National Assembly for Wales

I'm very concerned about the future of Ysgol Gymraeg Llundain. I was involved previously as an MP. I was very pleased to hear this morning that the £90,000 annual grant to the school has been extended until August. But, I am assured by the people running the school that they have planned numbers that will increase, and that they will be getting back up to the same numbers as they've had in the past. I don't think anything can really substitute having an actual school where children can learn Welsh in London. I think this unique way of the Welsh language flourishing outside Wales is something that we should be protecting and working to develop. So, I really feel that, once it's gone, we'll never have it again. So, I do ask the Government to continue to consider whether it can continue with the grant for a longer period of time, but I'm very pleased that you've already shown some extension.

Thank you. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language met with the school yesterday and has confirmed that additional funding for the full 2025-26 academic year. I think there was recognition that you can't stop people halfway through the term. But, I do think we have to be honest, the school is on very shaky ground from September. As I say, there'll be 10 pupils, and the Welsh Government's grant is a contribution to the overall costs. I do think they have to think seriously about what a sustainable model might look like going forward. We're more than happy to work with the school. We'd like a solution. We want learners to keep learning Welsh, but I do think we have to be realistic about what's possible here.

Whatever you say, First Minister, you'll be aware of recent concerns raised by the British Dental Association, which has claimed that the Welsh Government's proposed NHS dental reforms are a leap in the dark that could destroy the service. Those are their words, not my words. As you know, access to dental care has been a huge problem in Pembrokeshire for many years. I have repeatedly raised this in the Chamber, and now even Henry Tufnell, the local Labour MP, has quite rightly stepped in and said that the Welsh Government's reforms, as proposed, could make a bad situation even worse, particularly for rural areas like Pembrokeshire. Therefore, in light of the concerns raised by the sector, by me, and now by the Labour MP, will the Welsh Government pause and listen to the warnings of those in the profession and meaningfully engage with the British Dental Association to find a way forward before it's too late?

We have spent 13 months working with the British Dental Association to design the new contract. They were fully involved in developing those proposals, and they are out for consultation. It's been the biggest response to a consultation, I think, ever in the history of devolution. So, obviously, we will take time now to go through those responses and make sure that we respond accordingly. What is important, of course, is to recognise that, as in all negotiations, there are aspects on which the parties agree and aspects where there are more contentious issues. So, of course we will be taking those consultation responses seriously, but I do reject the assertion that the British Dental Association has not been involved in these negotiations.

Good afternoon, First Minister. I just want to continue the issue around dentistry, particularly in rural areas like Pembrokeshire, and also in Powys and in mid Wales. Access to dentistry in rural areas is particularly challenging. People have to travel further and they have to wait on waiting lists for much longer. I just wanted to raise, if I may, two issues. One is that the Welsh Government launched a dental access portal in February of this year, which was designed, obviously, to pool together all of the people who are waiting for an NHS dentist across Wales—a welcome development, but I really would like to know when is it that we, as Welsh politicians, will get the numbers from that portal, broken down by area, so that we know what the picture is in our areas. And a potential solution for a rural area, like Preseli Pembrokeshire, is possibly a mobile dentistry unit. I and James Evans went to see the one that Powys Teaching Health Board had in Hay-on-Wye. It seemed to be a really positive development in getting out to our rural areas and being able to meet the needs of the population. So, I wonder if you could respond, please, on those two issues. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Certainly, when it comes to the dental access portal, I know you've pushed us on this for a long time, and I am really pleased to see that it is now very much up and running. I would like to give you some credit for pushing us on that, Jane. But I am sure we can give you the numbers broken down, so I think the health Secretary can help you with that.

But I think your idea about mobile dentistry is also something that is absolutely worth us considering, particularly, as you say, in rural areas. I know that Hywel Dda are using a mobile unit located in St David's park, just to try and increase the urgent treatment capacity, and, as you say, you've been to see the one in Powys. There are limitations with mobile dentistry. For example, sometimes, there are mechanical issues in relation to infection prevention and control, and travel requirements. So, sometimes, they might only be fit for use during certain periods. But I'd just like to say, in relation in particular to rural dentistry, we acknowledge it's difficult, sometimes, to recruit people to those rural areas. And that's why, since September 2024, we have given an additional £7,000 salary uplift to dentists working in those areas, and that comes along with enhanced academic and well-being support, and all of those places have been filled. So, that's good news.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, last week, I wrote to you to ask whether you supported the UK Government's decision to prescribe the Palestine Action group as a terrorist organisation. You'll be aware that the group has recently targeted RAF Brize Norton, causing millions of pounds-worth of damage to British defence equipment, and it's also been responsible for attacks on companies here in Wales. Palestine Action, First Minister, is not engaged in peaceful protest. It's an extremist group involved in co-ordinated criminal attacks that threaten our national security and intimidate workers in critical industries. So, can you tell us today if you will support our military bases and our defence industry here in Wales by backing the UK Government's decision to prescribe Palestine Action as a terror organisation?

Wel, first of all, I'd like to say a few words about Palestine, because I do think the situation there is extremely grave. I had the honour of meeting the UN representative last week, and many of you did as well. We are hearing absolute harrowing stories about what is going on in that area, and I think it's incumbent on all of us to draw attention to the dire situation and the extreme approach that is being taken there, in particular when it comes to preventing food from getting to the people in those areas. Look, I condemn attacks by any organisation. I think that is wrong, and that would include the Palestine people's organisation.

First Minister, you didn't give a clear answer in terms of whether you support the UK Government's action to prescribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group. I'm sorry that you didn't give that clarity, and perhaps you could in response to this second question. Let's be clear, the Welsh Conservatives support the UK Government's decision. We are unequivocal in stating that that's our position. 

Now, in recent days, First Minister, I have spoken to leaders of the Jewish community here in Wales. They tell me that many in their community are distressed, extremely distressed, and fearful as a result of the scenes from Glastonbury over the weekend. Those were scenes that were broadcast by the publicly funded BBC, and they showed a so-called artist calling for, and I quote,

'death, death to the IDF' 

and for Palestine to be free, quote,

'from the river to the sea.'

Those chants were repeated by a huge crowd at that huge music festival, and, even outside the Senedd today, those chants have been repeated at a protest that was attended by Labour and Plaid MSs. Will you join me in condemning such hateful and vile chants, condemn the BBC for broadcasting them, and what discussions are you now going to have with your own party's MSs and with the leaders of the Jewish community in Wales to reassure them of the Welsh Government's support?

Look, I'm very clear that it is not right to stir up hatred against any community, and, frankly, it's illegal, which is why there is a police inquiry going on at the moment, and that is absolutely the right thing to do. So, I am with the Prime Minister in condemning those actions and, of course, we all have a responsibility to make sure that we don't stir up hatred within our communities. There are plenty of other organisations that are happy to do that. 

So, First Minister, I gave you a second chance to answer my first question, which you didn't answer, about whether you support the UK Government's decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terror organisation. I gave you the opportunity to tell us whether you'd spoken to leaders of the Jewish community and what action you were going to take in terms of speaking to your own Members, but you haven't answered that question, either. I'm going to ask you another question, and you may like, in response to this, to answer the first two questions that I put to you. Because it's not only Glastonbury, unfortunately, that offers a potential platform for hate. Next month, Wales is going to host the Green Man festival, a festival that has benefited from significant financial support from the Welsh Government over a number of years, including the purchase of the land near Crickhowell for over £4 million to support the festival's projects.

Now, this year, the organisers have chosen to invite the rap group Kneecap, which has openly incited violence and expressed antisemitic rhetoric. My party has called on the festival to deplatform the band from Green Man, and so have Gill and Pete Brisley from Bridgend. Gill and Pete's daughter and granddaughters were brutally murdered by Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023, and their son-in-law, Eli Sharabi, was held hostage by Hamas for 16 months until he was released, in an emaciated condition, in February of this year. First Minister, can you tell me: do you support the Brisley family in calling for Kneecap to be deplatformed, and will you confirm today that no more taxpayers' money will ever be given to this festival unless they withdraw Kneecap's invitation to perform?

Well, the Welsh Government does support new artists in relation to the Green Man festival, but we are not responsible for paying for the other artists that attend the Green Man festival. It is obviously up to the festival organisers to determine who they invite. I do think that they need to think very carefully about who they invite and the potential problems that may arise if they are to use that as a platform to divide people and to talk hatred. So, I do think that it's important that they consider that, but let me just make it clear: the Welsh Government does not pay for the artists in Green Man. 

Diolch, Llywydd. When she was elected to office last August, the First Minister pledged to restore trust in politics, so it was disappointing to witness a u-turn on that pledge—yes, another Labour u-turn—at her party's conference in Llandudno at the weekend. Let's look at what we learned from those two days: a blatant lie from the Secretary of State for Wales that a Plaid Cymru Government would scrap free prescriptions, and then some absurd claim about post-election back-room deals from the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. Now, these are pretty desperate claims from a party that is clearly becoming more and more desperate. And rather than restore trust in politics, this kind of nonsense further erodes it. So, with her own pledge in mind and with a guarantee from me today, as before, that a Plaid Cymru Government would of course do none of those things, and nobody would believe that we would anyway, will the First Minister join me in condemning those who damage our politics through mistruths?

Well, you take such a keen interest in our party, don't you? I'm so glad that you spent the whole weekend watching what we did in our party conference, and we did have a rather marvellous time. And it is important, I think, to recognise that whilst Plaid talks, Labour delivers—you continue to talk from the sidelines, and we are at the table making a difference.

Look, you had the opportunity today to ask me a question on all of the many, many, many areas that I have responsibility for, and what you're interested in, once again, is about what's happening in Westminster. Look, if you really were that interested in Westminster, you should have stuck to your plan A and gone there.

Of course, I remind the Baroness that she still has a seat there, of course, but it says a lot—[Laughter.] It says a lot, does it not, that she doesn't believe that integrity is important in politics. We've certainly learned more, haven't we, over the past few days, that Labour is a party about survival now, and not renewal. The renewal offered by Plaid Cymru is that of principle, rather than political pressure, driving policies. It's why all Plaid Cymru MPs will vote against Starmer's welfare reforms today. These are changes, remember, which disproportionately impact vulnerable people in Wales, yet they're only opposed by a handful of Labour MPs in Wales. Last week, I urged the First Minister to ask Labour MPs from Wales to vote against the proposals. She wouldn't, and, in fact, on Sunday, she told Radio Wales that she's only the leader of her party's Senedd Members, and that Labour MPs representing Welsh seats vote according to the Westminster whip. It's for her to explain whether she's always believed that there's no such thing as a Welsh Labour MP.

But on today's vote specifically—and, again, I emphasise that this has a direct impact on devolved issues and on devolved budgets—I'm interested in why the First Minister said last-minute changes to the reforms to try to avoid a catastrophic vote—not because of a letter of hers, of course—were welcome concessions, even though they still push thousands into poverty and create a two-tier system.

So, as she has welcomed them, can we assume that the First Minister has carried out a new impact assessment, in which case, can she share the results of that assessment with us, or, if she hasn't, why is her support so unqualified when she has no idea of the harms the reforms will cause?

