to construction, some of the products that are made at Shotton, you need virgin steel to be part of the mix of that steel to create all of those products for today, never mind the future we all want, which will, of course, involve more construction in commercial properties, in the homes that we know we need to make sure that every family has a home here in Wales and beyond.

And it's not just around those three steel towns in addition to Port Talbot, it is also about the reality of the spread of employment. These aren't just workers in Neath Port Talbot, there are over 500 steelworkers who live in Bridgend, over 500 steelworkers who live in Swansea. In Carmarthenshire, more than 700 workers are directly employed at Trostre. If you then think about Llanwern, not just in Newport, but I know, and Hefin David's made this point, there are over 150 steelworkers in Caerphilly who work in Llanwern. This is a wide reach for each of those areas, in its economic impact and in which counties the people live where there would be a direct effect.

Virgin steel isn't just about the economic impact of not having it created here. It is also, of course, a matter for UK security, to be the only G20 country that cannot make steel from scrap. Now, you'll have heard that point made loudly and clearly by our Labour colleagues Stephen Kinnock, Jessica Morden, Jonathan Reynolds and Stephen Doughty in yesterday's debate in Parliament. But as this is a UK issue, you also heard that point made by the Conservative MP for Scunthorpe, and, indeed, a former Conservative UK security Minister. This is a risk not to take in the uncertainties of the world that we face now and to agree to hand over that virgin steel-making capacity to competitor economies in a less certain world than the one that most of us were privileged to grow up in, with what that then means for the supply chains to be consistently relying on imports of steel made in other parts of the world. We won't just be transferring security, we'll be transferring Welsh workers' jobs and transferring Welsh emissions to be more reliant on other parts of the world. I don't think that is a wise choice for the UK, never mind the communities we represent here in Wales.

Now, I want to try and address the politics in a way that is as productive as possible. I recognise why some people want to talk about the position of the Welsh Government and say this is all down to Welsh Labour people not doing their job. I recognise why Conservatives will want to do that in the spirited way that Tom Giffard has done today again. But it is a matter of fact that the Prime Minister not only would not take a call from the First Minister, but went out of his way from a seat in the stands at Southampton Football Club to attack the Welsh Government. I thought it was not a well-judged intervention, and the point has been made before, when Ford announced they were going to close Bridgend, the Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, took a call on the same day the request was made from the First Minister. It does show it is entirely possible for a Conservative Prime Minister to recognise their broader public service responsibilities in a different way than Prime Minister Sunak has responded thus far. It is still not too late for him to return to a point where there could be agreement, or, if nothing else, honest disagreement between ourselves about what the future path is.

I was disappointed with the response of the steel Minister Nusrat Ghani yesterday in the Commons. I was disappointed in the response of the Secretary of State for Wales, who is, I think, collapsing into that counsel of despair that this decision has already been made and there is nothing to be done. I disagree. I think the Secretary of State for Wales of any party should be fighting our corner around the Cabinet table, and not telling us to be grateful for the fact that there are only 10,000-plus job losses to come in the next 18 months. I think that he has a different responsibility to all of us, regardless of party. In that future economy, in the advanced manufacturing future that we could have, in foundational economies like housing, we won't just need steel, we will need skills, steel and things like semiconductors too. All of those things that will make up a modern economy. You can't make all of those things without steel.

Now, the transition board is something that I will continue to play a constructive role in, partly because many of the interventions they are looking at are plainly devolved, and we will need to work together. So, we will need to use devolved resources along some of those if we see significant unemployment resulting from the proposals that have been announced. I've always understood devolved levers would need to be used and devolved money put into answers. However, the Welsh Government was never going to pay for access to that conversation. Why on earth would we? Who on earth would think it is reasonable to demand that for the Welsh Government to understand how we use our budgets and our levers we must pay an arbitrary sum for a seat around the table? That is not kind of union that I believe in. I believe that the £100 million may not be enough, given the long-term harm we have seen from significant economic events in the past, including, as many people of have said, not just the redundancies at Shotton or what took place in the collapse of the mining industry. I want to see a long-term answer that engages the responsibilities of this devolved Government as well as this devolved Parliament in a way that has not taken place to date yet.

An alternative is possible; we see it in the Netherlands, where Tata has a different relationship with the Government of that country. They're investing in different ways of steel making, they're investing in different alternatives to support their workforce in the future. They're also investing in research around electric arc steel making as well. The same Government here could do that, indeed, with Swansea University, one of the leading research institutions on future metals indeed across the UK.

We also need to make progress on procurement. We need to make progress on recycling scrap metal, keeping more of it here, not exporting it to other parts of the world—all things this Government could do to safeguard part of the future that must take place where no progress has been made to date. Not only a different approach that a £3 billion green-steel fund could provide, but a different approach that requires Tata not to make irreversible choices based on UK Government support, a different choice for UK security, where we choose whether we make steel or import steel, to be reliant on other parts of the world, where we're all prepared to work with other partners—a UK Government of any shade, with Tata, and the trade unions, and this Government. I'm proud to say that this Welsh Government will continue to make the case for a future for the Welsh steel industry and we will continue to make the case for the best deal for steel, not simply the cheapest deal. Diolch, Llywydd.

Rhun ap Iorwerth now to close the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. And may I thank Members across the Chamber for supporting this urgent debate today? May I thank Luke Fletcher particularly for pushing for this debate and for speaking so eloquently for his constituents? This feeling and the willingness to discuss this again shows a spirit of real support for the workforce and the community, but at the eleventh hour for an industry of huge economic, social and strategic importance, we need far more than goodwill. Unless Governments understand the need to raise their game significantly in their response to the current crisis, the opportunity that we have to safeguard jobs and transition fairly towards a sustainable future for the steel industry could be lost. There's been too much dragging of feet already, I fear, over a period of years, opportunities to be proactive, opportunities to invest and modernise, opportunities for the UK Government to show that they understand the true value of the industry, to show that they care about communities and about Wales. And it's not a lack of urgency now or historically that we only have, but it's also a lack of scale in the response also, as others have already mentioned. The offer of £0.5 billion to decarbonise in Port Talbot is entirely inadequate.

We have needed Governments to be more boldly proactive in thinking about the future of steel, and let's be honest here: yes, I will push Welsh Government hard to play its part in supporting our steel communities now and in the future, but it is to the UK Government, current and future, that we look primarily at this time, and remember, it is a UK Prime Minister who had his 'out of office' on when Wales called wanting to talk about this crisis that we face. It was a shameful response from the Prime Minister and one which speaks volumes.

'A just transition', though, is a term bandied about widely, but seldom I think do we see actions that match what is needed to deliver it. Governments talk about the need to shift to a lower carbon economy, but have been too reactive in putting the appropriate social and economic interventions in place to protect workers' livelihoods. Valuing jobs and caring for the environment have to be a joint mission, and a just transition has to mean working strategically, getting ducks in a row, joined-up thinking, investing and lining up the technology, hydrogen technology, direct reduced iron; I met with Wales & West Utilities this morning to talk about plans for the pipeline to bring hydrogen into Port Talbot. We need to talk about cleaner energy sources, carbon capture. Developments are happening at pace all around the world, but Port Talbot has to be at the heart of that. And it's about getting the timing right, not shutting down the blast furnaces and losing all those jobs and skills until the new technologies are ready to come on line and replace them. That is what 'transition' means. And the plans announced last week don't represent any form of transition, let alone a just one. 

Unions have put their plans on the table to help with that transition. The unions, the workforce representatives, must be heard. And remember what is at stake here—for families, yes, directly affected, anxiety that is immeasurable, but the impact and the scale of what's at stake for Wales. In 2021 Tata contributed 3 per cent of total Welsh economic output, making it the largest private sector contributor by this measure. We should be using its economic potency to maximise job opportunities now and in the future, within an environmentally ambitious landscape. We want future Welsh renewable developments, as we've heard this afternoon, to be built using Welsh steel, and instead we're blunting our ambition with the threat of allowing a strategic industry to wither on the vine and all the personal heartbreak that comes with it. 

And as for the price the UK Government puts on supporting communities, on protecting jobs, on protecting primary steel-making capacity in Wales and the UK, the sum of money is clearly too small. The £500 million on the table from the UK Government is a paltry sum when you consider the threat to jobs, and a derisory offer when compared to the scale of response to other emergencies. As we've heard, the banks were saved, now it's time to save our steel. And Governments in other countries have understood what needs to happen in terms of investment, as we've heard from Luke. We know about the £50 billion available for decarbonising industry in Germany. This is the scale of the response that we need here in Wales and here in the UK. 

Whilst the UK Conservative Government needs to wake up and be ready to pay up, yes, in significantly greater amounts, a prospective Labour Government, we have to be honest, must also up its game. And that offer of £3 billion split across five sites in the United Kingdom over 10 years is barely more generous than what's on the table now. Everybody has to understand the scale of the investment that's needed. But as well as the money, we need all ideas on the table. I've referred to the ideas put forward by the unions; they have to be considered. Co-investment with Tata has to be considered—co-ownership, even, nationalisation. We can leave no stone unturned to build a long-term future for the steel industry. 

Wales has the proudest of steel-making traditions. Plants are woven into the fabric of communities. There are streets where every household has a connection with a steel-making plant. But the world doesn't and hasn't stayed still, and Governments have needed to be far more awake to that. As Jenny Rathbone said, there's been an enormous amount of complacency—'arrogance' is the word that Jenny used. In 2013 a report commissioned by the Welsh Government made the right noises. Titled 'Towards a Welsh industrial strategy', it correctly identified globalisation, prolonged economic crisis, a skewed UK economy as reasons why Wales needed to look to itself to mobilise new sources of sustainable industrial investment. That was over a decade ago. In the 'A Manufacturing Future for Wales' policy document, the ministerial foreword talks of 

'A prosperous economy which requires a steady focus on resilience and a capacity for transformation.'

And yet here we are urgently debating the lack of resilience in a strategically important sector. Now, I implore the Minister, Welsh Government, to bring forward a meaningful industrial strategy for Wales to include industry thinking and intelligence in its development, along with academics, unions of course, the expertise of our workforce, and make a better fist of matching up the skills of our workforce with the opportunities that I have no doubt will arise for Wales and will be there for Wales to embrace tomorrow and in the future. 

Now, I know Wales's steel-making heartlands are resilient, close-knit communities, but I also know that too many communities like them were left behind in Wales by Government inaction, when other heavy industries were left to die with little or no alternative employment locally. We can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, but only if today's clarion call is matched by concrete action. Let us stand with steelworkers today and give them a future.

That concludes the urgent debate.

And so we'll move on to item 6, which is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21, on charitable hospice funding. I call on Mabon ap Gwynfor to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I move the motion formally. Thank for this opportunity to put forward a debate that isn't just very timely, but is very, very important. Everyone, of course, is familiar with hospices. The names of hospices are seen on all of our high streets, and people donate toys and clothes to their various shops or make donations or run races to raise money. One of the wonders of hospices is that they are largely sustained through the kind and generous donations of the people of Wales. But, although we're familiar with hospices, I want to take a moment to set out a picture of how special they are before going on to the core of today's debate.

Although they are charities, they are a vital part of the health and care system, and, without them, tens of thousands of people every year—from newborns to people who've reached the end of long and full lives—would suffer a great deal of pain. There is a hospice in every one of our health board areas in Wales, with 14 charitable hospices active in Wales today. And in those areas, hospices provide services that keep patients out of hospitals, with over 85 per cent receiving care in their communities, providing a great deal of value for money by lessening the load on statutory services.

Their dedicated staff work closely with colleagues in the health and care services, supporting people at the end of life every day of the year. Their tireless work includes services at home, 24-hour services and overnight services, emergency out-of-hours support, in-patient beds, supporting end-of-life patients and ongoing care, out-patient beds and support with grief. The range of services that they provide, provided by the most dedicated staff, who have to go through the pain and grief with the patients, are astonishing, and they achieve all of this by raising money through charitable activities, with over two thirds of the funding coming from these charitable activities. In the case of children's hospices, three quarters of the funding comes from donations and fundraising activities.

Consider this: if these hospices didn't do this whole range of work, then who would have to step into the breach? Well, there are two choices: (1) leave people to suffer, or (2) transfer all of the expectations and responsibilities onto the shoulders of our health boards. But, of course, there is a third option, which is to support our hospices and to let them do the work that they specialise in. Because the truth is that these kind donations that fund the vital work of our hospices take a great deal of pressure off the public purse and represent a significant discount for the NHS.

In October 2022, this Welsh Government published their palliative and end-of-life care quality statement, which set out the challenges ahead clearly. Currently, around 32,000 people in Wales die with palliative care needs each year. This is expected to reach 37,000 per year by 2048. Our ageing population means that needs are becoming more complex, with many people developing multiple health conditions as they reach the end of their lives.

The Welsh Government's own scientific advice recently recommended that increased needs for palliative care will require the boosting of these services across health and social care disciplines. The location of palliative care services should be considered, as more people may be managed at home, therefore increasing needs in primary care and access to specialised services. The demands will increase and the Welsh NHS as it is, and, by the looks of things, as it's likely to be for the foreseeable future, is simply not equipped nor set up to respond to these increased demands. A sustainable model for commissioning and partnering with Welsh hospices is vital if we're going to meet these ever-increasing demands for palliative care in the community. Hospices bring expertise, innovation and capacity in improving person-centred care, addressing equity of access, enhancing advance and future care planning and developing national outcomes and experience measures, and are therefore key partners in delivering the ambitions of the Government's palliative and end-of-life care quality statement.

The health sector in its entirety is facing huge challenges, with a shrinking funding envelope, increased costs due to huge inflationary pressures and recruitment struggles. The charitable hospice sector is no different in that respect, but there is a distinct difference too. And that is, when our health boards find themselves in financial difficulties, they routinely get bailed out. On the other hand, if a charitable hospice should find itself in financial difficulties, then not only do they have to cut services or close, but that funding stream disappears and those pressures are then immediately transferred onto a struggling health board.

Rising staff and energy costs, workforce pressures and rising demand for increasingly complex care pose an existential threat to the short- and medium-term sustainability of children's and adult hospice services in Wales. Many hospices are already making, and/or, in some cases, planning cuts to services. NHS pay increases over the last two years have pushed total hospice staffing costs up by approximately £5.4 million, and Welsh hospices are committed to paying a fair and competitive wage to their brilliant staff, but this clearly comes at a cost.

However, although these patients are referred to a charitable hospice for care, from the care of the local health board, most health boards have given no uplift to hospice service level agreement values this year, following years of underinvestment. While additional investment has been made into the NHS at this time of crisis to tackle inflationary pressures and meet pay awards, in most cases these have not been passed down to charitable service providers. Hospices are also facing soaring energy costs, with some experiencing a fivefold increase in their bills, alongside wider inflationary pressures on running costs. Every hospice in Wales is projecting a deficit for this financial year. All hospices are drawing on reserves to make up the shortfall and protect services. But reserves are finite, with Welsh hospices on average having just 10 months in reserve, with some having as little as three months.

Welsh hospices are proud to deliver the vast majority of their care through their own charitable fundraising efforts, but need support to meet spiralling costs so that they can sustain and develop services, take pressure off the NHS, and help to transform care to meet future challenges. Cutting hospice services means less support for patients and their families, with people in Wales with a palliative care diagnosis not receiving the care and support they need to live comfortably and to have a good death.

Eighty per cent of Welsh hospices forecast having to reduce the volume of certain services delivered, placing greater end-of-life pressure on an already over-stretched NHS. Seventy per cent of Welsh hospices describe reduced support being available to the wider system, such as hospitals and care homes, and increasing inflation and cost-of-living pressures persist. Over 80 per cent of hospices with in-patient units believe cost-of-living pressures are highly likely to result in one or more in-patient beds being temporarily or permanently unavailable. It's clear that a sustainable model for funding and delivery of hospice services in Wales is therefore needed. 

The Welsh Government rightly identified this as a key issue, and committed to focus on end-of-life care and review hospice funding in its programme for government. I know that the Minister is personally committed to doing what she can to support palliative and end-of-life care providers, so that people don't have to live their remaining days in pain and their loved ones watching on helplessly, and I commend the Minister for this.

Positive steps have been taken through the establishment of the national NHS palliative and end-of-life care programme board and the publication of the quality statement. The third phase of the end-of-life care funding review is expected to submit recommendations imminently, and should be seen as an important opportunity to address some of the immediate pressures facing hospices, with an urgent decision on meeting the existing shortfall required.

But there is still a long way to go before a sustainable model for funding and delivering care is agreed. This is why we need the Government to work with the sector to address the immediate funding challenges, including ensuring a fair salary offer for the hospice workforce, equivalent to the 'Agenda for Change' increases, so there is parity with NHS colleagues, to develop a long-term, sustainable funding solution in partnership with the sector, including a new national funding formula workforce plan and palliative end-of-life care service specification, and to extend the Welsh Government's end-of-life care funding review, which is due to conclude in January 2024, imminently. And if this is not feasible in the timescale, extend it. And I urge, therefore, all Members present to support this motion.

I'm grateful to Mabon for bringing this debate forward today and to share his concerns about some of the issues that hospices are going through, because it's really important that we have this debate today.

Last week, I was really glad to accompany the Minister for health on a visit to St David's hospice in my constituency in Newport, and I'd really like to put on record my grateful thanks to the Minister for taking the time to come and listen to the staff at St David's hospice and the team around there, and your interest in their work. I know that's very much appreciated by all of them. And I'm very grateful to the inspirational Emma Saysell, who we heard from, and her team, for taking the time to welcome us to that. St David's mission is to provide and continue to develop a free and comprehensive palliative care service of excellence throughout south and mid Wales for people, their families and carers facing a progressive and incurable life-limiting illness. The hospice takes a whole-person approach, and the service is delivered in co-operation with other agencies.

Last week was not the first time that I have visited the hospice, and I know from personal experience that the staff deliver high-quality medical care as well as providing invaluable, empathetic support to their families. It really is hard to put into words the quality of care given, and the heartfelt appreciation by patients and families to St David's. They are experts in talking about the delicate but important subject of death with people of all ages, and the hospice's Unicorn service for children and young people is receiving more and more referrals from schools.

Last year, 3,498 patients and families were cared for by St David's, more than 25 per cent of whom had a non-cancer diagnosis. More people are cared for at St David's and by St David's than the Royal Gwent, Nevill Hall and the Grange hospitals across the Aneurin Bevan board area. This is the equivalent level of the provision of 46 wards, based on a 30-bed ward, and that really is quite astonishing. Over 34,000 hours of care were provided by St David's hospice-at-home service last year, enabling patients to remain in their own homes if that is their choice. Ninety-nine per cent of patients who received hospice-at-home care were able to die at home.

All of the care provided by St David's Hospice Care is free of charge. However, it costs £13,500 every single day to provide that care. The hospice receives funding from the NHS and Welsh Government to support their work, and it boosts this public funding with donations from the general public, legacies and grants from trusts. As demands for its service continues to increase, St David's Hospice Care anticipate that they will end this financial year with a deficit of £262,000. Charitable hospices across Wales, including Tŷ Hafan, which I've also visited, are facing similarly stark financial pressures. Whilst I appreciate the very difficult budget decisions that the Welsh Government is having to make—and I know that the Minister is really acutely aware of the precarious situation for hospices—hospices, patients and families would be really grateful if the Minister was able to provide some clarity on the future funding mechanism for hospices in Wales. Can the Minister put on record her thanks for the incredible, invaluable work that St David's and other wider hospice care give? Diolch.

Back in 2006, I hosted an event here, highlighting the essential role played by hospices in providing palliative care services in Wales, and calling on the Welsh Government to address the growing funding crisis they were facing then, attended by every hospice in Wales. I chaired the 2018 cross-party group on hospices and palliative care's inquiry into inequalities in access to hospice and palliative care in Wales, which found that there is significant unmet need and under-met need; that statutory hospice funding had flatlined for a decade, and therefore fallen in real terms each year; that statutory funding of children's hospices in Wales was significantly lower than in England and Scotland, and that statutory funding for adult hospices in Wales as a percentage of expenditure was lower than in any other UK nation. I also chaired the cross-party group on hospices and palliative care's inquiry into experiences of palliative and end-of-life care in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our report, published last January, found that the number of people requiring palliative care is forecast to grow by over 40 per cent by 2040, with much of this growth in community settings.

Every hospice in Wales is projecting a deficit for this financial year, drawing on their very limited reserves to make up for the shortfall and protect services. The harsh reality is that Welsh hospices are already making cuts to services, with 80 per cent of Hospices Cymru members telling us that pressures are highly likely to result in them having to further reduce the volume of certain services delivered. This will result in reduced support being available to the wider system, such as hospitals and care homes, placing greater end-of-life pressure on an already overstretched NHS Wales. Over 80 per cent of hospices with in-patient units believe cost-of-living pressures are highly likely to result in one or more in-patient beds being temporarily or permanently unavailable. 

The majority of their care, however, is delivered in the community through their own charitable fundraising efforts, significantly reducing numbers of hospital admissions and enabling patients to stay at home. However, rising staff and energy costs, workforce pressures and increasing demand for complex care pose a serious threat to Welsh hospices continuing to be able to do this, and to their ability to be key partners in helping transform palliative care services for the future. NHS pay increases over the last two years have pushed total hospice staffing costs up by approximately £5.4 million. Both adult and children's hospices in Wales are committed to paying a fair and competitive wage to their brilliant staff, but can't keep pace with either NHS pay rises or significant inflation on all areas of their provision.

At the cross-party group, children's hospices Tŷ Hafan and Tŷ Gobaith described the serious challenges they face delivering services to meet local need across large areas of Wales, where hospices are often the only source of support for children and their families. The cost of travel continues to be a real issue for families alongside out-of-hours support and partnership work with increasingly overstretched children's community nursing teams.

St David's Hospice in Llandudno described how Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was cutting their funding at a time when the health board had closed its own specialist palliative care beds. The hospice currently delivers three quarters of its services through its own charitable fundraising efforts. They said the funding review should address these immediate pressures and the postcode lottery of hospice funding in Wales, alongside building a more sustainable model for the future.

Hospices, as we heard, bring expertise, innovation and capacity in improving person-centred care, addressing equity of access, enhancing advanced and future care planning, and developing national outcomes and experience measures. Cuts to their services mean that there is a shrinking hospice partnership capacity to work with Welsh Government and health boards to transform services and address increasing demand for palliative and end-of-life care.

Hospices save NHS Wales millions and can help them save millions more with smart funding and services that are jointly designed and delivered. Alternatively, the negative impact on patients and their families, when hospices have to cut services, means people in Wales with a palliative care diagnosis not receiving the care and support they need, to live their best life and to have a good death. The Welsh Government would be failing in their duty if they did not work with the hospice sector to address the immediate funding challenges and develop a long-term sustainable funding solution. Diolch yn fawr.

As with my colleague Jayne Bryant, I want to pay tribute to St David's hospice in Newport because of the immeasurably good work that they do, which is so important to individuals, their families and the community. They are so well respected and well regarded, for good reason, Dirprwy Lywydd, that it's a great privilege to be able to pay tribute to them in this debate today.

As Jayne said, the care that they provide, end-of-life care, in people's own homes, which, very often, is where people want to spend their last days, in the comfort of their familiar surroundings with their loved ones, is so incredibly important for those individuals and their families, that there is an organisation around that enables that end-of-life in own home to take place. It's the most difficult of times for families, isn't it, when somebody is nearing the end of their life within the family, and having that support around, that expertise, that experience, of those nurses is just incredibly valuable. And, of course, on top of that, there's also the in-hospice care, where that's necessary or preferred.