Well, look, I am really pleased that there are 200,000 people in Wales now who previously were really concerned about whether they would be able to continue receiving personal independence payments—there's been a change of heart, and they are no longer at threat of losing that PIP, and we've been consistent in terms of our approach in relation to that. I'm really pleased that there will be a review of PIP that will be undertaken; I'm very pleased that the Cabinet Member responsible has spent a lot of time on the weekend talking to the Minister responsible about how they can look at the model we use in Wales in terms of co-production to make sure that we land this in a place that balances the need and the desire of disabled people to get into work and the need for us to provide that support. So, there's a huge amount that we are able to do. I very much welcome the change of heart, and obviously there are lots of issues in relation to welfare reform. The current system that was set up under the Tories is broken; it's a system that traps people in poverty. In the Labour Party, we are absolutely standing with and by the most vulnerable people in our society. We are the party of fairness, but we also recognise that the people who can work should work, but we protect the most vulnerable.

I remind the First Minister that PIP isn't an out-of-work benefit, of course, and I remind her also that Sadiq Khan in London and Andy Burnham in Manchester are very, very keen to make it clear to Keir Starmer what they think of, still, the welfare reforms that are in front of us, and it's clear from the response there that the First Minister has no real issue with having a two-tier welfare system, at least not enough to stand up to Labour MPs in Westminster. But what about grassroots members of her own party? I applaud them for voting at the weekend in favour of two motions—one on fair funding for Wales, the other on devolution of the Crown Estate—agreeing with long-standing positions taken by Plaid Cymru. And with the Crown Estate figures published today showing £1.1 billion in profit last year, including £132 million going to the King, we shouldn't be surprised that people are getting angry. But it seems people who have been loyal to Labour are far more progressive than the party's leader, so no wonder more and more of them are turning to Plaid Cymru. Labour's leadership in Westminster are barriers to change. The Secretary of State for Wales, Jo Stevens, remains stubbornly opposed to both the devolution of the Crown Estate and truly fair funding. So, now we know Labour at Westminster continue to be blockers to the will of Labour members as well as to the will of this Senedd, what's the First Minister's next move?

I tell you what I am fascinated by—first of all, the way you try and put words into my mouth every week about what I've said and what I haven't said, but, secondly, this assertion that you are unique when it comes to asking for fair funding. We had a discussion on this last week. It was unanimous in this Chamber. We've been asking for it—. I don't know if you were here for the masterclass from the Secretary who's responsible for finance explaining exactly the long history of the requirement and the desire from the Welsh Government in Wales for fair funding. We've been consistent also when it comes to the Crown Estate.

I don't understand why you never ask me questions about my responsibility; you keep on asking—[Interruption.] I tell you what—you want to ask about my next move; I'll tell you what my next move is going to be: I'm going to be going out to watch the football on Saturday, and I will be cheering the women of Wales on, because I would like to take this opportunity to make sure that we, as a Chamber and as a Senedd, send our very best wishes to the women of Wales who've qualified, historically, for the first time to make their way to Switzerland. We will be cheering them on, and it is essential, I think, that the nation gets behind them.

Long waiting times have fallen over the last six months in north Wales, thanks to targeted extra investment from the Welsh Labour Government, with the longest waits down by a third over the past year. But Betsi Cadwaladr still has a lot of work to do, and that's why it remains in special measures under our watch. We expect real, sustained improvement backed by extra funding and sharper oversight to make sure people get the care that they deserve.

You say that, First Minister, but Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board still has the most pathways waiting more than two years for treatment. The most recent figures show that Betsi has the worst percentage of people seen in accident and emergency within the four-hour target. In May, 15,662 patients were seen in A&E departments across north Wales, with 6,822 seen under the target of four hours, and that's just 43 per cent. This is down from 46.8 per cent in February and 45 per cent in January.

One in four people in Wales are still languishing on a waiting list. Two-year waits for NHS treatments have risen again to 9,600, an almost 15 per cent rise from the previous month. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, in his statement just two weeks ago, said that this follows a similar trend in England, yet there is only a rise of 171 in England during the same period. The First Minister promised to eliminate these waits for the last two years, but has consistently failed to meet these targets, and the situation in north Wales is abysmal and getting worse.

The Cabinet Secretary also announced £120 million to fix this problem, but didn't outline how this money will be spent and how it will bring down waits. So, will the First Minister agree with me that the current situation in the Welsh NHS is perilous, with those in north Wales suffering the most? Will she follow what the Welsh Conservatives are calling for and commit to declaring a health emergency to get this dire situation under control once and for all? 

Well, there's been a 60 per cent reduction in the longest waits in the past four months, and I think that is something to be welcomed. The reason that's happened, of course, is because we've had additional money from the UK Labour Government—money that you and Plaid Cymru tried to block; let's be absolutely clear about that.

There has been a 32 per cent reduction in the number of pathways waiting for over two years in Betsi, so I do think we need to give credit where it's due. Is it enough? Absolutely not, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary responsible for health is breathing down the necks of the people responsible in Betsi. I visited Wrexham Maelor and met with the chair recently as well, just to see how that money is being spent, to make sure it's being spent efficiently. But you're right: two thirds of the long waits of more than two years are in Betsi Cadwaladr, and I can assure you that no stone is being left unturned when it comes to trying to get those waits down. The chair of the board has an intention to eliminate waits over two years by the end of December. We are going to do everything we can to support him in delivering that, including, obviously, the additional £120 million that’s been announced for the whole of Wales to cut waiting times and to bring those two-year waits down.

Long waiting times have fallen by over two thirds right across Wales, and that positive trend is reflected in north Wales, with Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board confirming that the number of patients waiting more than two years for treatment reduced from 10,070 at the end of last year, in December, and by March of this year, it was down to 5,747, which is an improvement of 43 per cent. As you said in your answer to Gareth Davies, of course there is still much work to be done, but we are heading in the right direction, thanks to the hard work and dedication of the staff. So, how is the Welsh Government working with the health board to ensure that the additional targeted funding you referred to of £120 million across Wales is ensuring that we have the necessary facilities to keep bringing those waiting times down?

Thanks very much, Lesley, and thanks for all your support and everything you've done. I know that you've had a lot of experience in Betsi recently with members of your family. But I do think it is important to recognise that the additional funding is going in; of the £120 million, about £40 million is going into Betsi, recognising that that is the largest health board in Wales that does need that additional support.

But I do think it is important to give credit where it's due. The numbers are coming down. There has been a massive improvement. I remember when I was health Minister, I used to count the numbers: how many are waiting five years, how many are waiting four years? And every single month, we used to go through, and it's great to see now, for example, there has been a 65 per cent reduction in the numbers of people waiting over three years. So, we're really getting down to—. The two-year waits now, that is the next thing we have to really go for and that is why that additional support will, I hope, make a difference. And it was great to talk this week about Eddie, who had a really good experience in Betsi, who thought he would be waiting years and years and years for a knee replacement and his appointment came in before Christmas and it has all been sorted out. He has had physiotherapy and he is back on his feet. There are good examples of where the system is improving and we need to celebrate that and thank the vast numbers in Betsi—there are about 19,000 people, I think, working in that health board—for all the efforts that they are making.

Thank you for that answer. Of course, as you have just alluded to, MPs will shortly vote on welfare cuts that will wreak untold misery in Wales. Press attention has focused on whether these welfare cuts will pass, and whether Starmer has enough numbers to carry the cruelty through. But the focus shouldn't just be on votes. It should also be on the torment about to be inflicted on real people's lives.

Over the weekend, we have heard that concessions will be made, only to inflict the greatest pain on those poor souls who become disabled in the future, as though their lives and their ability to survive in our society somehow matters less. The decision to treat future claimants as the collateral needed to pass a vote is as myopic as it is mean. Why should people be treated differently because of what year they happen to have become disabled? What kind of fairness is that?

Citizens Advice has warned about the increased anxiety being felt by claimants, many of whom believe that these changes have already been brought in. So, as a result, they haven't been claiming what they should be. These changes are arbitrary—

I'll need a question, please.

I will come to it. They risk bringing in a two-tier system. Will you be calling on your MPs to vote against these cuts, which are causing anguish and pain?

Thanks very much. Look, I do think that we have to recognise, first of all, that the welfare system that we have inherited from the Conservatives is in need of reform. It's a system that is not helping people to get back into work. I do think that we have got to try and keep that in the forefront of our minds at all times. What are we trying to achieve here? What we are trying to achieve is an opportunity for people to get back into work.

So, it shouldn't be something that is driven by punishment. It should be something that is driven by a situation where we are standing with them and giving them support, as we do when it comes to youth unemployment. I don't want to see a system that traps people in poverty. I think that there are some important positive elements in relation to welfare reform: the universal credit increase, the right to try, and the significant employment support package. I am pleased to see that 200,000 people in Wales today feel real relief after hearing that their PIP payments will not be affected. 

From one welfare blunder to another, First Minister. It's disappointing that it was not compassion that forced the UK Government to u-turn—another one—and to reintroduce the winter fuel payments, but political pressure. That doesn't really fit, does it, First Minister, with your claim earlier of being the party of the vulnerable? It should have been clear that taking £110 million from Welsh pensioners, while the Welsh Government was preparing to spend £120 million on more Senedd Members with Plaid, was unfair, unacceptable and unforgivable.

We warned that this decision would sadly cost lives here in Wales. While it's welcome that the payments will be reintroduced, it remains the case that, last winter, many pensioners in Wales were pushed into fuel poverty as a direct result of that cut. So, I'd like to ask, First Minister: what assessment has your Government made of the detrimental impact on the health of pensioners in South Wales East of the Labour decision to withdraw the payments last winter?

Thanks very much. We were consistent in our approach in relation to fuel poverty, and we made it clear that we didn't agree with it. I'm really pleased, once again, to see that the UK Government has listened to the public, not just here in Wales but across the country. But I was also pleased to see, this week, that the amount that people pay for their energy bills will be coming down, and that is something that I'm sure people across Wales will welcome. To hear talk about compassion coming from the Tory party is something to behold. 

Chris Evans MP and I, in parallel with the Welsh Government, wrote a letter to Liz Kendall, in which we highlighted the fact that 13,000 people under the plans, as they were, would lose support, whereas another 12,610 would be losing support, despite the employment support that was on offer. I want to pay tribute to Chris Evans MP. However much the Tories think that parliamentary democracy is a joke, I want to pay tribute to Chris Evans MP and Ruth Jones MP, who signed the recent amendment and stood with the Welsh Government to get these changes to happen.

Now, the other thing I've asked for in my letter is that the UK Government work with the Welsh Government to provide a national job coaching service for learning disabled people, which will be vital in enabling them to find work. What we need to see is for that to be done first before further changes to benefits happen. The First Minister's committed to doing that. Can she work further with the UK Government to make sure that that happens before any other changes are brought in? Remember, this Bill is currently on its Second Reading. There is still time to change some of those things that the Welsh Government remain unhappy with.

Thanks very much, Hefin. You've been a champion on this issue from when it was introduced. The Minister responsible in the Welsh Government has had a series of discussions with Stephen Timms over the weekend, setting out how we do things in Wales, talking about how we will be leading a trailblazer in Wales to tackle economic inactivity, and how we can go about changing things in particular in relation to disabled people. I'm really pleased that they are also now going to bring forward the support for people who are unemployed, or people who are disabled, so that it comes in before any changes are introduced.

First Minister, I was speaking to people in Ebbw Vale last night who have been extraordinarily distressed by this debate and the way it's been conducted by the UK Government. They were very grateful to you and other Welsh Ministers for your intervention and for your powerful words in opposing some of the proposals that we've been hearing from the UK Government. What they were saying to me is that it's not fair that the most vulnerable people pay the highest price, that it's not fair that the poorest people pay the highest price. What they are saying is that people who have disabilities who are seeking work need the help and support of Government standing with them, and not against them.

Will the Welsh Government continue to work with authorities, such as Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council, who've also written to the UK Government on this matter, and work with Members here to ensure that we have a welfare policy that's targeted at helping the poorest, helping the most vulnerable, supporting people and not further attacking them?

Thanks very much, Alun. I know that your area was going to be one of the areas most impacted by the proposed changes to welfare, so I'm sure that you are relieved for your constituents, who I know were very, very concerned about the proposals. It wasn't just, obviously, something that was going to impact individuals. People were genuinely concerned about how they were going to survive. But also it's the huge amount of money that would be taken out of the local economy as a result of that. And so that is something of a relief, I'm sure, also to people living in Ebbw Vale and Blaenau Gwent generally.

I think what's important is that we recognise that, actually, a lot of disabled people want to work. What we've got to do is to give them the opportunities to work, to make sure that we design programmes to lead them into the workplace and to make sure that there are opportunities for them. That is the answer to this. That is the purpose. That's what we're trying to achieve. We've got to make sure we get back to what we are trying to achieve with the changes that are being proposed. Until we ensure that that is the way we tackle it, in the way that we are tackling it in relation to youth unemployment, then I think we will continue to be in a difficult situation.

The Welsh Labour Government took Estyn's 2023 recommendations on board and we acted. We'll be reviewing their latest report, due out later this month, because we're determined to get this right for young people. We'll keep raising standards, removing barriers and making sure every young person in Wales has the best chance to thrive.

The Equality and Social Justice Committee has just had a reply from Sir Stephen Timms about the disability benefits changes that are going to be voted on today in Westminster. I'm pleased to see that he is now committed to co-producing the review with disabled people as well as experts. I am concerned, however, that this review, which I am sure he will undertake diligently, is not going to be ready to be applied to the changes in legislation before the legislation is voted on. He does point out that PIP is devolved in Scotland, and I think there is a very strong case for accelerating the devolution of welfare benefits in Wales too, so that we can ensure that whatever money is available is exercised in the most humane and supportive manner.

On the specifics, 10 days ago I visited the Heath hospital—

You are going to need to come to your question, I'm sorry.

Yes, I am going to come to the question, which is this: the Project SEARCH work experience placements offered at Heath hospital have been hugely successful in enabling young people to go on to further training or paid employment, but I am concerned about the age limitation on this benefit, which is inappropriate for people who have additional learning needs. Therefore I wondered what consideration you have given to changing that to reflect the fact that people with learning difficulties maybe take longer to get to work readiness and need additional support.

Thanks very much. We amended the Jobs Growth Wales programme to enable 19-year-olds to join the programme. It was previously only available to 18-year-olds. The thing is, Jobs Growth Wales is a procured programme, so it is not possible in the middle of a procured programme to change the programme halfway through. So that will continue until the end of the contract in 2027, but what we will do, of course, is to feed that concern into the successor employability programmes, which are being considered at the moment.

First Minister, we all want to see more people in work, and Jobs Growth Wales+ plays an important role in helping us achieve just that. Looking at the initiative's statistics from October to December last year, it was positive to see that there were more than 4,000 active programmes. During that period, 900 programmes were completed, with 57.5 per cent of leavers having, and I quote,

‘a positive outcome based on their destination'.

That phrasing, to me at least, was quite vague, as ‘a positive outcome’ might not necessarily be employment, as it is based on what the individual set out as their destination. I was wondering, First Minister, is there a better and clearer way of monitoring the success of this programme, so we know for certain how many people actually end up in employment? I would also appreciate, First Minister, if you could kindly outline how Jobs Growth Wales+ is advertised to young people not in education and employment, and if there is any scope to expand this so we can potentially reach more young people across Wales.

Jobs Growth Wales has supported over 16,500 young people since April 2022. But if you put that together with the people involved in our young person’s guarantee, you get to a figure of 57,000 young people who have been starting on the employability and skills programme since the launch in 2021.

The key thing is that you are asking for the outcomes. Over 8,500 young people have progressed into employment, so I think that is a testimony to the fact that actually this is a programme that works well. Over 800 have started their own businesses and 29,000 have started apprenticeships.

After years of Tory neglect, the Welsh Labour Government working alongside UK Labour secured an extra £5 billion for Wales. On top of this, the UK Government will spend £445 million to finally start addressing decades of underfunding on our railways, and £118 million to make coal tips safe for future generations. I think this shows what can happen when both Governments pull in the same direction. This, I hope, is just the start.

First Minister, I welcome very much not only the additional funding for Wales from the UK Government, but in particular your efforts to achieve this. Again, £455 million and £118 million are all things, together with a better funding settlement than we have ever had from any previous Tory Government, that show what two Labour Governments working together can achieve. But can I just also say that it seems to me that two Labour Governments working together can achieve a lot more? What we really need is a fair, needs-based funding settlement as part of a guaranteed constitutional settlement, and guaranteed consequential funding. I now you've been raising this issue. Can you update us on what discussions are taking place to achieve this?

Thanks very much. I hope you all realise and have recognised by now that when I feel Wales has not had a fair deal, I will say that loudly and clearly, because for years the Welsh Government has been calling for reform of the Barnett formula. I was really pleased to see that unanimous vote in the Senedd last year, and I made that clear in my speech on 6 May.

You'll be aware that we had a fiscal framework agreement in 2016, and that changed the way the formula worked and increased Barnett consequentials to account for the additional needs of Wales. Does it go far enough? No, it doesn't. So, further change is needed. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language always raises this as an issue, and indeed raised the issue also of fair funding for rail last week in London.

Of course, there may be two Governments moving in the same direction in Cardiff and in Westminster, but unfortunately it looks like they're moving towards economic oblivion. We have soaring levels of debt taking place at a national level, soaring interest to be paid on those levels of debt, and we have the lowest levels of business confidence we've seen for many a year.

What you haven't mentioned, First Minister, is the challenge to the charity sector, particularly here in Wales, as a result of the Labour Government's decision making around national insurance. Many charities up and down Wales, often delivering public services, are unable to now meet the new financial challenge they have in front of them because of national insurance increases that they are facing. What are you doing to ensure that those charities are supported to continue to implement and support our communities through the work that they do?

Thanks very much. I think we've just got to remind everybody, whenever I'm asked about poor economic performance, that actually the question is coming from somebody who was in the party of Liz Truss. It's a party that presided over the highest taxes that we've seen since the second world war, massive inflation and huge cuts in services due to 10 years of austerity.

Now, thanks to the UK Labour Government, we are seeing the taps being turned on and we are seeing £5 billion extra coming into Wales. We want to spend that money on the things that people care about in Wales. We want to improve the NHS. We want to make sure that we spend it on housing. We want to make sure that we spend it on growing the economy, better jobs, but also on improving transport so people can get around.

Yes, of course, we're interested in making sure that charities get their fair share of that funding as well. Much of that very often is channelled through local authorities. We've been working with local authorities in a way that they didn't in Westminster in the past. They slashed the amount of money that was given to local authorities in England. That has not been the case here, and there are opportunities via those routes to funnel money into charities.

First Minister, I was interested in your first response to this question, pointing out there's £5 billion of extra investment—a welcome departure from the last 14 years. On top of that, the £445 million headline is a welcome start in delivering M4 alternatives, and, importantly, funded improvements in north Wales. There's a contrast with the past. That's the start to putting right historic underfunding in rail infrastructure. Announcements on supporting local transport initiatives were also made in advance of the spending review for England. I understand and would expect, within that £5 billion, there will be consequentials beyond the headline £445 million for rail. Can you confirm if the wider consequential funding breakdowns for investing in rail are available for Wales, and if so, how much they are? But if not, can you confirm when those breakdowns of those consequentials will be made available to see the wider investment platform this Government now has because of two Labour Governments working together?

Thanks very much. I think it is important that we underline the difference that we've seen recently, not just this year, but actually last year as well, which has allowed us to crack on with the changes that we've been able to make in the things that matter to the people in our communities.

You're quite right to point out that there were promises made under the Tories that were never kept. They said that they would electrify the track to Swansea. That never happened. They said they were going to electrify the track in north Wales, and they didn't do it. What we're seeing now is a change, a change where, of course, I hope it's just the beginning, and we have been given assurances that this is just the beginning—it does take time to build up these projects.

But you're quite right when it comes to how the funding mechanism works in relation to rail. Sometimes there are community rail projects where we get a consequential. We still haven't had the breakdown of what that looks like. When those big funding announcements were made for places like Manchester and things, we will be getting a consequential for that, and we haven't quite had the breakdown of what that looks like. We will have had some of it already, because theirs are over five years, and we tend to take a year-by-year breakdown.

There's a lot of smoke and mirrors around this, and I think we're still working through what those—[Interruption.] This is a formula. I'm very clear that we need to change the way that this done because there's far too much smoke and mirrors over a long period of time. And don't you go smirking, you Tories, over there. This is your project, the system that you set up, and I think it's really important that we make sure that we get our fair share of funding. That is my job as First Minister, to stand up for Wales, and that's what I'll continue to do.

No child's future should be limited by their postcode, and that's why the Welsh Labour Government is investing £128 million this year alone to help schools lift up learners from our most disadvantaged communities as part of our mission to close the gap, raise standards for everyone, and make sure every young person in Wales can reach their full potential.

First Minister, Professor David Egan, one of Wales's leading authorities on education and poverty, recently wrote that despite various initiatives over decades, there has been only limited progress in narrowing the gap between pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and their more advantaged peers in Wales.

One response is community-focused schools, to which I know the Welsh Government is committed. There are some very good examples in my constituency of Newport East, including Maindee Primary School. Part of David Egan's case is that we need consistent, sustained investment and commitment to those community-focused schools over a number of years to make sure that education is properly integrated—with families, with communities, with community groups, with multi-agency public services—with all the advantages that that brings. He also believes that improving the teaching in those most disadvantaged schools might well involve incentivising, paying teachers more to teach in those schools, or finding some other means of ensuring that quality of teaching is particularly good in those schools. First Minister, will you commit to looking at the work that David Egan and others have done and renewing and re-energising Welsh Government commitment to addressing educational disadvantage in Wales?

Thanks very much. I know this is something that the education Secretary is absolutely committed to, and is familiar with the work of David Egan, and particularly the work he's done around the community-focused school. In fact, we're supporting community-focused schools with £31 million in revenue and capital. That includes £9.5 million of that to recruit the retention of family engagement officers. Now, I can't tell you how important this is. So, it is really important that we take a trauma-informed approach to certain groups, and that we understand their circumstances and their backgrounds. I think the skills and the expertise in that family facilitation, to build that trusting relationship, is absolutely critical to get children on the right path right from the beginning, and to make sure that they have the best opportunity possible to make the most of themselves. I genuinely think that is our purpose as a Labour movement, to make sure that we provide opportunities for everyone to fulfil their potential, irrespective of their background.