Given the importance of their services and the value of their services, it's quite incredible, really, to reflect, as others have, on the amount of their funding that they raise themselves, because it's so important to the delivery of healthcare in general, and, indeed, it takes so much pressure off the state that you really would think that more of that funding would come from the state sector. St David's foundation do an incredible job in terms of the amount of money they raise and the efforts they go to. I'm very pleased to run the Newport half marathon every year, which is a St David's foundation event and a major fundraiser for them, and it's coming up in a few weeks' time and I look forward to taking part again. And I know there are some issues around the continuation of that event, which need to be addressed, Dirprwy Lywydd, because it is so important to St David's foundation.

I also want to pay tribute to Tŷ Hafan, because, again, I've been privileged to visit their hospice in Sully on a number of occasions, and I know, again, how important their services are to families. And, as we know, there are ever more complex conditions that young people have in Wales, and demand for their services is growing week on week, months on months. Given all the other challenges that we know about—the cost-of-living crisis, the effect of inflation, pay awards—it's obviously incredibly difficult for them, given increasing demand, but increasing cost pressures, to provide the services, the level of services, the quality of services, that they are so committed to. And it's so heart-rending to visit that hospice and see the hand prints on the walls of the children who have benefited from Tŷ Hafan's work over the years, and their dedicated staff, that I think all of us would know how important it is to just do absolutely everything we can, everything Welsh Government is able to do, to provide the support that they need, going into the future and facing these challenges. Because it's about the individual children, isn't it? It's about the families. It's about the communities.

I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services, Eluned Morgan.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to thank Mabon ap Gwynfor for bringing this important issue to the Chamber, and I recognise his personal commitment to this particular agenda, and I'd like to thank everyone else who's contributed today.

I think we can all agree that charitable hospices play an absolutely essential role in providing high-quality end-of-life care and support. One of the most difficult times in anybody's life is when you lose a loved one, and to have that kind of expertise in terms of support around you, when you're going through that, is absolutely invaluable. So, it does make a huge difference, not just to the person who's in that end-of-life area, but also, obviously, to the families. And I think we've got to recognise the massive contribution that hospices make to the NHS in Wales. They certainly help to reduce admissions through supporting people to die in their own homes. The numbers were absolutely staggering that I was given the other day on that visit to St David's hospice. And the point is that most people would like to die at home, and that's so much of what they do. We sometimes miss that, actually, the vast, vast majority of their work happens within people's homes.

Now, I know hospices are facing increasing challenges, and that, like everyone else, they're trying to manage these increases in energy and running costs. I've met with Hospices Cymru, the organisation that represents hospices across Wales, and individual hospices to discuss their concerns. And it was really a huge privilege to be invited by Jayne to visit St David's hospice in Newport, and thank you for that invitation. I certainly learnt a lot. It's an incredible building, and the atmosphere was just pitched absolutely right in terms of the kind of quality of care that they're trying to give. I've also visited Nightingale House Hospice and Tŷ Hafan, just to see for myself the first-hand challenges that they're facing. And I'd like to wish John good luck in his half marathon, in raising those funds, which I know he does on annual basis. 

They have informed me that 90 per cent of hospices are budgeting for a deficit in 2023-24, and they're drawing on reserves to meet that shortfall. I absolutely recognise that this is a difficult situation for hospices to be facing. As Members are aware, we are in a difficult situation financially, and this comes at a time when we're also trying to recover from the impact of the pandemic, and to get to grips with the fact that we do have an ageing population. Some of the figures that we were told about by Mabon, in terms of the increase that we're likely to see in this space, is something that we have to take seriously. 

We have committed to working with the hospice sector to address these issues, and to investigate what else we could do to help support hospices. You'll be aware that, in 2021, we made a programme for government commitment to maintain a focus on end-of-life care, and to review hospice funding. In October 2022, we published the quality statement on end-of-life care and palliative care, and despite the challenging circumstances we continue to uphold these key Government commitments. So, we've delivered on the initial phase of the hospice funding review, and we did provide an additional £2.2 million for hospices on a recurrent basis from April 2022. 

Now, in response to the second phase of the review, funding is being made available to increase the capacity of district nursing and community clinical nurse specialists, some specifically focused on end-of-life care as part of that Further Faster programme; it was good to speak to the hospice about that. The palliative and end-of-life care programme team is now working to deliver the third and final phase of the funding review. That work is being carried out in collaboration with the voluntary hospice sector to understand and to interpret the differences, the inequities and the risks to current funding and commissioning arrangements. 

This phase will include consideration of many of the pressing issues that hospices are facing, including those inflationary uplifts to current funding streams, the service level agreements and improving equity for hospice funding, and an appreciation of the workforce challenges, and the impact that an ageing population has on end-of-life care, both in the medium and longer term, is also being considered to enable more effective planning for future needs.

We expect the final version of the interim phase 3 report to provide recommendations for the short to medium-term, and I expect to see these later this month. Those for the long term will also be completed later this year. We will take our time to consider them fully, but I do want you to be aware that I am taking this issue seriously. I do understand how serious the situation is, in a period that is particularly challenging financially. It’s also important that we consider whether the clinical intervention that we're making is making a sufficient difference and is of value. So, we need to consider this across the NHS.

In terms of the specific demands on the Welsh Government in section 2 of the motion, I fully agree with point (a), that working alongside the sector is crucially important. I have mentioned previously that the palliative and end-of-life care programme team have started to implement this already, and they are looking at the specific issues in terms of funding and the challenges faced by the sector. They’re also considering the planning work for the longer term. The programme team is also considering whether it is possible to develop a national commissioning framework for hospices. Such a framework would seek a sustainable financial solution for the longer term regarding the partnership with the hospice sector, and it would also provide a national service specification for palliative and end-of-life care. Responding to workforce challenges is also a priority for the programme team, and it is a crucial part of the quality statement.

I know that there has been a question around whether the additional funding that health boards have received for hospices will actually be honoured, and I've got to tell you that that funding has been ring-fenced for hospices, and the narrative in the NHS co-allocation letter confirms this, and a follow-up letter from the deputy chief medical officer is going to be issued and copied to hospices. So, I hope that gives them a degree of confidence that what we said should go to hospices actually does get to them on the front line.

Finally, and in terms of point (c), I’ve already accepted that more time is needed in order to provide more accurate estimates of the numbers in play here, and to gather further evidence for the final phase 3 report.

So, thank you once again to Plaid Cymru for raising this important issue. I want to assure you that the Welsh Government is still committed to providing palliative and end-of-life care of high quality across Wales. Thank you.

I call on Mabon ap Gwynfor to reply to the debate. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, this is fundamentally about fair funding for our hospices, and not necessarily always new money, albeit that is also an important factor where they are looking for an uplift, and for security, and hearing of that ring-fenced fund security will hopefully alleviate some of the concerns. But it’s also about ensuring that they receive the money that they have effectively been promised previously. Successive health Ministers have instructed health boards to ensure that hospices receive the equivalent uplifts in relation to 'Agenda for Change' and inflation over the last six year, but there are examples, such as in Betsi Cadwaladr in my own area, where these instructions have been ignored. I hope that the Minister will take this up, and if the Minister wishes, I’ll write to her directly on this point.

The fundamental point remains that hospices provide services that the health boards would otherwise have to provide, but we’re seeing the closure of specialist palliative care beds in hospitals now. Health boards have, over the years, closed specialist palliative care beds in acute and community hospitals, and then transferred that responsibility over to hospices. Ysbyty Eryri in Caernarfon is a case in point. Yet, even though the health boards have closed these beds, the funding doesn’t follow, so charitable hospices are having to raise funds from their communities to replace the services that have been cut and should actually be the responsibility of the health board. Is it right that our health boards are cutting back on their provisions with the expectation that hospices pick up the slack, yet they don't receive the proper funding for it? So, I hope that the Minister will take that up and put pressure on the health boards in order to honour the payments that they have to do.

Furthermore, successive investments and emergency funding arrangements have been put in place to support health boards in times of rising costs, but this has been denied to hospices, thus increasing the burden and pushing the sector into what I described earlier as an existential crisis. And this while hospices continue to offer front-line core services that health boards can't or choose not to provide. 

We also have poor or non-existent commissioning arrangements. Health boards have very poor arrangements with the hospices, which means that funding models are outdated and exploitative, and there is little wish to change them. But, listening to the Minister's response now, the Minister mentioned that she will be looking at the service level agreements, so hopefully that will answer that concern. But, as Jayne Bryant said, a palliative care bed costs somewhere between £600 and £1,300 for some health boards, yet the funding that hospices receive from the health board is around a £150 a night, which is far from sufficient to maintain the service—which is a five-star service—provided by our hospices.

I note that both Jayne Bryant and John Griffiths talked about St. David's and the fantastic service in St. David's in Newport. It came as a shock to me, hearing the statistics there, that the number of people that they deal with is greater than the acute hospitals in the region combined, which goes to show the value of the St. David's hospice in Newport and every other hospice in Wales, the same. But I'll extend the same invitation to the Minister: if the Minister wishes to join me on a visit to St David's in north Wales, that would be welcomed by St. David's, to see the work carried out up there too.

Finally, on the issue around these independent charities and the communities that they serve being exploited, and going back to that point, why should specialist end-of-life care in comfortable surroundings depend on how many second-hand clothes or how many people run a specific race, and how much funding that they can raise locally? Why should they be dependent on that? That's not a model that can be justified in modern society.

Finally, the Minister did talk about the phase 3. Now, we understand that we expect something this month. That gives six days, I think, so can we expect to see something next week? I would appreciate some clarity on that.

So, just to finish off my contribution, the call today is to find a proper funding model that ensures fair pay for staff, ensures a sustainable long-term funding model, and if that can't be delivered through the current review, then extend that review as we've heard—grateful to the Minister for that—to find a credible agreement. That's why we've got this motion before us and I would appreciate everybody's support this evening. Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

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

Item 7 has been postponed until 31 January. 

So, we'll move on to item 8, which is the Welsh Conservatives' debate on local government funding. I call on Sam Rowlands to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to be opening this debate this evening on local governmental funding, and I move the Welsh Conservative motion tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar.

There is no getting away from the fact that this is a difficult time for public finances. We've got the accumulation of impact of global issues continuing to ripple, increasing the costs of goods, raw materials, delivering services and much else besides. Inflation has been a huge challenge. Thankfully, we are seeing this change. It is coming down, having been halved thanks to the actions of our Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, but there is still more to be done.

And this context is important to understand, because this context has an impact on our councils here in Wales. But we must always remember that local government funding is controlled by the Labour Welsh Government. They have, of course, benefited this year from record levels of funding from a UK Conservative Government. How they then manage that money is entirely up to them. Unfortunately for local councils, Welsh Labour continue to use a local government funding formula that is fundamentally unfair.

We see councils in north Wales and rural areas punished, creating a winners and losers system. As one example from my own region in the last financial year, Denbighshire council received £256 per head more than its neighbouring Conwy, which has very, very similar geography, demographics and local economy. It’s created a £20 million funding gap between the two local authorities—15 per cent higher in one than the other. It’s very, very hard to see why such a discrepancy is in place. The funding formula needs wholesale reform.

It's a fact that—[Interruption.] Is this an intervention?

Yes, just on this unfair funding formula. The only way to change it is if you can get all of the local authorities to agree to a different one, because it's something that they do together. So, if you think that it's unfair—and it may be—then what would you do?

Wouldn't it be fantastic if the Welsh Government took responsibility and took a lead on this as well, and worked with those local authorities to see how those discrepancies could be worked through?