The Welsh Labour Government is putting Wales on the map as a leader in digital and tech. Only this weekend I announced that Wales will become a world-leading artificial intelligence growth zone, bringing together cutting-edge skills, fair work and strong partnership. From cyber security to next-generation connectivity, our digital strategy backs Welsh businesses to grow, innovate and create good jobs.

Can I thank the First Minister for that response? I will not rehearse all the things I've said on AI up until now, but I welcome your comments.

One of the great strengths of the IT industry is that it is not geographically constrained. All it needs is electricity and fast broadband. It does not need to be near London or New York, or other major conurbations. One of the world's most popular computer games, Grand Theft Auto, comes from Dundee. Wales has less than its population share working in ICT, and that negatively affects our gross value added. What the ICT industry does need is a highly skilled and educated workforce. As AI grows, ICT will become more important to our economy. We have the universities, we have the educated potential workforce. Has the Welsh Government the commitment to support this industrial sector to grow our GVA?

Thanks very much. As a priority sector, the Welsh Government continues to work closely with those in the digital and technology sectors. I think it's really important that we refocus our skills programme, with increased funding and flexibility to address those skills gaps and support those priority areas. I was really pleased to make it clear that, in future, AI and digital skills will be taught in every Welsh secondary school. We'll be working with further education and higher education institutions, with industry, with our trade unions, and we will establish AI centres of excellence, and make sure that the AI public sector framework is grounded in fairness, not just in efficiency.

Trefnydd, I'd like to request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care regarding the current state of dermatology services in Wales, with particular reference to waiting times and access to treatment. In the Hywel Dda University Health Board area, the situation is especially worrying. The average waiting time for patients to begin treatment in dermatology is now 22 weeks. Even more troubling is the fact that, according to the latest figures, 10 per cent of patients are waiting 62 weeks or more from the point of referral to the start of treatment. Behind these figures, there are people across west Wales who are experiencing prolonged discomfort, anxiety and, in some cases, worsening health outcomes due to the lack of timely access to care. Given the prevalence of skin conditions, including skin cancer and the importance of early diagnosis and intervention, this is a matter that demands urgent attention. Therefore, Trefnydd, I'd be grateful if we could have a statement from the Welsh Government that outlines the immediate steps the Welsh Government is taking to support dermatology services, reduce waiting times and ensure that patients across Wales receive the timely care they actually deserve.

Diolch yn fawr, Paul Davies. You know the progress that has been made in terms of reducing waiting times, the investment that has been made and the expectations that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has of the health boards, and, of course, of Hywel Dda in your constituency and region. The importance of dermatology access to treatment is vital and recognised.

I'm really pleased to say that Wales women's first ever appearance in a major tournament is a landmark moment. The First Minister has already said she's pleased that she and the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership will be there to mark it. But, of course, it is about the legacy, it's about the impact, and I think the First Minister will take the opportunity to take that forward. It's the Welsh Government's Euro 2025 partner support fund, I think, which is probably particularly important for your question, because it marks this sporting milestone with £1 million funding for 16 projects that will promote interest in the women's game, encourage increased and long-term participation in sport, and project Wales's values around equality and inclusion. That will all be part of the experience of Wales in the women's Euros and the European championship message from Wales, as well as us being there to back them all the way. And just to say, in Switzerland, our anthem and songs won't just support our team, they'll invite the world to share in this historic moment.

I was very pleased to see that the Trefnydd made a written statement about the visit of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to the Senedd last week. I was pleased to host a cross-party meeting so that we could be briefed on what was happening on the ground in Gaza and what support they would like from us as a national Parliament. Marc Lassouaoui, the outreach manager at UNRWA's representative office for Europe in Brussels, was very clear about the fact that he wanted to come to Wales. He was going to Scotland, and he felt it was important that Wales's voice was heard.

It was very distressing to hear of what was actually happening on the ground in Gaza. UNRWA's medical supplies have been reduced by 50 per cent. We heard about women who were unable to breastfeed their children because they are malnourished. This morning, I'm sure we all saw, it was reported that more than 130 charities and other organisations are calling for the Israeli and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to be shut down, because of the amount of people that had been killed trying to access food and aid. So, you know, Wales is a nation of sanctuary. I know the Trefnydd also met the UNRWA representative. What further could Wales do to help?

Diolch yn fawr, Julie Morgan. I did also join that meeting that you hosted and chaired—it was a cross-party meeting—and then was able to join a meeting with the First Minister and Mr Lassouaoui. He is the outreach manager for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, and it was important to have that update.

Now, I have issued a written statement this morning, just reflecting on that visit, and I hope just to draw that statement to Members' attention, and also to recognise, as I said in my statement, that UNRWA remains a critical lifeline for millions of Palestinian refugees. So, it is important that the Government puts this on the record in terms of that recognition. And just to say again, within my statement, we continue, as a Welsh Government, to call for a lift on the aid blockade to Gaza. We've said that humanitarian aid should never be used as a political tool. We join the UK Government in calling for Israel to respect international law and allow the unhindered flow of aid. Also, we reiterate that humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool. And I call for urgent restoration of full, unimpeded humanitarian access across Gaza and the West Bank. I won't repeat all the points made in my statement, but we did say that we must ensure that children, the elderly and the displaced receive the food, care and protection they urgently need.

I call for an urgent statement by the finance Secretary on funding for non-profit social care provision in Wales. Speaking here in March, I highlighted the impact of increased employers' national insurance contributions on voluntary sector organisations across Wales, warning that vital services, including carer services commissioned from charitable local carer services, could be jeopardised. Last week I met with the chief executive of Anheddau Cyf, a not-for-profit charity providing 24-hour supported living for 140 adults with learning disabilities across five local authorities in north Wales—commissioned services by those local authorities. She told me that charitable adult social care providers, such as Anheddau, are compromised by increases to national insurance contributions and the national living wage. 

Anheddau received a glowing Care Inspectorate Wales report in February of this year. However, their costs have now risen by over 11 per cent, outstripping the uplift in local authority fees for care packages received at between 4.2 per cent and 6.2 per cent. And Anheddau warns that without urgent financial support, there is a real risk that the vital services they provide will cease by year end, transferring responsibility back to public services, which won't be able to cope at huge additional cost. They therefore urgently call on the Welsh Government to ensure that funding is directed towards stabilising the charitable social care sector before this train crash occurs. I call for a statement by the finance Secretary accordingly.

Thank you for that important question, Mark Isherwood. And, of course, those organisations, such as Anheddau, as you've already reported on your meeting with them, particularly in the social care sector, are so important. They are providing direct services, as you say, to people in Wales, but it is true that it is local authorities who are commissioning those services. And, of course, we have seen the support that the Welsh Government has given in its budget to local authorities, making sure that there is an uplift in funding for local authorities, which, of course, is going to benefit all their services, including those that are voluntary, like the one that you have commented on. 

Now, I think, tomorrow, I'm sure you'll be aware that there's a big event with the voluntary sector, gofod3. I believe that there are going to be a large number of people there, and I look forward to joining them, to talk about our support for the voluntary sector here in Wales and also to recognise the ways in which we can support the voluntary sector and volunteering. I've been able to do that in terms of my uplift to the voluntary sector, but we also have a funding and compliance committee looking at funding for the voluntary sector. And I think that you'll be very pleased that we have published an updated code for funding the voluntary sector, and that code, we hope, local authorities will take into account in their commissioning of services, like the ones you've raised today.

Trefnydd, I asked you two weeks ago for a statement from the First Minister on whether the Ministry of Defence are using any Welsh military bases or premises to train Israeli army personnel and for assurances from her that Wales is not supporting the continuing genocide of the Palestinian people by ensuring no Welsh Government activities, partnerships and procurement practices for companies or activities are implicated in any unlawful occupation or military action by Israel. You said in reply that you'd ensure that the Senedd would get a response to that, so when will we hear that response and in what form? I welcome your written statement this morning in support of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and condemning Israel for breaching international law, but we need to hear also if the Welsh Government is going to raise its voice in objection to any UK Government actions, such as supplying arms to Israel or training Israeli army personnel, which is contrary to Wales's statutory duty to be a globally responsible nation. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr, and thank you, Sioned Williams, for raising that question again and, indeed, for reflecting, because I know that you were part of that meeting with UNRWA last week, these wider questions. These are wider questions that, of course, are the responsibility of the UK Government, but I will ensure that I will come back to you in terms of the intelligence that we would have in terms of what is happening in terms of the UK Government's response to your question. 

I think that it is important just for me to take the opportunity to say again that it's the UK Government—. We join the UK Government in calling for Israel to respect international law and, of course, to allow the UN and other agencies, as I've said, to deliver life-saving aid to those in Gaza who desperately need it. But also, you will recall that the UK Government, alongside France and Germany, recently issued a statement that urged Israel to allow an unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza and called on the Israeli Government to stop its military operations in Gaza and the halting of the expansion of settlements. That was a very important sign from the UK Government, joining with France and Germany on those points. But I will, again, return to the question that you raised in terms of that wider issue.

Cabinet Secretary, can I ask for a statement from the Government on the operation of the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Act 2014, and in particular in respect of the Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales? This was a body that was in legislation and a body that was set up to protect the interests of agricultural workers in Wales. I'm very concerned, because I hear from Unite the Union that they're concerned about its current operation and that there may be a need for revision, certainly as we're a decade on. Can I also say how concerned I am that the National Farmers Union of Wales, who consistently are putting the case for additional funding for agriculture, are now calling for it to be abolished? The one body that actually exists to work to improve the wages and terms and conditions of agricultural workers, they're calling for it to be abolished. It seems to me that there's a need for a Government statement and also a need for a decision as to whether it really needs to be reviewed to ensure that it is working as well as it should in the interests of agriculture and, indeed, agricultural workers in Wales.

Thank you very much, Mick Antoniw. I think that it's important that you've raised this issue and drawn it to our attention. Since its inception, and we go back to the important role that you played in this, the panel has played an important role in protecting the interests of agricultural workers, and that's both in terms of minimum wage rates and conditions of employment. So, the the Agricultural Wages (Wales) Order 2025 gives a regulated approach to setting workers' salaries and gives a structured progression path for people wanting to further their careers in the agricultural sector. So, can I assure you and Members across the Chamber that any change to the panel, including its abolition, would require legislative changes, including a full impact assessment on agricultural workers and businesses? And Wales isn't alone in having a minimum agricultural wage rate. It's undertaken in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and even the Isle of Man's respective Governments. But, with various uncertainties surrounding the agricultural sector across the UK, it's vital we have the mechanisms in place to protect those who work in the sector and those who wish to undertake a career in agriculture.

I join, yet again, with colleagues calling for immediate attention on the situation in Gaza. Two weeks ago, I asked you for some lobbying from you to your colleagues in London on calling for an arms embargo. We've heard today as to the issues around aid and the desperate situations that we are seeing in Gaza. We heard yesterday that Israel has ordered Palestinians to evacuate from parts of northern Gaza ahead of increased military action. It's absolutely impossible to imagine the situation for Gazans who are locked in that country, without aid and without being able to leave. So, I ask you again, I implore you, to ensure there is additional pressure placed on our Government here in London, which is where it belongs, to call for an arms embargo on Israel. We can do very little, but we can absolutely do something that signifies our support for the Gazans and our absolute opposition to ongoing military action. Thank you.