It’s a fact that, in total, council tax in Wales has increased by over £900 per household, or around 200 per cent, since the Labour Government started here in this Welsh Senedd. There is obviously something wrong, where taxes levied by local authorities are going up by that much—200 per cent—and it’s our ordinary taxpayers left paying the price for it. It’s clear again that wholesale reform, which Jenny Rathbone I’m sure is also keen to see, is needed. We are calling, and continue to call, on the Welsh Government to commission—and this is where they can take the lead—an independent review of the funding formula, to make sure that this disparity in levels of funding ceases to happen.

Remarkably, when some councils are struggling with persistent underfunding, other councils have managed to squirrel away excessive amounts of money held back in reserves. We know that councils in Wales are holding around £2.75 billion in reserves at the moment. I’m half waiting for Mike Hedges to jump in at this point, but it’s completely appropriate for councils to hold on to a level of reserves for a rainy day—for those difficult times. Now, some would say that it is now pouring with rain, and it’s a difficult time, and that those reserves need to be seriously looked at. So, rather than holding on to those reserves for an even rainier day, perhaps they need to be used, looked at, reviewed, to ensure that they are protecting our vulnerable people and essential services, rather than laying the burden even further on taxpayers.

Let’s take, for example, the Labour-run Rhondda Cynon Taf council. It has £270 million in reserves. Now, there’s no denying that some of that money is prudently held there in reserve, and it’s the right thing to do. But we also know that in Rhondda Cynon Taf, the local authority there is doing a review of free school transport and putting council tax up again way above 5 per cent, so it’s hard to justify holding on to £270 million while also having those cuts to local authority services.

So, this slashing of services, combined with hiking taxes, is happening all over Wales. Hard-pressed taxpayers are getting the worst of all worlds, and the Welsh Government refuse to do anything about it. It’s classic Welsh Labour, really. They complain about not having much money, do nothing about it, and then pass the problem on to our councils to hike taxes instead. They are experts in passing the buck and forcing the difficult decisions onto our councils.

As a result, some councils are having to consult now on council tax rises of up to 25 per cent for next year—an eye-watering increase that would land at the door of our hard-working residents. In this context, we on these benches believe that people deserve a greater say over these council tax hikes. We think that it is now time that any local authority proposing a council tax rise of over 5 per cent should be required to hold a local referendum on that tax rise. This would increase accountability for councils up and down Wales that have substantial reserves. It would also increase public involvement with these plans. If rejected, councils would again have to think and look at alternative measures.

In the meantime, we note today that a further £600 million has been announced by the Conservative UK Government to support councils in England. Now, on these benches, we agree with the Welsh Local Government Association, and stand with our councils in Wales, so that any consequentials from that announcement from the UK Government should be passported straight to our councils so that they can reduce any council tax rises and help to deliver the services that our residents need. And, Minister, I'd be grateful to hear whether that's something that you're committing to do today, as well, as a Welsh Government.

So, in short and in conclusion, this Cardiff Government should be doing everything it can to create a fairer, more equitable system for local authorities, instead of the current mess that we're in here today. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Social Justice to move formally amendments 1 and 3, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths.

Formally.

I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to move amendment 2, tabled in his name.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the Plaid Cymru amendment in my name.

Plaid Cymru firmly believes that local government is a cornerstone of our civic society, but in this period of extreme financial hardship, the grim reality facing local authorities is one of existential crisis. In the space of just over a year, we've seen five English councils declare themselves bankrupt. So far, we've yet to reach this point in Wales, but the scale of the challenge was underlined by the UK Public Accounts Committee, which revealed that the 22 Welsh local authorities are facing a combined debt of £5.6 billion. Local government finances in Wales are currently on an unsustainable trajectory, with a £354 million funding gap projected during the next financial year, which could rise to £750 million by 2027-28.

The impact of today's announcement in Westminster of an extra £600 million for English local authorities will result in Barnett consequentials for Wales, as confirmed by the Westminster Government. My first question to the Minister is: how will the Welsh Government prioritise the additional funding, bearing in mind the finance Minister's assertions that local services and local government are a priority for this Government? Will the Government commit to spending the consequential funds to raise the floor from 2 per cent to at least 3 per cent, or to the average of 3.1 per cent? It would significantly benefit many local authorities, particularly those in rural areas. Can I implore the Government to give clear and prompt information to councils on the level of extra funding to minimise the impact on council tax rises and local services in time to be able to set their own budgets?

To return to the wording of the Tory motion, rather than shifting the blame for the catastrophic failures of Westminster onto our local authorities, we should be championing the heroic work that they have been doing. But the limited resources at the disposal of our local authorities can only go so far in mitigating Westminster's mess. This means that significant hikes in council tax over the coming financial year are regrettably likely. Plaid Cymru has long held the view that council tax is a regressive model of taxation that unfairly penalises the most deprived households, and, unlike the Tories, who have once again demonstrated that they bring absolutely nothing to the table in terms of constructive solutions, we are proud to be delivering a radical programme for reforming council tax in Wales to ensure that our public services are funded in a fairer way.

In the more immediate term, however, local authorities deserve as much support and certainty as we can possibly provide from the Senedd. We therefore need a plan of action from the Welsh Government for managing the substantial funding gaps facing local authorities in the coming year—

Will you take an intervention?

I'm going to test David, anyway, so—. Go on then, Sam.

You clearly have some concerns about the position that local authorities are in—rightfully so—financially, and you've challenged the Government about the funding floor, as well, in your earlier comments. So, when it comes to the budget vote in a couple of months' time, or in a few weeks' time, would that be a red line for you to be able to support the Welsh Government's budget or not?

We'll be considering what the Minister has to say and we'll be considering everything as we go through. The Welsh Government needs to explain how the 5 per cent increase to teachers' pay will be funded. It is the expectation that local authorities will have to foot the bill. If so, do you concede the point that this adds further pressure onto the RSG? We also need both major Westminster parties to own up to the chronic underfunding of Wales by successive UK Governments and to pledge to replace the current Barnett formula that has left us short changed year on year. Unfortunately, despite clear academic evidence in favour of a needs-based reform of Barnett, neither major Westminster party has shown any interest in addressing this injustice and providing us with a fair funding settlement. This might be expected of a Tory party that has shown time and again it's utter disdain for Wales, but by pledging not to turn on the spending taps and saying nothing about the deficiencies of the Barnett funding model, Keir Starmer is condemning our local authorities to a highly uncertain future.

So, instead of pitching unworkable and unhelpful gimmicks like the one contained in the original motion, or clinging on to the vain hope that Keir Starmer will have a complete change of heart on his pro-austerity agenda, Senedd Members across this Chamber can show that they are truly serious about supporting our local authorities by voting for Plaid Cymru's amendment. This is the only way to send a clear message to Westminster that business as usual is simply not good enough. Diolch yn fawr.

Our Welsh councils are so fundamentally important to the lives of Welsh people, and I have nothing but respect for what they do and all who work and provide the services we depend on. There's no dissent of these benches about that. They are right at the chalkface, delivering those vital services to all, from the very young to the elderly to the most vulnerable. But this coming year will be the hardest year that local government will have had to face during the last 25 years, definitely, and it's certainly harder than anything I experienced in my 13 years as leader, or 25 years as a councillor. I have heard directly from council leaders, many of them recently, and they are of one voice in that key services are at risk, many statutory services will face significant cuts, and discretionary services will take a huge hit as we are already seeing from their budget proposals. And I believe what they're saying.

So, why is this? Well, the fact is the local government settlement at 3.1 per cent is poor. It's a huge real-terms cut to our councils delivered by the Welsh Labour Government, who well know how incredibly hard it will be for councils and their residents as a result. We hear so often Labour in here saying how terrible the UK Government are for levelling a £1.3 billion real-terms cut, yet, in the dash of a pen, they'll pass the bulk of that on to local government without a second thought. While councils welcome the 3.1 per cent, the settlement, they tell us, will only deliver around £170 million extra to the sector. To put things into context, the pressure on social care alone is estimated at around £230 million. We know that circa 50 per cent of council costs are staffing costs, so it's clear to see that the 3.1 per cent increase will not go far at all in addressing pay pressures, such as 5 per cent for teachers, 4 per cent or 5 per cent for all other pay, and 8 per cent or 9 per cent to cover real living wage increases. All of this, let alone covering inflationary pressures such as energy and fuel, with some of those elements going up by 300 per cent. It's clear that a direct consequence of the Welsh Government's real-terms cut to councils would force them to propose the council tax increases they have. Yes, they will draw off their reserves to mitigate a little, but they have little flexibility. Councils have been put in an untenable position by this Government.

Residents in Monmouthshire are being faced with a 7.5 per cent council tax rise, with the average family going to pay roughly £252 more a year, and we know that there will be similar increases, with many a lot higher, across Wales. As a past long-standing council leader, I know that difficult choices must be made, and councils have to work with the budget they are given. Yes, we can challenge some of the decisions that they make locally, and I'll certainly do that. But I think these high tax hikes are unconscionable at a time when people are already struggling so much. The truth is that the Welsh Government is forcing councils across the country to make terrible, difficult decisions. You could even say it's passing on a stealth tax. Let us be clear, it is the Welsh Government who is ultimately responsible for the increase in council tax rises across Wales, yet they say this year's budget is, a quote,

'A Budget to Protect the Services which Matter Most to You'.

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, very clearly, this isn't a budget that does that. On top of the pressures councils face due to the settlement, we have to recognise that things are made worse for many councils due to the incredibly unfair funding formula. It is a key factor in determining the resilience of individual councils. The way resources are distributed is no longer fit for purpose. We see a system that enables some councils to deliver all of their services whilst accumulating significant reserves, whilst others struggle to deliver their services and have minimal reserves. This anomaly has to be understood. This is why we need to see an independent assessment and review of the local government formula.

In these exceptionally difficult times, with the cost of living as it is, the last thing families needs to see are huge increases in their council tax bills. That 7.5 per cent—

 Peter, can you conclude now, please?

Yes, I will. That 7.5 per cent a year will roll forward, and future increases will be added, and, before you know it, you'll see 20, 25 per cent increases. This is why the Welsh Government must work with local authorities to find a way to keep council tax as low as possible. We have to think of the pressure on families. There is only so much they can bear. This is why we believe that, as in England, any local authority proposing a council tax rise of over 5 per cent should hold a referendum on their plans. I move our motion.

I’m very grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I’m sure the Deputy Presiding Officer will be pleased that it will only be a short contribution from me, as other Members will, no doubt.

I hope they learn. [Laughter.]

Deputy Presiding Officer, I note the motion in front of us today calls for reviewing of the local government funding formula—an important point to make. I also note the amendment from the Welsh Government says it will continue to develop and maintain the formula in partnership with local government. Deputy Presiding Officer, where I come from, where my argument comes from, in this debate and what I’m particularly keen to see happen is for councils—and, in particular, councillors themselves, who know these matters best—to get involved and to seek to make some proposals about what the formula should be, and then we can seek to ask the Welsh Government if they will take that into serious consideration. I’ve raised this point with previous local government Ministers over a number of years, over the six years certainly I've been in this place, and all local government Ministers have fed back to me that they were keen to understand proposals from local councillors themselves and to take them seriously. So, I wonder if the Minister in front of us, in responding to the debate today on behalf of the Welsh Government, will seek to give that agreement—if councils and councillors, like my own in Flintshire and others across Wales, do come forward with serious proposals, will the Welsh Government and Welsh Government officials be willing enough to engage and look at those proposals and take them into serious consideration? I’d be grateful for a reply from the Minister to that request. Diolch.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to start by thanking my party for tabling this important debate today. The latest round of draft budgets from councils in my region make for bleak reading. In Caerphilly, we see a proposed increase in council tax of 6.9 per cent. In Monmouthshire, we see a proposed increase of 7.5 per cent. In Newport, we see a proposed increase in council tax of 8.5 per cent, and I could carry on. Significant rises in councils across Wales are indicative of enormous burdens that local governments are expected to shoulder.

As well as, of course, taking into account that we are in hard times, local authorities blame the limited funding they have received on the Welsh Government, yet we don’t hear a word from Labour councils on the Welsh Government’s misplaced spending priorities. We just have to look at what the Welsh Government decide to pump money into, instead of pumping money into where it is needed, into those local government budgets. The enormous funds that the Welsh Government have wasted in recent years alone stand testament to the fact that Labour seemingly believe that hard-working people in Wales are fair game to be financially punished, whilst Labour prioritise their pet projects instead of properly funding local government, who are trying to deliver vital services within our communities. There are many examples of the Welsh Government wasting considerable sums of money and getting extremely little, if anything, in return. This money could, and should, have been used for areas that are lacking funding, including the funding for local government, where we expect core services to be delivered, particularly in health and social care, and education.

Hardworking taxpayers in my region who already feel the cost of 26 years of Welsh Labour now face ever-increasing tax and cuts to local services, thanks to these decisions. The Welsh Labour Government's proposed budget has granted a mere 3.1 per cent uplift for councils, bearing in mind that these are councils that deliver core services—important, crucial services in our communities. Councils had warned the Welsh Government that a very small increase would inevitably result in cuts to services, job losses and increases in council tax, yet the Labour Government plough on regardless. That's why the Welsh Conservatives are calling for councils to be forced to hold a local referendum whenever they attempt to increase council tax beyond a cap of 5 per cent.

Although, today, I'm glad to see, of course, as we've seen in the news, that thanks to the UK Conservative Government, the Welsh Government will receive additional funding to support local authorities across Wales. And, as has already been said by Sam Rowlands, I hope that this Labour administration actually passes that funding on to our local councils in full and does not short-change important services. Which is similar, of course, to what has been practiced in England since the 2012-13 financial year. This Welsh Government, though, have included a 2 per cent floor to the funding increase for Welsh local authorities via the provision of an additional £1.3 million; meanwhile, the UK Government has provided a 3 per cent funding floor for core spending power for English councils, ahead of any decision that they have to make regarding organisational efficiencies, uses of reserves and council tax. Once again, we see two different Governments with two different sets of priorities: one that wants to keep taxes as low as possible and maintain a good level of public services; and the other is expecting taxes to go up whilst cutting services to the bone. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out which one is which.

Welsh Conservatives continue to call for an independent review of the council funding formula. It is utterly unfair. It punishes rural areas, and doesn't take into account the unique problems that they face. It is clearly a political choice to keep the current funding formula, and that is why calls for an independent review are absolutely necessary. It is clear it's not working, it's not fit for purpose, much like this Government. Taxpayers and councils across my region, and Wales, are getting a raw deal. Like my fellow Members have already said, it's time to deal with councils sitting on such enormous reserves. I hope this debate today speaks some sense into the Welsh Government and forces them to change course, and I urge everyone in this Chamber to accept our motion.

Firstly, I'm grateful to the Conservatives for this debate today and the recognition of the vital role that councils play in delivering public services across Wales. Councils need more money to meet both their statutory duties and the needs of the area they cover. Parks are not a statutory duty, but I think most people in the areas they represent would find great opposition if they wanted to close parks. A shortfall in income has to be made up from reserves and by increasing charges and raising council tax, as well as cutting services. 

Council services are not just education, social services, potholes and refuse collection. If I was to list the full range of services provided by councils, I would use up the full five minutes and not complete the list. Last week, in the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee, we discussed councils' building control services, the services that make sure that buildings are safe, sustainable and accessible for—

Will you accept an intervention?

Yes.

Thank you. In 2011, when I was elected—and I was the local government shadow Minister—we raised this then, and there was consensus in this Chamber that the funding formula was flawed then. I make representations to my leader, Councillor Charlie McCoubrey; do you make those same representations, Mike?

I hope you're going to listen to me later on, because I'm going to explain how the funding formula works. 

We know.

No, you don't. I think that is where the serious problem is: you don't understand it. 

It covers domestic, commercial and public-use buildings and makes sure they meet building regulations. A council service that is rarely discussed, but vital to public safety. 

I want to also highlight the importance of environmental health. One of the great successes of the Welsh Government has been the food hygiene rating. Each business receives a rating when inspected by a local authority food safety officer. This rating is based on the standard of compliance with food hygiene law. It's an example of preventative spend by local government that reduces health demand.

Councils are funded by a combination of aggregate external finance, which is a combination of the rate support grant and a council's share of the non-domestic rate, as well as council tax, fees and charges levied by the council. Standard spending assessments—now we're on to the key item, and I hope the Conservatives are going to listen to this—are the mechanisms for the distribution of the revenue support grant to local authorities to enable them to charge the same level of council tax for the provision of a similar standard of services. They're intended to reflect variations in the need to spend, which might be respected if all authorities responded in a similar way to the demand for services in their area.

The total SSA for Wales is the same as the total amount of assumed budget for local authorities in Wales in the Senedd's Government budget. The overall SSA total amount is therefore influenced by decisions on the underlying increase in funding from central Government. However, SSAs are not a mechanism for distributing grants and are in no way meant to be prescriptive in relation to local authorities. Actual budgets may be above or below the SSA for a given local authority, since decisions on the level of service provided vary from local authority to local authority. Any local authority spending above the SSA will be funded entirely from the council tax. The ability of an authority to set their own spending priorities is an important part of local government, and, in fact, an important part of democracy. In principle, the SSA is unhypothecated support for authorities.

A separate method of distribution exists for each service element in order to distribute a total across the authorities. Some services do not have their own formula, but are just really using that of a related service. The distribution methods fall into two categories: a formula based on indicators of need and distribution based on actual expenditure or estimates of expenditure. The majority of services are distributed according to indicators of need.

Would you take an intervention there, Mike?

Yes.

Thank you. As a fellow lover of the standard spending assessment that you referred to there, you'll be aware that, in the SSA, it indicates that for residents over the age of 60, councils will receive funding equivalent to about £11.99, but for residents over the age of 85, those local authorities receive £1,900. So, £12 if you're over 60; £1,900 if you're over 85. That is a huge difference. I've got lots of residents in my region who are perhaps in their 70s, late 70s, who aren't acknowledged as needing that level of support that those over 85 need. So, there's a great example, I think, of why the funding formula needs reviewing. Would you agree with me?

Well, speaking as somebody who's over 60, I don't think I'm a greater burden on the local authority in terms of demand than I was when I was 40 or 50.

Using indicators of need as opposed to direct measures of service utilisation prevent local authorities from directly influencing the SSA, and hence the amount of grant they receive. The indicators used in these formulas can be grouped into three main client groups. The main factors involved in determining costs are population, number of pupils, length of road; deprivation indicators to reflect the additional costs of providing services to populations with higher levels of deprivation; and population dispersion, which you normally describe as 'sparsity'.

The aggregate external finance is the total level of support that the Government provides to local authorities. This support is made up of the revenue support grant specific formula and ring-fenced grants and the amount distributed from business rates. Unfortunately—and I say this almost every year—the Welsh Government refuses to publish the SSA calculations for each authority. Whilst this would be long for each authority and be quite complicated, everyone could see how it is calculated. It also refuses to publish the aggregate external finance calculation. The failure to print these calculations makes people less trusting of the published figures and we end up with these Conservative debates every year.

It's great that we have this debate today because it's extremely important that we address the issue of how we support some of the most vulnerable people in our society and offer Members here the opportunity to highlight the issues that are affecting the constituents that they represent.

Firstly, Dirprwy Lywydd, if I may, I'd like to pick up on a point of how some council leaders, in my opinion, are using council tax rises as an opportunity to deliberately scaremonger our most vulnerable constituents. In particular, I would like to highlight how my own council leader, Andrew Morgan, has said on record that 35 to 40 per cent council tax hikes are needed to ensure that there are no cuts to services, which is frankly nothing shy of blatant politicking. Rhondda Cynon Taf, as we've already heard, has £270 million in reserves, sat in the bank doing nothing. It has received a 2.8 per cent increase from the Welsh Government, worth over £13.8 million. And Andrew Morgan and co would rather frighten hard-working council tax payers than use the money that it has just sitting around doing nothing.

RCT council has recently proposed a 4.9 per cent council tax increase, which it said would bring in over £1 million extra per year. I believe, Dirprwy Lywydd, that if the council were minded to help people in RCT, it could well afford to scrap this council tax increase altogether. Welsh councils, as we have already heard, are sitting on reserves of—[Interruption.] No, I've just started; I'll carry on. They are sitting on reserves of £2.7 billion, and I think, Dirprwy Lywydd, that it is wholly unjustifiable to keep hiking council tax when household budgets are stretched so much due to the inflationary pressures this country has experienced from outside influences beyond its control, and when councils have so much money sat in their bank accounts.

I believe wholeheartedly that it is time we finally had an independent review of council funding formulas and that there is more transparency and accountability as to what our money is used for and why so much is kept in reserve bank accounts. As we know, councils receive and spend huge sums of money, but it is unfair to keep raising council tax in this way, because it provides no incentive to use resources efficiently. It is well known and sadly well accepted that public services and bodies pay increased prices for items they could purchase cheaper, but restrictions in procurement do not encourage or sometimes even allow this.

We heard yet again yesterday about the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023, but I believe this Act will actually exacerbate this problem further. Local businesses will ultimately hike prices up when they know councils and other public bodies will have to buy from them to meet Welsh Government demands—after all, it's only other people's money. The fact that RCT council have recently found £5.2 million-worth of efficiency savings goes to show that they have not been diligent in the past in keeping an eye on how well money is spent. And as a former councillor in that local authority, I can well remember a raft of incredulous spending priorities, from chauffeur-driven cars and fancy dress costumes—[Interruption.] Oh, go on, Gareth, I will let you intervene.

Thanks, Joel. I heard the comments from Councillor Andrew Morgan, on Twitter and other things, and he's always saying that the money's been earmarked for capital projects, but why do these capital projects never happen and why do they never come to fruition, and why is £270 million just lying around in bank accounts and not being spent on the people who need it?

Yes, I fully agree with you, Gareth, and as you'll come to realise, Councillor Morgan's bark is worse than his bite.

So, from chauffeur-driven cars and fancy dress costumes to hideous art installations and the infamous dormouse bridges, the truth is that residents want to see services provided and not see money wasted on vanity projects.

Secondly, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd like to raise the point of how Welsh Government has its priorities wrong, and how this is having a detrimental impact on the people of Wales. Welsh Government have enforced budget cuts yet squandered almost £40 million implementing an unwelcome 20 mph blanket speed limit in Wales, which has been estimated to have delivered a paltry speed reduction of just 2.4 miles per hour and which will just be overturned when we come into Government.

My own council of RCT was given £3 million to put up signs, which have now been extensively vandalised. This figure is three times more than the proposed 4.9 per cent council tax increase it will deliver. Likewise, Cardiff has received £2 million to put up 20 mph road signs, which have been extensively vandalised, and the First Minister, who has gone on the record as an advocate of vandalising signs to make political points, must be cheery at the waste of so much public money that could have supported households across Wales. [Interruption.] I'm conscious of the time, sorry. [Interruption.] You're next. You're up next.

I have raised this point several times in the Chamber and do so again to highlight the inconvenient truth to the Welsh Government, who have no other excuse but to blame Westminster, that the UK Conservative Government has provided unprecedented levels of support in recent years to deal with the impact of COVID and the war in Ukraine: the £650 per person cost-of-living payment; the £300 cost-of-living payment for pensioners, coupled with the winter fuel payment; the £150 disability cost-of-living payment; the £150 council tax discount, payable to all households and properties in bands A to D, which has helped over 212,000 households in my region alone; and it has increased the minimum wage for all those over 21 to £11.44 per hour. We have also seen today an announcement of £600 million from the UK Government to help deliver key services like social care, for which we will receive consequential funding. With over two—

Joel, you need to conclude now. 