Thank you very much again, Jane Dodds, for adding your voice to the concerns that have been raised by Members today in the Senedd, adding your voice to all the concerns that have been raised about the plight of people in Gaza, and to recognise again that this is something where, as I said in my statement today, we call for urgent restoration of full, unimpeded humanitarian access across Gaza and the West Bank. Actually, I say in my statement that UNRWA should be supported and empowered to carry out its mandate. We heard about the restrictions, again, at our meeting last week. But also, you've added your voice, as others, in terms of the arms embargo call to the UK Government, and that's on the record, as already raised today. I think it is important that we say that we're urging all parties to re-engage in ceasefire negotiations, to get the hostages out, and to secure a permanent end to the conflict, leading to a two-state solution and a lasting peace, which would end the suffering of those most affected by this conflict.

I'd like to ask for two statements, with one from the Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs on the bluetongue restrictions that are imposed by the Government and which come into force today. Many farmers still have a lot of unanswered questions for the Government, many especially on the elements of extreme weather events. We still have no clear plan from the Government, if stock need to be moved quickly, for how those farmers can move them within the restrictions that are currently in place. The Deputy First Minister said he would sort it out, but, unfortunately, nothing has been forthcoming. So, I'd like a statement on that, please, because many people are very concerned on this point.

I'd also like a second update from the Welsh Government on the case of Robbie Powell, a young lad who died in Ystradgynlais because of a misdiagnosis of Addison's disease. His father, Will Powell, has campaigned for years for a public inquiry into his death, and I join his calls for that. But, Cabinet Secretary, I met with the Secretary of State for Wales, Jo Stevens, and, when we met with her, she said some of these issues are reserved to the Welsh Government. She said to us that she would get a meeting set up for Mr Powell and me with the Welsh Government. That has not been forthcoming, and I think Mr Powell has campaigned long and hard enough on this issue, and I think the Welsh Government should show him a bit more respect and come forward with that meeting date as soon as possible.

Thank you very much for those two questions, James Evans. As far as bluetongue is concerned, this is in partnership with the livestock and veterinary sectors. We've been very successful—you would recognise—in keeping bluetongue out of Wales, and we're proud of the efforts of everyone involved in making this happen. And responding to the expansion of the restricted zone in England has been a major decision, and there has been careful consideration of the impacts on business and livestock health and welfare, with many discussions taking place with key stakeholders, and I understand the Chief Veterinary Officer for Wales has met with industry representatives. There was a ministerial round-table on 5 June, for industry to share their views directly with the Deputy First Minister. And there's agreement that vaccination is the best way of protecting flocks and herds against bluetongue, and we will be working with our partners to encourage farmers to consider vaccination with their vets and to remain vigilant for the disease and report any suspect cases. But, thank you for raising it so I can update on that point.

And also, of course, you draw attention and memory to the tragic case in terms of Robbie Powell. I and others who were here have had responsibilities, and, of course, we go back to that and I will again look at this in terms of raising this with the current Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care for an update, in terms of our robust response that we made, of course, at the time.

I call for a debate, please, in Government time on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, so that we can unite our voices in this issue. In Gaza, civilians are being killed for trying to get food. My old colleagues at ActionAid have warned about this militarisation of aid, whereby for weeks now the only way desperate Gazans can get access to the food they are dying for is by travelling to distribution sites where hundreds have been killed by gunfire. It is turning what should be a life-saving mission into a death trap. As my old colleague Riham Jafari has warned, whilst the world's gaze shifts to the conflict between the US, Israel and Iran, Gaza is being forgotten. For nearly a year already, Gaza has been the deadliest place on earth to be a child. More people are dying every day. This is not about pitting one cause against another; it is about speaking up against the wanton killing of children and civilians. So, can we have that debate, to urge the UK Government to use all diplomatic means to secure full humanitarian access to Gaza, the release of hostages and an end to this devastating war, because, history will judge us for what we do in this moment, and what we fail to do?

Thank you, Delyth Jewell. I think it's important that Members have made their statements, again, of support—we've had many today. And I just want to respond—and, indeed, Julie Morgan raised this as well—that we're also aware and were horrified to hear last week, as well, from that meeting with the UNRWA about the Palestinians who've been killed at the aid distribution sites. That is becoming daily news, and I'm grateful again that, today, we've aired the concerns from some of the world's biggest charities and aid agencies, to see the Israeli and US-backed body that distributes food in Gaza shut down. So, again, thank you for raising this again, as have many Members across this Chamber today.

Minister, please can I request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport about school provision in South Wales East? Several constituents in Monmouthshire have contacted me recently about the local authority changing the criteria to access school transport. Primary school pupils living anywhere between 1.5 miles or beyond away from the school were initially eligible for school transport, but that has now changed to 2 miles plus. This is poised to have a major impact on many pupils who go to Archbishop Rowan Williams Church in Wales Primary School in Portskewett. Many parents who send their children to the school have contacted me, raising their concerns about the impact it's going to have on them. Walking to the school, for many pupils, will now involve walking through the grounds of Caldicot castle, which can be treacherous during the winter months, with flooding taking place, and also crossing a very busy roundabout, which poses many safety concerns. Not only that, but these changes will undoubtedly lead to an increase in vehicles heading to school, which will also result in more congestion and emissions—something that flies in the face of the Government's aims, I believe. I must also praise the local Welsh Conservative councillor, Lisa Dimmock, for all her tireless work in helping these families and pushing for a solution, but we do sincerely need a review of this policy and I'd implore the Cabinet Secretary to please engage with Monmouthshire council in order to come up with a commonsense solution, before bringing forward a statement here in this Chamber. Thank you.

This is something that is for Monmouthshire County Council, but also I think it's important that there was a summit on school transport, on learners' travel, which the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, of course, chaired and convened, and I'm sure these issues were raised at that point.

Trefnydd, Jamie Oliver's recent campaign, Jamie's Dyslexia Revolution, has been eye-opening for many people, including myself, seeing in detail the challenges faced by the many dyslexic children within our education systems across the UK. Jamie Oliver has called for mandatory dyslexia training in schools, so pupils can be given the support they need to thrive. Getting that early diagnosis can make a huge difference to children and young people in their development, and can ensure that their parents and teachers can provide the right support, hopefully, because I am aware of a child in Monmouthshire that has just been diagnosed, finally, in year six of primary school, and she is years behind in reading, but not actually getting the support that she needs from the school.

But I think a lot of parents, and indeed children, would appreciate a statement on the issue from our health Secretary, on whether the Welsh Government would consider implementing mandatory dyslexia screening here in Wales, and also proper training for new teachers and more funding to get better support and outcomes for children with dyslexia. Just so you are aware, the UK Government has just responded to Jamie Oliver's campaign by committing to that latter point. Diolch.

Thank you very much, Laura Anne Jones. So, we know how effective Jamie Oliver's campaigns can be, and how important it has been that he has revealed his own circumstances in terms of dyslexia, and he will have an impact, and I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary for Education recognises that in all the important work with additional funding that has been made available in education, in terms of addressing additional learning needs.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. I'd like to call for a statement, please, from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care regarding the lack of training opportunities for educational psychologists in north Wales. Currently, there is no pathway for doctoral training in north Wales, and mid Wales indeed, with aspiring educational psychologists being forced to seek placements in England, where funding requirements often bind them to remain for two years post qualification, draining Welsh talent and worsening our local shortages.

With rising demand for assessments and diagnoses, particularly for conditions like autism, waiting times are lengthening, and many vulnerable learners are being failed. We are not just facing an inequality of provision, but a systemic issue that risks deepening the north-south divide. We desperately need an educational psychology course to be established at Wrexham or Bangor University as soon as possible. So, can we receive a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care outlining what steps the Welsh Government is taking to expand educational psychology training routes in the north to meet urgent regional and, indeed, national demand?

Thank you for that question, Gareth Davies. Of course, this is very much a cross-Government issue in terms of policy and implementation in relation to the provision at our education institutions and our health service, and it is also appropriate to look at it as a regional and cross-border issue as well in terms of access to training. Thank you.

Dirprwy Lywydd, this is a great example of collaborative effort between the health service and education to improve the health of young people. Children spend around 40 per cent of their waking hours in school, and school meals can make up a third or more of a child's weekday food intake. Reducing sugar in our children’s diet is another important step towards improving their oral health. In 2009, we introduced the Healthy Eating in Schools (Wales) Measure, supplemented with regulations in 2013. As Members will be aware, we are currently consulting on further changes that will continue to help children develop healthy eating habits, access healthier food during school hours and make healthy food choices.

We've also recognised that extending oral health education beyond Designed to Smile aged children is needed, and we've taken opportunities to embed oral health education and healthy lifestyle choices in the new curriculum. The new Curriculum for Wales places a strong emphasis on healthy lifestyle education through its health and well-being area of learning and experience. This is one of the six key areas in the Curriculum for Wales, and it’s designed to help learners understand the importance of physical health, mental well-being, and emotional and social development. It covers topics such as healthy eating and nutrition that support learners to become healthy, confident individuals who can navigate life’s challenges and opportunities.

I turn now to the dental reforms that we've made following the pandemic. We know that fluoride varnish application is a clinically effective method for preventing the progression of dental disease. Through the work that we've done to reform the existing NHS dental contract, we've seen the application of fluoride varnish for children increase from 15 per cent to more than 75 per cent. Since the pandemic, more than 186,000 new children have gained access to NHS dental care.

So, are all these changes making a difference to children’s oral health in Wales? We periodically survey the dental health of children, at ages five and 12. The most recent report for five-year-olds’ oral health, published last year, found the percentage of children examined who have decayed, missing or filled teeth has reduced by a third. The average number of teeth per child that are decayed, missing or filled has fallen by 44 per cent. And the latest survey of 12-year-olds, published at the start of this year, was even more encouraging. The percentage of children examined who have decayed, missing or filled teeth has reduced by 40 per cent, and the average number of teeth per child that are decayed, missing or filled has halved. The prevalence and severity of tooth decay in children has significantly reduced since 2008.

But there is still work to do. One in four 12-year-olds still experience tooth decay. That is far too many. There is still a significant gap between the oral health of children from the most deprived and the least deprived parts in Wales, despite the success of the Designed to Smile programme. Designed to Smile will continue its work, but we also need to take forward the 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales' work to reduce the amount of sugar in our diets, and the changes to school food regulations and in day-to-day education. We must continue to take a whole-system approach to tackle what is, largely, a preventable disease.

Thank you for your statement today, Cabinet Secretary. We all recognise that the oral health of children is particularly important, especially as dental infections in children are one of the most common chronic childhood diseases and are the main reason for the use of paediatric general anaesthetic. Poor dental health causes pain and discomfort, which can lead to difficulty in eating, speaking and sleeping, and it can also affect academic performance, not to mention someone’s overall quality of life. We also know that it can result in abscesses, putting children under greater risk of becoming severely unwell or septic and needing hospital admission. I recognise the successes of the Designed to Smile programme and the fall in the prevalence and severity of tooth decay in children since 2008. I would therefore like to raise one of the major issues that dental practices still face when dealing with children.

It's found that children make up a disproportionately high number of missed or failed-to-attend appointments, and dental practices have no mechanism to investigate why appointments have been missed, other than to ring their parents. This is a widespread problem that not only wastes precious dental clinic time, but means that children are not having the care that they need. Poor dental health in children is a major sign of neglect by the parents and it’s vital that more is done to make sure that children attend appointments. What is the Welsh Government doing to encourage parents to take their children to dental appointments? Given the current crisis in NHS dentistry, it is, quite frankly, not good enough to allow this to go on. What proposals do you have for more strict investigation and penalties regarding those parents who repeatedly fail to take their children to appointments?

Cabinet Secretary, you mentioned the dental reforms that you have made since the pandemic, and you are now proposing to undertake another major reform of NHS general dental services. As you may be well aware, this has been of great concern to the dental community, in particular because the proposals that you are trying to introduce are untried and unpiloted and you have no data or evidence to suggest that they will work. Dirprwy Lywydd, it is believed by the dental community that there would be severe knock-on effects on children’s oral health if the new system were to be introduced, which could undo some of the good work that has already been done. For example, in the current system, dental practices will usually try to see a family together, or, at the very least, siblings together, thus saving on travel time and helping families to make appointments. However, the new system that is being proposed would end this practice; children from the same family would most likely have appointments at different times and possibly even at different dental practices, increasing the likelihood of missed appointments. Cabinet Secretary, if the new system were introduced, how are you going to mitigate for this separation of family appointments?

The new proposals would also mean that patients would be expected to travel further distances to appointments and, for many, transport issues are already a major barrier to attending appointments and would likely hit families with young children the hardest, especially those who rely on public transport. What consideration are you going to give in the new system to allow for the fact that parents, often with more than one child, would likely have to make substantial journeys to attend appointments?

As you will be aware, Cabinet Secretary, under the new system, dentists would be explicitly unable to share patient records or x-rays between practices, creating significant hurdles to maintaining personalised, consistent treatment pathways. This will not only increase the amount of time needed for each appointment, as there would likely need to be duplication of record-taking and repeat x-rays taken, it would also directly undermine preventative care, as each dentist would not have access to the patient’s previous history. This will be especially problematic for vulnerable children, because it will be harder for dentists to identify long-term child neglect and child abuse. It can also be problematic for dentists, when dealing with children and, indeed, adults with neurodiverse conditions or other severe and chronic health conditions, for them to keep asking repeatedly about their patient's health, medical condition or what medication they are currently taking. How is the Welsh Government going to ensure that those vulnerable children and those with health-related issues are not disproportionately affected by the proposed changes?

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, the most deprived areas of Wales have the highest severity and highest proportion of children with tooth and gum decay, and, as was mentioned earlier, we know that this affects children's health and even educational prospects long term. Yet evidence has shown that a lot of parents still do not know or understand this link. With this in mind, what specific steps are you taking to make parents aware and keep reminding them of the importance of their children's overall health? Thank you.

I thank the Member for the acknowledgement that he gave to the success of Designed to Smile. We will all have examples in our constituencies of this programme reaching into schools and engaging with children, with staff and indeed with families—to respond to his last point—in a way that, as we've seen from the figures that I was able to share with the Chamber, is making a real difference. So, our commitment to the programme will continue.

He's also correct to say that I absolutely do recognise, as we all would, that where there is poor oral health and the challenges that can arise as a consequence of that, it can, in fact, as he said, impact on attendance and well-being and, indeed, attainment in certain circumstances as well. That's part of the reason why it's so important to make sure that we are able to support children to maintain good oral health into adulthood.

He took the opportunity to give his views on the new contract, which is, as he will know, under consultation. He will have heard the First Minister say earlier that we have had a very, very high number of responses, which I absolutely welcome. The contract that was consulted on is one that was the result of 13 months of negotiation with the BDA, and many, many years' worth of development prior to that, based on extensive evidence and experience. So, I am absolutely confident that it will help us in our shared aim, across the Chamber, of extending access to NHS dentistry, which is an important part of how we can support young people to make sure that their dental hygiene and dental health is good.

He will have noted that I said in my statement that, even under the existing set of reforms, before the more substantial reform in the contract that is out for consultation, or certainly has been out for consultation, 186,000 new child patients have been able to access NHS dental care, which is good progress. We obviously want to see that figure extended.

I don't actually recognise many of the points that the Member put in his question, in relation to the new dental contract. What I would say to him is that I think the contract will incentivise dentists to see children. It certainly has provisions in there to incentivise that approach to prevention, which he rightly made a focus of in his remarks. I think that that is what we will see as a consequence of the reforms, but there will be further opportunities, when we have considered the substantial number of representations that have been made in the consultation, for him to engage me further on the detail of that contract when it is concluded. 

We are also seeing fewer practices accepting new NHS child patients. Only 27 per cent of dental practices in Wales are currently doing so. That's a clear sign that the system isn't currently working. And, beyond access, the delivery model itself is shifting in concerning ways. Parents and children are being treated by different providers. Patients are being removed from local practice lists. These changes threaten the continuity of care, which is especially important for children, who benefit from stable relationships with trusted practitioners. So, how will you make sure that you get to grips with the issue of continuity of care and that patients can expect such continuity of care?

Unless we tackle the root causes of this access crisis, especially the flawed NHS dental contract, we will lock in long-term inequalities, with more children growing up with preventable dental health problems. The Government claims prevention is central to its reforms, but apart from some expansion in fluoride varnish application, the proposals are still built around the treatment-focused model. This doesn't support a real shift in how care is delivered.

Supervised tooth-brushing programmes in early years settings, like those explained in today's statement, Designed to Smile, are welcome, but they're not enough on their own. Prevention must be a part of a broader public health approach, including strong action on the marketing, labelling and sugar content of food and drinks, especially those aimed at children. A co-ordinated approach to prevention is, therefore, essential. Oral health is influenced by more than just dental care. It's tied to, as the Cabinet Secretary explained, diet, but also education, income and housing. We must take those wider factors into account. So, what consideration has the Cabinet Minister given to these issues as part of the broader preventative agenda, and can he elaborate on what investment is given to this wider preventative agenda?

We also have to address deep-rooted inequalities. According to the NHS Wales dental epidemiological programme, over 25 per cent of 12-year-olds in Wales still experience tooth decay. That's an improvement since 2016-17, but the rate of untreated decay remains too high. And, once again, the most deprived communities are the hardest hit. There's a 10 percentage point gap in access to treatment between the most and least deprived groups. That's not just a gap, that's an injustice. So, does the Cabinet Secretary see a role to roll out dental school visits across Wales?

I'm glad the Member was able to acknowledge the success of the Designed to Smile programme over the last 15 years. I think it makes a genuine difference, as he acknowledged in his question. He made the important point about the importance of attending dentists in the first year of a child's life, and that is indeed one of the purposes of that programme specifically: to encourage that now. And I outlined the successes that the programme has had in relation to that in my statement earlier.

He makes an important point about the importance of consistency of provision in all parts of Wales, and identifies fairly that there are some challenges in parts of north Wales in relation to NHS dentistry. However, that is something the health board is very, very actively engaged on, and has had success not just in redeploying the funding, but that means, of course, that there is an appetite in practices to take on more NHS work with that funding. So, I welcome that and obviously want to see the expansion of that, as I'm sure we will see, as a consequence of the new contract.

He will know as well that the dental access portal is designed partly to understand the level of demand in all parts of Wales, and to tackle the point he described as a postcode lottery. I think that was one of the reasons why it was recommended by the Health and Social Care Committee in the first place. So, he'll know that has been rolled out now in all parts of Wales since February of this year. It's still early days, but I think that is a positive step forward, and I'm grateful to colleagues in the Chamber for having given that a broad welcome in other contexts. I actually think, as I said in my response to Joel James, that the new contract will encourage NHS dentistry for children, and, as he acknowledged in his question, there are some provisions in there for extending that preventative approach. 

He made a very important, and I thought interesting, set of observations in relation to prevention. The broader context for that is, as I set out partly in the statement, around ensuring that we introduce regulations around some of those foodstuffs that we know are most damaging to children's health generally and specifically to their oral health. I remember very recently we had a vote in the Senedd about banning the location of foods that are high in sugar content at points of sale. I remember also, unfortunately, that his party voted against that regulation. So, I think it's important that we do take that holistic view, and I think it's important that we can command the support of all parts of the Chamber in doing that.

I believe Designed to Smile is one of the most important health inequalities initiatives that the Welsh Government has brought forward. It's simple, it's relatively cheap and it has such a positive impact on young children's dental and oral health. It is vital that children get fluoride on their teeth and that that fluoride stays there, and this programme does exactly that, ensuring children and their families receive advice and, obviously, that children receive treatment at a very important time in their lives.

We know prevention is essential in improving a child's oral health. I've been very fortunate to see Designed to Smile delivered in nurseries and schools right across my constituency, but especially in Caia Park, which has some of the most deprived wards in Wales. We need to ensure we get the number of settings providing Designed to Smile back up to pre-COVID pandemic levels and then increase the number of children as well. So, I am pleased to see that the budget is hypothecated, but what more do you think we can do, Cabinet Secretary, to ensure that that gap between the oral health of our young children from the most deprived families and our least deprived families is closed?

I thank Lesley Griffiths for those questions and I would associate myself with the points that she's made about the importance of closing that gap. A number of points have been made about that today, and I absolutely think it's essential. Designed to Smile is showing how that can be done. I think you mentioned the number of schools participating in that programme. The figures that were published last year show that 1,176 schools and nurseries were participating, all of them in areas of disadvantage, as the Member will know, and more than 203,000 tooth-brushing packs were distributed in those areas in the figures last year.

I think it is really important that we continue that focus on that programme. It is a successful programme. We know, we can see the evidence of that success, so I'm proud that we're committing to that programme into the future, and the opportunities to embed the work of Designed to Smile on the one hand with the opportunities in the curriculum on the other hand, I think is a really important part of closing that gap. I think the dental access portal also provides the kind of data that health boards will need to be able to target the resources, target the provision in a way that can help us together to close that gap.

Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you for your statement. I do welcome the focus on prevention, and this looks like it's a real social justice issue, and about tackling the real concerns that we have around the inequity of those poorer families who cannot access and have not the encouragement to be able to do those daily routines that we know really help them.

Thank you for that, but I just wondered if I could ask you about something else that affects our children, and that is wonky teeth. If you have really wonky teeth as a child then you are looking to get braces, and in Wales we have an incredible wait for orthodontic treatments. In October, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board highlighted waiting times of three to four years for orthodontic treatment, meaning some young people are spending nearly almost all of their adolescence actually waiting to get those braces, which then have to stay on for a number of months, if not longer, in order to try and address the issue. I raised the case previously of a 14-year-old who waited 18 months for NHS orthodontic treatment, travelling every day to Hereford. So, I wonder, Cabinet Secretary, if I could ask you that through perhaps the new dental health portal we are able to have some figures around waiting times for orthodontic treatment for our children and young people as well. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'm very grateful to Jane Dodds for that. As she will know, I have made a commitment previously to be publishing more information in relation to waiting times on a more granular basis, so I will take that particular point into consideration when we publish our transparency statement in the autumn. I should say that the figures published last year showed 10,100 orthodontic treatments, which is the second highest on record, after the previous year where nearly 10,700 treatments were started, so that is around a 10 per cent increase in activity compared to 10 years ago.