The last sentence, Dirprwy Lywydd. With over two decades of Labour rule in Wales, and over two decades of them blaming Westminster, people are finally demanding answers from this Welsh Government, and they can start by supporting our motion. 

Welsh local authorities face really difficult decisions this year, but it's nothing compared with what English local government is having to face. There have been huge numbers—significant local authorities in England—having to issue 114 notices, which means that they're essentially bankrupt. Even completely extreme right-wing Tories who opposed increasing income tax, like Priti Patel and Robert Jenrick, are asking the Prime Minister to put more money into local government. I should perhaps—

Will the Member give way? 

Yes. 

Jenny, you and I were at the Holocaust Memorial Day event yesterday, where we heard the atrocities of real far-right ideology. I think it's a real disservice to the survivors of the Holocaust to say that Priti Patel and Robert Jenrick are far-right Conservatives. 

I was trying to find the right words, and I apologise if I gave that impression at all. I completely agree on that; I'll desist from all that. But I know, from having talked to people in England, some of the really difficult decisions, particularly around school funding. My daughter is a teacher, and I can tell you that special needs is simply not being funded in schools in England, and it's really, really serious. 

Anyway, I'll leave that, because I think the Public Accounts Committee says it all, really, which is that the impact of these councils going bankrupt leaves extreme, long-lasting effects on residents in those areas. And paying off the debts in places like Woking, where people are owing £19,000 per resident, is completely scary. These are some of the difficult situations that local authorities have got themselves into. 

In Wales, local authorities have been nurtured, because we recognise the important role that local authorities play in the well-being of our communities. So, I'm very pleased that the UK Government is giving more money to English councils, because it means that, roughly, a £30 million consequential is coming our way. And, hopefully, I'm sure Rebecca Evans will be well minded to increase the amount of money, on top of the £170 million extra that local authorities are getting this year.

Nevertheless, I was very pleased—. And thanks to Peter Fox for inviting me to the meeting with Welsh local government leaders, because it was a really interesting meeting to hear from all of them—the ones who attended—and to realise just how complicated it is. For example, what the Welsh Government gives them obviously represents about 80 per cent of their revenue funding, and another 20 per cent from council tax. So, if they don't increase the council tax, then they have a lot less money for preventative services, because, inevitably, they have to spend more money on the biggest needs. But it's a difficult message if you're asking residents to pay more council tax while having to reduce services. But that, unfortunately, is the situation that local authorities are in. 

The cap on homecare charges—at £100 for the last three years—is also an issue that is going to have to be a subject of discussion, because if they can't recover extra costs, then, inevitably, they're going to be spending more money on those with higher needs, and those with lower needs then become people with higher needs, or end up in hospitals, which is, obviously, an even more expensive option. So, that is very difficult. 

I was very impressed with Lis Burnett, the leader of the Vale of Glamorgan, who said they'd been planning for the last six months on how they were going to manage next year's budget. Because, of course, three quarters of their budget is spent on education and social care, and that goes for any local authority. And that comes at a time of increased demand. She observed that elderly people were going out less. They're not using the buses, which means less revenue for the bus companies. And with children, there was clear developmental delay as a result of COVID. These are really serious issues for all of us.

Another dilemma is how should they approach pay increases. Should it be a flat rate, which would benefit the lower paid more? But if they don't do it on a percentage increase, then they're in danger of losing valuable key staff like social workers, which, obviously, leads to more costs at the other end. Some of the proposals that Cardiff have I think we should do, such as reducing non-recyclable waste to three-weekly collections, as long as they impose much more stringent fines on people who stick food waste into the recycling and the non-recycling. Otherwise, I can't see what the problem is there. But we have to ensure that we keep our libraries and our advice services open, even if they're open for less time, because then we're able to extend the services again when the money becomes less tight. So, these are some of the complex issues we really do have to grapple with, and thank you, David, for tolerating my overrun.

Over a decade of austerity has meant that councils are stretched to breaking. They have done all they can, year after year—restructuring, reorganising, and rationalising, plus looking at fees and charges to mitigate the cuts. In the latest autumn statement, Jeremy Hunt continued to spout the usual Tory mantra, saying that public services have to be more efficient, and that the UK Government wants an even smaller public state, continuing austerity. He is so far removed from the delivery of public services, which are at the heart of our communities, and employ so many people in north Wales, thus being a major part of the economy.

When councils heard the UK Government autumn statement saying that there would be no extra funding for public services, it was absolutely devastating. Councils in England are now going bankrupt, one by one. MPs, including Tory MPs, were threatening to vote against the budget, and they forced a u-turn, I believe, with Michael Gove, which should hopefully mean that Wales should receive an extra £30 million. And I hope, as was mentioned, that this will go towards increasing the funding floor, because no council should be at a point where they're unable to provide vital services, such as Conwy council, who are on their knees. Councils have a protected 3.1 per cent increase, higher than the 1 per cent passed to the Welsh Government, but any extra funding has fallen to the black hole of inflationary pressures, largely caused by the Truss budget and a terrible Brexit.

When there is a struggle, there is division, and some councils have asked for the funding formula to be reviewed, just like councils in England, who are saying that their funding formula is disproportionately beneficial to wealthier areas. I have asked for the funding formula to be looked at too on behalf of Flintshire County Council and, like Jack Sargeant, we've asked for practical suggestions to come forward that we can pass on as well. But, at the Local Government and Housing Committee, we were told there needs to be a closer inspection of it, rather than a major review, and that was by Gwynedd, who is one of the lowest funded councils. There are winners and losers, and change can often bring unexpected results.

I believe there needs to be better clarity for councils and councillors to understand the funding formula so they understand where the money is going. [Interruption.] I have asked for a review. We also heard that we need to increase the pot, but not how the pot's allocated. We should not be fighting over the crumbs for public services when the budget coming from Westminster is too small to start with. That's the basis of it. We should be fighting for an end to 13 years of austerity and an end to cuts to public services. The Welsh Government's budget is worth £1.3 billion less—

Will you take an intervention?

—than when the UK budget spending review was made in 2021—

I don't believe the Member is taking an intervention, Sam.

—and councils in Wales are facing a deficit of £421 million plus. Sam, I'll take your intervention, as long as I can carry on speaking.

I'm really grateful to you, Carolyn, for taking an in intervention. Many of the points you're making are in reference to Westminster and to the challenges that the UK Government are facing, but very, very little in terms of the Welsh Government. Do you believe in devolution?

I do believe in devolution. I'd like more devolution, but I would like the funding to come across that is owed to Wales, including HS2 funding, which we deserve. Money that gets found down the back of sofas in England does not come across to Wales.

Less money from the UK Government to devolved Governments, in real terms, equals fewer services and higher council tax bills to close the gap. If funding had kept pace with growth in the economy since 2010, it would be worth £3.5 billion more.

Many councils' reserves are needed. A family with children with complex needs could move to an area, and it could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds just for the one child. There could be heavy flooding, there could be snow. We need grants towards school buildings, care homes and much-needed social housing. The bigger an authority, the larger the reserves, but also the larger the building programme and housing need, depending on the size of that council.

We heard how Conwy council are in such a fragile state, because reserves have been used over the years, rather than increasing council tax. Housing has gone to a transfer association, who just provide housing, not homelessness support services, and the council is struggling to help those in need. They are on their knees. I believe this debate is not fair for councils and councillors, who are under terrible pressure and face terrible abuse already, and it's turning pressure on them. In fact, it's causing more division and hatred, which seems to be the Tory way, spreading mistrust. They have no option but to increase council tax or cut statutory services, such as social care and education.

Many people who cannot afford to pay council tax are entitled to council tax relief, and we need to do more to promote that, so they receive those benefits. Unfortunately, the Tory Government's universal credit does cause an issue for people wanting to get council tax relief, and that needs to be addressed. The benefits system needs to be addressed. The Tory benefits system needs to be addressed.

I will always continue to fight for councils in north Wales to have fair funding and a bigger slice, but when all councils are facing massive budgetary pressures, the pie is too small, and Wales should be entitled to its fair share of funding. Thank you.

I call on the Minister for Social Justice, Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank the Welsh Conservatives for tabling this debate today on local government, and thank Members across the Chamber for their contributions? I'd like to start by recording my thanks, once again, to local government, to elected Members and staff in all authorities, for the critical work that they do for communities, people and businesses across Wales. And, indeed, many of the speakers, including myself, have had the privilege of being councillors, and that experience is so valuable to us as Senedd Members.

Councils continue to deliver, despite ongoing challenges, and we continue to support them to do so. We've supported and worked with them during the tough times of austerity, floods, the pandemic, and we continue to do so during this period of inflationary pressure and increased demand. Having our own challenging financial position means we are restricted in what we can do. Our settlement for 2024-25 is now worth up to £1.3 billion less in real terms than expected at the time of the 2021 spending review. Once again, our funding settlement is insufficient to respond to the extraordinary pressures that Wales faces. And the choices made by the Chancellor in his autumn statement will have consequences across the UK, as public services once again face deep and damaging cuts, because they've been deprived of real investment. So, his choices have made our decisions harder.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we are responding to these challenging times with the levers that we have. Our budget prioritised front-line public services as far as possible, supporting the hardest-hit households, prioritising jobs, where we can. Next year, local authorities will see an increase of 3.1 per cent, on top of the consolidated increase of 7.9 per cent for the current year, and 9.4 per cent for 2022-23. Nevertheless, we know that, in the face of increasing demand, high inflation and pay pressures, authorities will be facing real challenges to deliver services, balance their budgets and support their local communities by keeping council tax rises as low as they can. And councils will of course be considering all options available to them. They will be looking at their services, what they might have to scale back without impacting on those most in need. They will be looking at universal services on which we all rely, and whether they can be made more efficient. They will be considering which charges they may have to increase, or where they can introduce new fees. Local elected members—and that's their role, this is local democracy—will be carefully considering the impacts of council tax increases on their communities. And councils will be considering how far they can use their reserves to help in each of these decisions without risking their long-term position.

I'm glad to have the opportunity this afternoon to put the record straight on a number of points in the Conservative motion, and let's start with reserves. Now, reserves are already being used, prudently, to support service change and to support those changes that they're undertaking with the delivery of their service, and also to meet short-term pressures. But it's simply wrong to take the technical description of a useable reserve, including individual schools' reserves and reserves for specific projects and the housing revenue account reserve, and suggest that all this can be used to ease the decisions for this year without worrying about next year.

Will you agree with me that a significant part of the useable reserves that local authorities hold is earmarked reserves? And do you agree with me that many of those earmarked reserves get inflated each year, and many haven't been drawn off for perhaps five years, or there are no plans to draw off them for the future, of five years? As such, that money should be utilised to help the local government family, collectively. Hence, we call on the Government to work with local authorities to unlock unused reserves, which aren't earmarked somewhere at the moment, perhaps to create a base in local government funding. Would you agree with the usage of those reserves prudently?

Well, of course, Peter, from your long experience in local government, you said the right thing—these are earmarked reserves. You know how difficult it is to use earmarked reserves, but, actually, councils are using them, they are using them prudently, and they're responding to short-term pressures. And I do want to say also, just in terms of the importance of those specific projects—capital has been mentioned—it is the Labour authorities that have built schools in our regions and our constituencies, across Wales. Through 13 years of austerity, we've been building those schools with our partners in local government. And the most recent example, and I'm sure you've all driven past it, is the wonderful Fitzalan High School, which serves this community.