Obviously, we do not want anybody waiting too long for their treatment. One of the issues that we are identifying as we look at the granularity of some of those longer waits on the waiting lists is a pattern of early referral into orthodontic treatment before the intervention is best timed, if I can put it like that, in a very non-clinical way. The net effect of that is to make the waiting list appear longer than perhaps it should be. So, we will want to understand in more detail what's happening there. I don't for a second diminish the issue, but I think it's important to see the context of that as well.

Thank you very much for your statement, and your holistic approach to this really important preventative indicator, which is a really good indicator of deprivation, we know that. I strongly support your aligning this with the important consultation that the education Secretary is conducting on the content of school meals, because we obviously need to be serving healthy food in our schools. Will you be publishing the granular details so that we can see it school by school? Because the schools that have still got very high levels of tooth decay at aged 12 are clearly the ones that we perhaps need to concentrate on in examining the school food. What is the role of the health visitors in encouraging parents to only provide water or milk in bottles? Because fizzy drinks, or indeed juice in bottles, is absolutely toxic for teeth. Thank you very much indeed for maintaining this preventative approach.

I acknowledge Jenny Rathbone's continuing interest in this area and the work that she does in relation to the connection between food and health in many ways. As I touched on in my statement, alongside the continuing work of Designed to Smile, which engages both the education workforce and the health workforce in the way that she was acknowledging in her question, I think taking forward 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales', reducing sugar in our diets generally, specifically in the context of school, and those broader regulatory interventions about where supermarkets locate foods high in sugar and limiting and restricting those at the point of sale, are an important set of reforms that we've passed here as a Senedd. I think we will see the effects of those coming through in terms of health generally, but specifically in this context children's health. I will certainly be working closely with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education to understand what more we can do to make sure that the work she is doing through the regulations she's consulting on and the work that I'm doing in my portfolio can be even more closely aligned for that purpose.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, can I welcome your statement today and the progress that's been made on this project? I think it's really positive, because we do see the link between oral health and overall health. If we can get our younger people healthier in their oral health, I'm sure their overall health will be better as they grow.

Two quick questions, Cabinet Secretary. This scheme goes from nought to seven. Are you looking to expand this in the future, maybe up to 10-year-olds, to actually close that gap? Because what we don't want to see is people getting to seven and then falling off a cliff edge in terms of their oral health. We want to make sure it goes right the way through. 

As my colleague Joel James said about the amount of missed appointments with young people, and especially children, I think that's something that needs to be addressed. What work is the Welsh Government doing to make sure that dentists can go out into schools, to make sure they actually go to the places where they are, so parents don't have to take their kids out of school, they can be seen there, which will make it a lot easier for those children to go to those appointments? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

On the first point, the design of the programme is clinically led. What we know is that, if you can make sure that children's oral health is good at the age of five, then you're much more likely to be able to maintain that with older children and into adulthood. I think the opportunity for us is to extend the reach of Designed to Smile and make sure the coverage is as extensive as it can be so that it provides that support to as many children as possible. I think there is a broader conversation to be had about how we look at innovative, creative ways to make sure that that ongoing support is available from dentists to children of school age, and there are ongoing reflections on what more we can do in that space.

Dirprwy Lywydd, this will be the sixth and final time in which I will have been involved in the challenging business of agreeing a budget in the final weeks of a Senedd term. I want to ensure that we provide a stable and reliable outcome for our public services and all who rely on them. I want to ensure that the next Senedd, that Senedd we have worked so hard to create, has the best possible platform from which to carry out its work and to make an early start on aligning budgets with priorities and the development of a new programme for government. Together with the funds I intend to carry forward through the Wales reserve, the approach I will outline this afternoon will ensure hundreds of millions of pounds will be available to get that new Senedd off not simply to a stable start, but an ambitious one.  

For these reasons, Dirprwy Lywydd, my colleagues and I will work to put in front of the Senedd a single-year budget. In other circumstances I would, of course, have very much liked to have laid a budget that would take advantage of the longer horizons made possible by last month’s comprehensive spending review. I don’t believe, however, that it would be democratically consistent for a Senedd in the final weeks of a five-year term to constrain the newly elected Parliament in that way. Those horizons lie beyond us. That opportunity will be for others to grasp. It is for those reasons that the Cabinet has decided to plan for a business-as-usual budget this autumn—a budget that restates into the next financial year the budget in place for the current financial year, with this year’s spending plans taken forward and increased only in line with inflation. This, therefore, will not be a budget that focuses on new priorities or fresh policies. That, I believe, will be for political parties to put before the Welsh electorate in their manifestos.

This approach, Dirprwy Lywydd is not the only possible course of action open to the Welsh Government. As ever, I remain open to the possibility of working with other political parties who believe a more ambitious budget could be agreed and are willing to work together to discuss shared priorities, and I am grateful whenever that takes place. In either case, however, the overriding responsibility, which I think is a shared responsibility, is to avoid the damage that would be caused by failure to pass a budget. The politically neutral approach I have set out this afternoon is an attempt to secure stability and certainty for our public services and for our constituents.  

There are some further and more detailed issues I need to set out today. While our block grant settlement makes up the majority of our funding, devolved taxes play an increasingly important role in how our budget is built. They provide crucial levers that have a direct impact on the funding available to deliver the priorities of the Government. As we discuss and debate the draft budget in the autumn, the devolved taxes forecast will change with the Office for Budget Responsibility's economic and fiscal outlook, which is published alongside the UK Government’s autumn budget. This is likely to affect the amount of funding we have available to spend. I say that because, in setting out today's timetable, it is likely that, once again, our draft budget will be published before the UK Government's autumn budget. Now, there is an inevitable awkwardness in that sequence, but our own budget process is well designed, and it's my intention to make provision within the draft budget to ensure that we can respond to any tax volatility and accommodate changes in the normal way through the final budget.

Dirprwy Lywydd, while I intend to lay a one-year budget in the autumn, that does not constrain our ability to plan for the longer term. I have written today to the Chair of the Finance Committee to discuss the development of a Bill to make improvements to devolved tax legislation. That Bill will be developed and consulted upon during the current Senedd term, but its introduction will be for the new Senedd. The Bill will be ready for that Bill to be put in front of that Senedd in its first term.

Secondly, the work of the Welsh spending review is now a key part of our budgetary process and it is the place where we consider how we approach future years and respond to the settlement from the UK Government. Any new government will benefit from work currently under way on the review, which will be key to informing decisions of any incoming government. The review looks at the effectiveness of spending decisions through a cross-Government lens, with a focus on the challenges and opportunities to be faced over the longer term and options for how they could be addressed. The review is not just about spending, but about ways in which we can make the most of our resources, by considering all of the fiscal levers available to us, maximising our spending envelope. That work will continue through and beyond this Senedd term.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to touch on our approach to assessing the impact our budgetary decisions have on people across Wales. As Members may be aware, we have been undertaking a review of the strategic integrated impact assessment that is published alongside the budget. The review has identified a number of improvements that can be made, both the way we undertake the assessment and how we publish its results in a way that is accessible to the reader. We will therefore be trialling a new approach this year, and I will write to the Finance Committee and the budget improvement and impact advisory group in the next few weeks inviting them to work with us over the summer further to develop this essential part of our budget process.

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for the statement here this afternoon and also grateful for the engagement earlier today, giving notice of the content of the statement before us. I'm aware, of course, that there is a technical element to what has been presented to us, but I certainly welcome the earlier-than-usual timeline for the budget milestones to be presented to the Senedd. I recognise, of course, that the driver for this is next year's Senedd elections. 

I think that it's probably fair to say that the meat of the statement that we've heard from the Cabinet Secretary today is pretty unprecedented and actually very significant. And I'll quote in particular, towards the start of the statement we've heard here today, which is that the Cabinet Secretary said:

'It is for those reasons',

referring to the end of the Senedd term,

'that the Cabinet has decided to plan for a business as usual budget this autumn; a budget which restates into the next financial year the budget in place for the current financial year, with this year’s spending plans increased in line with inflation. This will not be a budget which focuses on new priorities or fresh policies.'

I'm not sure that a Senedd Chamber has heard words in line with that before for what is essentially a roll-over budget, and I certainly recognise there is a laudable and well-meaning element to that, to not tie the hands of the next Government, but of course this hasn't been a concern in the past of a Government presenting a budget or a budget plan.

The truth is that we know that what has been presented is a reflection of the political reality that the Government finds itself in, and particularly the Labour Party is working within. We know there is significant risk of this budget not passing when it is presented to the Senedd, because, of course, we know the Government does not have the numbers necessary to pass a budget—previously supported by Plaid Cymru and most recently supported by the Liberal Democrats to ensure a budget is passed. There is clearly a risk that does not take place this time round.

But I think what's been presented to us this afternoon is also an acknowledgement that there is a real risk of Labour not being in Government after the next Senedd election, and we know there's good reason for this. We're aware of the record waiting lists that have plagued our hospitals. We're aware of some of the worst education outcomes that students are having to work with. [Interruption.] We're aware of a change of electoral system, which, of course, Mike Hedges, you've supported wholeheartedly, I'm sure. And we're also aware that we have the smallest pay packets in Great Britain as well—all reasons why a Labour Party and Government is clearly uncertain of the electoral outcome next May.

We would say that Wales needs a new approach, one that has a relentless focus on fixing the problems that we see in front of us here in Wales, an approach that puts respect for public money at the centre of all decisions made by a Welsh Government. We want to see an end to the vanity projects that this Labour Government has time and time again trotted out. [Interruption.] I do have a question. We would want to see a respect—

[Inaudible.]—five minutes to ask his questions.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We would want to see respect for public money, and we would see Welsh Conservatives prioritising public services that benefit people across Wales, as well as creating an environment attractive to business and to economic growth. I know the Cabinet Secretary is not looking for any sort of sympathy, but I expect his position and the position of the Labour Party at the moment in Wales is not helped by the chaos we're seeing at Westminster with Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and the UK Labour Government—another u-turn on the cards yet again, a welfare Bill that's not fit for purpose, borrowing levels rocketing, causing some of the lowest levels of business confidence that we've seen in far too long.

So, we've been presented with a message that next year's budget will be a replication of what we've had this year. I believe that that's an admission of fragility and loss of authority by the Labour Party here in Wales. So, my question, Cabinet Secretary, is: what assurances can you provide to those sectors with a roll-over budget that when they face real challenges into the next financial year, and those financial inflections, those challenges won't be ignored with a roll-over budget, and there will be acknowledgement of additional support when required? Diolch yn fawr. [Interruption.] Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, I was glad to hear the Member welcome the timetable. It shouldn't be any surprise to anybody that a budget in front of the Senedd reflects the political realities of the times. That's what Governments have to do, and I am, as Sam Rowlands said, acutely aware of the risk of a budget not passing. I'm acutely aware of it because of the catastrophic impact that that would have on our public services and on Welsh citizens, because parties that vote against a budget on the floor of this Senedd would in those circumstances be voting for a budget in which our public services would have to manage with only 75 per cent of the budget available to them in this year, and if you imagine what that would mean in the practical realities of planning for our local government services, services in education, social services and children's services, and in the health service, then you can see how catastrophic that would be. The Cabinet's decision to embark on an approach to this budget that is a restatement of this year's budget is designed to maximise the chances that that risk can be avoided. It is a responsible response to the end of a Senedd term, the imminence of an election, the pressures that that places on all political parties.