So, I just think the decisions that are being made on services, on reserves and on council tax rises—. The important point, surely, is that they're taken by local, democratically elected members, by people who take their responsibilities seriously, and who face those—as we do, of course—our constituents, every day. Council tax is an essential part of the funding of local government. It contributes around £2 billion each year to essential local services. And when setting budgets and council tax levels, authorities do have a duty to carefully consider the balance between maintaining services and limiting the financial burden they place on households. And as Members well know, councils engage with their local communities on these choices. And the Welsh Government doesn't impose an artificial cap on council tax decisions, and we don't impose the additional costs and burden of a local referendum for increases above a centrally chosen level, as they do in England.

But Dirprwy Lywydd, I do regret the Chancellor's choices that mean that councils across the UK, not just in Wales, are having to make these difficult decisions. And it is important that we promote that range of support to help people who are finding it difficult. Our council tax reduction scheme provides consistent support across Wales, and means that over 200,011 people receive full support, and pay no council tax at all. And I'm so glad I can mention again our new Welsh benefits charter, which was launched on Monday. All 22 local authorities, in all your constituencies, signed up to this work, to improve the accessibility of the benefits system, and to encourage all eligible residents to claim support. Peredur.

Earlier, I was talking about the £600 million that has been announced in Westminster. Could you give a commitment about the consequential that will be coming to Wales, please?

I'll be coming on to that, I can assure you, just at the end of my response. I will be getting to that very quickly, Dirprwy Lywydd. But I do want to turn very briefly to the local government formula. There have always been calls for a fundamental review of the formula, and we and local government have always recognised risks and challenges such a review would pose. Any change, of course, would result in winners and losers, and that could be substantial. And we've always been clear—and this has been acknowledged today in this debate—if there is a collective appetite from local government to carry out a fundamental review of the local government settlement funding, we will act upon it together. And can I say 'thank you' to Mike Hedges, who has explained again today the importance of how the formula is made up? Of course, there is the opportunity for continuous review of the formula through the work of the distribution sub-group, overseen by the finance sub-group.

So, just very finally, yes, indeed, I turn to the announcement of additional funding for English local authorities that came today. Can I say, once again, the UK Government gave us, the Welsh Government, no pre-warning of this statement, no pre-warning of additional funding being provided in England? And we do not have any certainty on the level of any consequential funding. That is the position we're in today, but as Members will know, the Barnett formula applying in the usual way can mean also that our funding goes down in the round if there are other changes to other Government departments. So, I'm sure the Minister for Finance and Local Government will make the position clear to the Senedd once it's clear to the Welsh Government.

But I hope you will join with me just to say to our Welsh Conservatives: 'Did you know?' We didn't know. The Welsh Government, once again—disrespect from the UK Government. And we need to know, and we need to know soon, of that consequential for Wales. Diolch yn fawr. 

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

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. And I have to say it's actually quite amusing listening to Jane Hutt speak, because you've obviously forgotten that Liam Byrne—one of yours, one of Labour—actually left the note saying, 'We've no money left'. [Interruption.]

Now, Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru are crippling Wales— 

I would ask all Members to refrain from any noises so that we can all hear the contribution of the Member responding. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru, without any doubt, are crippling Wales, and they are certainly now debilitating my own local authority. The provisional settlement for 2024-25 is only £3.975 million more than 2023-24. That's the lowest increase, again, in settlement across the whole of Wales. And as the Labour Minister for finance has stated, Conwy has only received that because of the funding floor. Basically, the increase could have been worse. Clearly, as my colleague Sam Rowlands MS has outlined, the Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru local government funding formula is not fit for purpose. For those of you who weren't here earlier in the Chamber during this debate, I raised this in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 until you became shadow Minister. Every year, we raised this. 

I have to say how proud I am that it was my colleague Sam Rowlands, as leader of Conwy, who implemented the lowest council tax increase in Conwy over the past 20 years. That's Welsh Conservatives for you at every level of Government. [Interruption.] Councillor Charlie McCoubrey, the leader of Conwy council—[Interruption.] 

The Member can't understand or hear people asking because it's too noisy. Janet, you have two requests. Do you wish—? Janet, you have two requests for interventions. Do you wish to take them? 

Let me crack on a bit and then we'll see. So, £4.4 million is required for teachers and staff pay awards, which wipes out the 2 per cent increase. Peredur was quite correct in pointing out the funding and support coming from the UK Government, but I would ask what representations he has made to your council leader asking them to raise this with the WLGA and, of course, the Welsh Government.

Further reasons for the formula to be reviewed is the fact that 30 per cent of the data used is long out of date, and some of it goes back to 1991. In my own local authority, it penalises the older residents and the heavy cost of social care. And also the homeless issue that has been created by Welsh Government and these policies of the co-operation agreement is causing vast sums of money now to be spent on temporary accommodation. Councils in Wales have over £2.7 billion in useable reserves, and we also know too—and I know the First Minister isn’t too happy with me saying this—we know that the better settlements go to Welsh Labour-run local authorities, and they are usually sitting on millions of reserves—not earmarked reserves—year after year after year.

My local authority has to now, as well as looking to implement a very large council tax increase, close public conveniences, reduce litter bins and change weekly nappy collections to monthly. These proposals stink, and the source of the pollution lies with you and Plaid Cymru. Our UK Government is helping Wales, and the excellent news we had yesterday was that borrowing is now £5 billion lower, despite Labour leaving us without any money. You simply cannot blame the UK Government for your failings here in the Welsh Government. Councillor Dyfrig Siencyn, a Plaid Cymru councillor and leader of Gwynedd Council, has said:

‘with the latest announcement we have realistically reached the very end of what is possible without cutting services and raising Council Tax’.

You see, some of that shortfall could have been made up instead of being wasted by you. Fifty-two million pounds on buying Cardiff Airport, and as I understand the figures, £245 million spent on it; recent valuation, £15 million. That sounds good economics. Over £1.4 billion on infrastructure and Welsh Government projects that either failed, were cancelled or where overspending has taken place; £11 million on Bangor business park, which has been closed for over 20 years; £4.25 million on Gilestone farm; £20 million on just the initial work on universal basic income; £3.6 million on the constitutional committee and Senedd Commission; and £11.5 million on the dragon statue in Ebbw Vale.

Mike Hedges attempted to educate us about the funding formula. You know and I know, Mike, it’s flawed, but you haven’t done anything about it. Joel James highlighted that constituents are suffering from the scaremongering by council leaders such as Andrew Morgan, threatening our residents with higher council tax. Laura Jones, you were brilliant to point out the too many misplaced priorities, and again highlight years of absolute waste.

Jenny Rathbone pointed out the huge challenges our local authorities face, but you didn’t mention the fact that every time the Welsh Government brings in useless and unwanted legislation, such as 20 mph—[Interruption.] Hold on a minute. It is our local authorities left picking up the cost of this legislation because they are short-changed—

Janet, hang on a second. I know people are getting lively this evening, and it's a bit later than normal, but I do like to hear Janet contribute, and I would like to ensure that we're all able to hear her, because there's so much gossiping going on at the moment I can't hear the contribution. Janet.

I was looking some years ago, and I think it was Lesley Griffiths—

Continue with your contribution.

Thank you. I remember it was Lesley Griffiths, actually—we did have, where if it went over 5 per cent, the funding cap, you could be subject to a referendum, and I would call for that again.

Major reform is needed in the funding formula and how the Welsh Government distribute that. My authority and many other authorities in Wales deserve what they need to be able to provide those services. I am pleased that once again, in our weekly debates, it is the Welsh Conservatives who are standing up for the people of Wales. Diolch.

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

And this brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move immediately to voting time. Okay.

The first vote this evening is on item 6, the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 32, 12 abstentions and none against. Therefore the motion is agreed. 

The next vote is on item 8, the Welsh Conservatives debate. And I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 32 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed. 

I now call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, 21 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed. 

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Peredur Owen Griffiths. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, no abstentions and 34 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed. 

I now call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 32, no abstentions, 12 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed. 

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, 21 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed. 

Thank you, all. We move now to the short debate.

If people are leaving, please do so quietly.

We now move to the short debate, and I call on Altaf Hussain to speak to the topic that he has chosen. Altaf. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I have agreed to provide a minute of my time to Joyce Watson to contribute to this short debate. I look forward to hearing your thoughts, as well as the response by the Minister. 

A few weeks after Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Day, and a week away from Wold Cancer Day, on 4 February, which also happens to be Oesophageal Cancer Awareness Month, I would like to focus on a battle many in Wales fight silently: oesophageal and stomach cancer. Tackling oesophageal and stomach cancer has a special meaning for me. When I started my surgical training in the 1970s, my first operations were removing oesophageal cancers. At the time, the surgery was not very sophisticated. Thankfully, surgical techniques and medicines have greatly improved.

But, despite over 40 years of improved cancer survival rates, these silent, often invisible, enemies still claim far too many lives, leaving individuals and their families shattered and communities heartbroken. These cancers and their patients have not, historically, had the same status, attention or advocacy as other cancers. This should, hopefully, change, following the publication of the report, 'A Burning Issue', by Tenovus Cancer Care, which has chosen to examine the issues unique to these two cancers. With greater awareness, targeted actions and the unwavering spirit of Wales, we can turn the tide and improve the outcomes for every patient facing these challenges. I hope Members here today, and the Welsh Government, are able to lend their support.

Drawing on a combination of publicly available data, freedom of information requests and a round-table event for clinicians, the Tenovus Cancer Care report, 'A Burning Issue', paints a grim picture. In 2020 alone, over 800 individuals received an oesophageal or stomach cancer diagnosis. That's almost three people every day—their lives forever changed. And while these cancers may not dominate the headlines, their impact is undeniable. While these cancers account for 4.5 per cent of cancer incidence, they account for 7.7 per cent of cancer deaths. That is over 600 people in 2021—precious lives lost, leaving a void in families and communities across Wales.

Like most cancers, survival is largely dependent on the stage of diagnosis, meaning early detection and diagnosis is critical. However, there is currently no UK-wide screening test available to detect early stage oesophageal and stomach cancers, and the majority of cases are diagnosed in the late stages of the disease. Forty-two per cent of oesophageal cancers and 43 per cent of stomach cancers are diagnosed at stage 4. Compare this to a more survivable cancer, such as breast, where only 5 per cent are diagnosed at stage 4. Catching these cancers at an early stage is critical, if we’re going to make them more survivable. As both oesophageal and stomach cancers often have vague or no symptoms, increasing symptom awareness can be challenging.

A UK-wide survey performed by the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce in 2022 discovered that symptom awareness for oesophageal and stomach cancers is low. Only 1 per cent and 4 per cent of the people surveyed recognised the symptoms of these two cancers respectively.

Because of low symptom awareness, it is unusual for people with symptoms of these cancers to visit their GP, and, if they do, it has been found that 48 per cent of them will have to visit more than twice before being referred on. This indicates that people are either struggling to communicate the extent of their symptoms or the GPs sometimes fail to recognise their potential severity. These discrepancies in care can be seen in the time it takes for a referral to secondary care to be made, which can range from one day to 18 months. As with all cancers, every day of waiting is a day lost and a decrease in survival chances.

In Wales, an average of 19 per cent of people with oesophageal and stomach cancers are diagnosed in an A&E department. Often, this could be due to a lack of symptom awareness, slow referrals or missed opportunities for onward referral by GPs. However, these cancers are often symptomless until the later stages, so emergency presentations will be inevitable in some cases.

Next month is Oesophageal Cancer Awareness Month and Tenovus Cancer Care are launching their symptom awareness campaign for oesophageal and stomach cancers. They will be encouraging people with persistent indigestion and prolonged heartburn to speak to their GP and get their symptoms checked. The charity will also be working with community pharmacies in Wales's most deprived areas to place their symptom awareness messaging near indigestion and heartburn medication that deliver short-term relief, but can also help with masking symptoms of these two cancers. They are sharing the important message that, although these symptoms seem minor, they could be an indicator of something more serious.

Minister, I look forward to better understanding what the Welsh Government will be doing to help with this symptom awareness campaign that has been growing from the grass roots up. Members can certainly help by sharing information produced by Tenovus, as we all have a presence and public platforms in our communities. How can the Welsh Government—[Interruption.] Yes.

No. In a short debate, you can only intervene on the responding Member, not on the Member making the statement.

Oh, okay. Sorry about that.

Okay. Thank you. How can the Welsh Government help amplify the messaging and increase symptom awareness, especially since we have the new vague symptom, rapid diagnostic pathways up and running across all health boards?

Moving on to the diagnostic phase of the cancer pathway, we really must do more to embrace and roll out new innovative and often cheaper tools and techniques to help alleviate the capacity crisis facing Wales's endoscopy services. Waiting times and pressures lead many people who can afford to do so, and some who can't, to go private and pay for their diagnostic tests, and may cause some GPs to hesitate making a referral into secondary care.

There are some pockets of innovative practice happening now in Wales. For example, transnasal endoscopy is being used to investigate gastro-oesophageal symptoms. It is more comfortable than a conventional oral endoscope, needing fewer staff, has a shorter recovery time and takes up less space. Adoption of these new techniques, transnasal endoscopy and the swallowable sponge, needs acceleration, and Wales has a national diagnostics programme board to plan for such a thing. What discussions has the Minister had with the programme board to ensure that everyone eligible can access earlier, faster diagnostic tests, and what does the Minister believe should be done to ensure that GPs are not being put off from referring to diagnostic pathways due to concerns about over-demand? Although, if I was in your place, I would use these tools in primary care.

I want to end my contribution with some final thoughts concerning a precursor condition to oesophageal cancer and what clinicians want to see happen in this area. Barrett's oesophagus is a condition that causes cells to grow up normally in the oesophagus. It's also the only known precursor to oesophageal cancer. Around 3 per cent of people with Barrett's will develop oesophageal cancer. Because Barrett's can develop into oesophageal cancer, it is recommended that people are monitored regularly using endoscopy, the frequency of which is determined by the length of the abnormal segment of the oesophagus. Typically, this results in people with Barrett's having a surveillance endoscopy every two to five years. Surveillance must not be underestimated. There is a 30 per cent reduction in oesophageal cancer mortality for people with Barrett's who are under surveillance compared with those people who are not, and whilst only 3 per cent of people with Barrett's are thought to develop oesophageal cancer, this number makes up a large proportion of the cases of oesophageal cancer observed in Wales. Additionally, it is thought that Barrett's itself is massively underdiagnosed, so its role in oesophageal cancer can be under-represented.

Improved data collection is needed for Barrett's in Wales. The creation of a national registry for Barrett's will standardise the collection of data related to Barrett’s between health boards and ensure that everyone is monitored consistently. Improved, better data collection is required to evaluate the impact of Barrett’s on oesophageal cancer in Wales. In the absence of a national screening programme for oesophageal cancer, Barrett’s represents a unique opportunity for a nation the size of Wales to identify the people most at risk of oesophageal cancer and diagnose them at the earliest possible opportunity when treatment options are the most optimal.

I would welcome the Minister sharing her thoughts concerning the proposal. Clinicians working in this area are calling for a Barrett’s registry. Her support and the support of the Welsh Government would help turn such a proposal into reality, allowing us to better standardise detection and care across Wales, contributing to better outcomes for patients.

The current picture painted by oesophageal and stomach cancer may be grim and daunting, but with the attention they have received from Tenovus Cancer Care, improved symptom awareness, the roll-out of innovative, faster diagnostic techniques, a Wales-wide standardised Barrett’s registry, and our unwavering support, we can begin to sketch out a brighter future. Let's work together, as patients, healthcare professionals, the Welsh Government, and every citizen, to create a Wales where these cancers are not a death sentence, but a challenge we overcome together. Diolch yn fawr.

I thank you, Altaf, for tabling this important debate and for highlighting Tenovus's Life Shouldn't Be Hard to Swallow campaign. Charity-led campaigns, often funded by the generosity of the public, are vital in the battle against cancer, and they are particularly important, as you've highlighted today, in terms of raising awareness of less well-known but equally recognised diseases. I'm going to focus my contribution on Barrett's oesophagus.

I have a very close family member who was misdiagnosed—but not living in Wales, I have to say. It’s a precancerous condition. It’s symptomless, like you’ve said, but more common among those with long-term acid reflux problems, and it would be quite common for those individuals to just go and get some over-the-counter antacid medication. But there are signs, and being male over the age of 50 and overweight is a risk factor, and we do know that somewhere between 3 and 13 per cent of people with that condition unfortunately will go on to develop an oesophageal cancer, so it’s vital that it’s picked up. So, I support your call for that register. And we know also that, in terms of diagnostic tools, it’s endoscopy, which can be problematic in terms of referral and also take-up. But I did read some time ago about an electronic nose that can detect patients with Barrett’s by analysing their breath. So, this is a new technology, and it can help fast-track and avoid all that unnecessary invasive screening.

So, I’m hoping, Minister, that we can certainly have a look at that, and Wales is really good at looking at new, innovative technology. I thank you for raising awareness of it, and until I was faced with a very close family member having the condition and then going on to having stage 4 cancer, I’d never heard of it. And I had to take part in the debate today, and I will certainly be helping them put out those posters to warn people.

I’d like to call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate—Eluned Morgan.

I’d like to thank Altaf Hussain for bringing forward this short debate on oesophageal and stomach cancers, two of the so-called ‘less survivable’ cancers, given the recent awareness day. I’m always keen, of course, to listen to what Altaf has to say, and I must say, as a health Minister, you know you’re going to be kept on your toes by such a clinical expert. So, thank you very much for that. Now, I think it is important we have time to discuss how we’re addressing specific cancers, particularly those with relatively low survival rates, and, typically, these will be cancers where it’s harder to spot symptoms until the cancer’s more advanced, and this limits treatment options and thereby survival outcomes, as you mentioned.

Now, too often, these cancers are first spotted in the emergency department, or as an incidental finding, rather than through routine care, and, on occasion, people are waiting beyond our target times for treatment. Between January and October 2023, around 54 per cent of people on the upper gastrointestinal cancer pathway started their treatment within 62 days, and we recognise that that isn’t good enough.

Now, I want everyone with a diagnosis of these cancers and their families to know that, for the Welsh Government, cancer is and has been for many years one of our top priorities. We’ve got a huge amount of focus to improving cancer waiting times and patient outcomes in our dealing with health boards. Cancer services are under enormous pressure, partly as a result of the long-term increases in demand for cancer investigation and treatment. In Wales, the number of people referred onto the suspected cancer pathway has risen from an average of 10,500 per month in 2020 to 16,000 people per month in 2023. That’s a 53 per cent increase. So, what you’re saying is you’ve got to try and find it earlier. In order to find it earlier, you need to test more people, and part of the problem then, if you see that kind of massive increase that we’re talking about, then, obviously, it takes a while for the system to catch up and all of the diagnostics and all of those other things, because that, as you can tell, is a massive, massive surge, and it’s the right thing; it’s just that the diagnostics then get stuck. We know that about 95 per cent of people who are put onto the pathway are not going to have cancer, but you’ve got to put that many people on to catch the 5 per cent. So, cancer treatment is also, of course, competing with other routine and urgent treatments as well as the increased workload and complexity involved in treating cancer. So, that's why the health system across the UK is struggling in particular with meeting that cancer target.

Now, our improvement transformation approach is set out in the quality statement for cancer. It seeks to bring clinicians together in Wales for each type of cancer to agree on a nationally optimised pathway of what should happen in line with clinically agreed time frames. And this has been done already for more than 20 types of cancer, including stomach and oesophageal cancers. Now, this means that all our health boards have a common point of reference to plan and oversee their services. They can see what they need to work towards and we can review how they’re doing and challenge where we need to through our accountability meetings with health boards. So, if you’ve got a system and people are not following that system, we can now challenge them, because this is a system agreed by clinicians. It’s not the Welsh Government telling them what to do; these are experts who decided this is the optimum way to address this issue.

But at the heart of why there are relatively poor survival rates for these cancers is how these cancers are detected, as you pointed out, and very, very often, they’re at the more advanced stage. And that’s why one of the main focuses of our national policy and the NHS cancer improvement plan is earlier detection. We need to detect these cancers at earlier stages if we’re going to give more people better outcomes.

I was really pleased on Sunday to go and visit the pilot that we’ve instituted in Wales in relation to lung cancer. So, they screened a lot of people—this is in the Cwm Taf and Rhondda areas—‘Right, who are the people who are smokers or used to be smokers?’, and we’ve earmarked those people, we’ve targeted them, the GPs identify them and they’re sent a letter, ‘Come and have a check’. To be fair, hundreds of people have turned up for a check and we have caught cancers—lung cancers—at an early stage. So, it’s a great model and we’re just going to assess that now and see if and how we could roll that out across Wales.

Minister, could I just intervene? My apologies, Altaf, for interrupting your presentation earlier on, and thank you very much for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. My father died of stomach cancer at a very young age, as did his brother. So, because of the family history, my GP insisted that I have regular magic eyes. So, that is part of the preventative measure—the endoscopy. So, I'm just wondering, Minister, whether people, or families who have a history of stomach cancer, Barrett's or whatever, could be contacted and encouraged to have preventative endoscopies, because you did say that detecting it early, if you are unlucky enough to have that cancer, is the best, obviously, way forward. So, I don't know whether you have any thoughts on that. Thank you.

Well, I'll certainly look into what the clinical advice is around that. And it's great to hear that that is happening to you. I think my grandmother had stomach cancer as well. So, I think we've got to just make sure that we understand that, already, we've got loads and loads of people on the pathway, and so encouraging more to come forward, we've just got to be careful. We've got to grow our capacity in terms of diagnostics. That's the key thing, and we have a whole diagnostics strategy that we’re working on. But I’m glad to hear that you are receiving that kind of preventative-approach care, which I think is really important. Because, normally, people go and see their GP if they have symptoms or signs of illness, and that’s where a lot of the cancer referrals come from. And what we've seen is very large and long-term increases in the number of people referred for investigation of suspected cancer. And I think what that demonstrates is that our GPs are more and more willing to investigate possible cases of cancer. And given the crucial role that GPs play in identifying people at risk of cancer, the training for GPs is absolutely crucial. We’ve got this training resource, which is on every GP computer in Wales, and it’s called GatewayC, and that’s supporting GPs with ongoing training. So, we also recognise that the vague symptoms and complex patient histories that people can present with to primary care can make it really difficult for GPs. So, if they've got an inkling, but they're not sure, we have this rapid diagnostic system that they can also refer to as well. And I'm really pleased that's the first in the UK where we have the whole population covered with that.

We are working hard to improve our ability to provide a diagnosis. We're investing in new imaging equipment, such as MRI and CT. In particular, we're improving the provision of PET-CT scans, which are vital for investigating these two cancers. 

As well as focusing on finding and diagnosing cancers in a timely fashion, we're also focusing on the quality of the care that is provided, and we are recommending ways of improving that care. Over a period of audit—we are part of an audit that is taking place—we've seen an improvement in essential outcomes, such as mortality rates after surgery. So, that demonstrates that we are making a real difference to outcomes in the short term.

There is so much to do, but we can be proud that we've already seen survival rates for cancer for one year and for five years improving over the long term, as well as mortality rates decreasing. But, we have a long way still to go and there is a great deal to do. And I want to thank Altaf once again for bringing forward this very important debate today. 

There's just one other further point that you asked about. 

You did ask me, Altaf, in terms of support for an awareness campaign. I will ask the Welsh Government to support and to push in our social media channels some of those awareness campaigns that you talked about. Thank you. 

Thank you, Minister, and thank you to Altaf. That brings today's proceedings to a close.