Now, of course I expect that the money that will be made available to an incoming Government through this strategy will be there for the Labour Party and the next Labour Government to be able to match with the priorities that we as a party will put in front of the public. I recognise Sam Rowlands is warning about the uncertainty of electoral outcomes, and he comes from a party that has plenty of experience of that, particularly in recent times. I think that this budget does provide the assurance that we can give to our public services, and it is certainly a greater assurance than would be there if parties in this Chamber were to choose to vote down that budget, with all the consequences that would come from that.

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for the advance meeting as well, cross-party, so that we were aware of the approach being put before us today. We note that approach. Obviously, it is the role and responsibility of Welsh Government to develop and publish spending plans, but also to ensure that those are passed. Various approaches are proposed today, and we will take our role seriously as a political party to scrutinise those plans and also consider what the implications are. Obviously, we did those carefully. For the last budget, the shortfalls were noted then in terms of local government, for instance, and the amount of times Members across political parties have raised concerns over national insurance contributions. We note the approach that had to be taken by Welsh Government this time in terms of the Welsh reserve, but also in terms of the continued impact on third sector organisations and charities. We know, I'm sure, each of us, of examples in our constituencies of organisations that do crucial work supporting Welsh Government priorities, and yet are facing, perhaps, closure, so will be concerned and looking to next year's budget to see if they can survive or not, having had to either lessen the services they provide—. I know of members of staff, perhaps, who have worked for some charity or third sector organisations for 20 years or more that are no longer in post, and services being reduced at a time when so many people are struggling. Obviously, with the vote in Westminster today in terms of welfare, that will be something that a number of charities are warning about in terms of pressures on them. So, the national insurance issue is still very much a live one, and one that does have ramifications for our budget here in Wales.

The other thing that has ramifications, of course, is the u-turn that we've seen. Obviously, the spending review was based on those billions of pounds saved through welfare. Obviously, we welcome the u-turn, though we don't believe it's the right u-turn in terms of that two-tier approach. But it does beg the question in terms of that spending review and what it means for Wales, and I wonder if there have been any further discussions or indication to the Welsh Government if there will be implications to what's been announced to date. I don't need to rehearse, I'm sure, the arguments that we put forward last week in terms of a fair funding model for Wales, the shortcomings that we see in terms of the spending review in terms of the rail funding. Devolution of the Crown Estate: I was disappointed to hear the First Minister's response to Rhun ap Iorwerth's question earlier today, which asked, quite fairly, I think: what's your next move? I don't think she's going to find that answer in Switzerland. Certainly, we need to know how things are going to progress in terms of securing funding and that we're able to ensure that our Welsh Government budget is maximised by being able to benefit from our natural resources. So, these are all questions that have been very much alive in our minds, in the minds of those that receive funding, public sector organisations, and, as I said, charities and third sector. So, we note the approach outlined today, and we look forward to the scrutiny process.

I thank the Member for finding time to have that meeting in advance of today's statement. I have had the first opportunity for those further discussions to which she referred. I was at the FISC meeting on Thursday of last week. The approach to the autumn budget was discussed there with colleagues from Northern Ireland and from Scotland, and an agreement made about further meetings of the FISC so that the views of devolved Governments and the challenges that we face can be fully communicated to the Treasury in their path to the autumn budget. I agree with what the Member said about maximising the budget available to the Welsh Government and to the Senedd in setting a budget for next year. That's why I referred in my statement to the importance of devolved taxes and the plan for that as part of our strategy towards the autumn.

I would probably want to say, gently, to the Member, that it is the responsibility of the Welsh Government to place a budget before the Senedd, and it is a responsibility of the Welsh Government to do everything that we can to present a budget that can succeed through the Senedd. But, in the end, it is the Senedd that votes on the budget, not the Welsh Government. The responsibility in that sense is genuinely a shared one, and that's why I've tried to set out an approach this afternoon that would allow this Senedd, as a whole, in its final weeks, to ensure that we pass on to the Senedd that comes after us a budget that is in good order and gives that new Senedd the best opportunity we can to be able to make a good start on its priorities with a budget there to do it, and without the burning platform that it would inherit if we were to fail to pass a budget in the last weeks of this Senedd term.

We have to ensure that we provide a stable and reliable income for our public services in order to provide the services that we all need. Whilst I have argued consistently for multi-year budgets, there’s a logic behind a single year's budget in the final year of this Senedd, especially as we have a new electoral system that makes it almost impossible for a single party to win the election. It's important that we all recognise the importance of agreeing a budget for 2026-27, even when we know the Senedd will look quite different soon after the financial year starts. Local government needs a settlement that will allow them to set council tax rates and continue the provision of services. We don't want teachers to be losing their jobs, and we don't want social workers not to be available to care for people because we were unwilling to pass a budget. Health will need certainty to continue providing services. We can't complain about waiting lists if we do our bit to try and increase waiting lists. A question I've got is: will the Cabinet Secretary, alongside the continuity budget, publish additional money he would like to provide to health next year?

I thank Mike Hedges for that, Llywydd. He is right that we are attempting to provide stability and reliability for our public services as they go into the next financial year. I'm grateful to him for drawing attention to council budgets in particular. Members here will be aware that our local authorities operate under a regime in which they will be legally obliged to set a budget within the envelope that they know they have available to them, and their monitoring officers will ensure that that is what takes place. If, when we vote on our final budget at the end of January, we're unable to set that budget, then local authorities will, inevitably, have to set those budgets on the basis of only 75 per cent of this year's budget being available to them. That simply means that, as Mike Hedges said, there will be teachers in the classroom and social workers doing vital work today who will lose their jobs. It really is as stark as that, and that's what I am very determined to do everything we can do to avoid. I think it will be for political parties to set out how they would use the headroom that this approach to the budget would provide, and I'm quite sure that my party and Mike's party will want to do exactly that. And as has always been the case, a Labour Party and a Labour Government will always have the needs of the health service uppermost in our minds.

As the Cabinet Secretary will be aware, the Finance Committee has regularly commented on the impact that publishing the draft budget late in the year has on scrutiny and in particular the ability of the Senedd committees to engage with stakeholders and to gain a better understanding of the impact of the Welsh Government's budgetary decisions. As a result, I very much welcome a return to the two-stage process, as provided for by the budget protocol—the first time in seven years that this has happened. The committee will be agreeing its approach to the scrutiny of the draft budget before the summer recess, and we will be formally responding to your letter consulting us on the timetable in due course. However, I wish to say at the outset that having a two-stage process is hugely significant, as it enables the Senedd committees to have more time to consider the decisions made, which will lead to better scrutiny and, ultimately, better outcomes. As you know, the committee will be holding its annual budget priorities debate in Plenary in a few weeks' time, and although you have stated that this budget will not focus on new priorities or fresh policies, I nonetheless look forward to exploring issues raised by stakeholders during our recent engagement work as part of that discussion.

I'm very glad we've been able to put a two-stage process back in front of the Senedd this time. It will, as the Chair of the Finance Committee said, allow for more time for scrutiny of budget proposals. I'm looking forward to the debate on the final day of term, where we will hear of the work that the committee has carried out in terms of its consultation with interest groups across Wales on budget priorities.

I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very grateful to the finance Secretary for the statement this afternoon. I think it's a very mature statement, which outlines a very mature approach to budget setting as we come to the end of this Senedd, and I think it's appreciated across the whole Chamber, if not by the rather bizarre contribution we had from the Conservative spokesperson earlier this afternoon. What is missing, perhaps, from it is the context within which the budget will of course be set, and the context within which spending decisions are taken, and perhaps one of the most serious contexts is the Barnett formula and its continued failure to recognise the needs of Wales and the needs of the people of Wales and the needs in delivering services in Wales. We're aware that the Welsh Government has made a very powerful statement on the failure of the Barnett formula to recognise Wales's needs, but would it be possible, Cabinet Secretary, to outline how the Welsh Government intends to take these matters forward? Because one of the things that I think people in Wales will want to hear during the election campaign next year is what political parties are going to do to deliver a fair funding formula so that Wales is treated on the same basis as England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Thanks to Alun Davies for what he said about the maturity of the approach that I've tried to set out this afternoon. After a quarter of a century of this Senedd, we stand on the boundary of the next major development in devolution, with that new and larger Senedd with all the opportunities it will have for scrutiny and better decision-making, as Heledd Fychan suggested, and what I want to try to do is to make sure that the decisions we have to make in this crucial area allow that new Senedd to get off to the best possible start.

Of course, I agree with Alun Davies about that wider context. We use the money that comes to us through the current system, and we know that the current system is flawed in the way that we discussed here on the floor of the Senedd only last week. I said in that debate that I would be raising these issues at the meeting of the finance Ministers on the following day, and I duly did that. I put a number of the points that were made on the floor of this Senedd to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in my own bilateral with him, and I've agreed to write to him to set out those points in greater detail. As I explained last week, that discussion, I believe, will be about how we can make the current system work better. There is a different debate about a new system, and that, I think, will be something for political parties to consider as they make their offers to the Welsh public.

What the public will want to know is that those alternatives will deliver a better outcome for Wales, and that needs detailed work and careful consideration, and I'm sure that all parties that would wish to put that proposition to the public will make sure that their proposals rest on that sort of serious work.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd, and can I thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and its Chair for its consideration of these regulations, as well as the Electoral Commission for its constructive engagement in this work?

In a little over 10 months, Wales will go to the polls to elect a new Senedd. For the first time, this will be under a fully proportional electoral system and will return 96 Members. These regulations revise the campaign expenses regime for political parties, reflecting those electoral changes, but retaining a maximum limit broadly equivalent to the current system. This will ensure that parties are able to campaign effectively under the new system and inform voters of their policies.

Without these regulations, only one part of the existing limits would apply, meaning a reduction in campaign expense limits for parties of up to 85 per cent. This would undermine every party's ability to engage with voters.

The public consultation returned a wide range of views on how the existing limits should be adapted to the new system, requiring a balanced approach to be taken. I have therefore sought to minimise change where possible.

Changes from the indicative models outlined in the consultation reflect further discussions with the Electoral Commission in recent months. The Electoral Commission must provide consent to any substantive use of this power, and I'm pleased to inform the Senedd that such consent has been received for the regulations under consideration today. The process of obtaining that consent has required genuine engagement, collaboration and compromise, and has resulted in a better proposal to which I hope this Senedd will agree.

The regulations will also exempt security-related costs from party and non-party campaign spending limits for Welsh elections. This follows a similar exemption for individual candidates in the draft Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025, the conduct Order, which is due to be debated on 8 July. We are all too aware of the rise in abuse in politics in recent years, which is a significant barrier to participation. These exemptions implement a recommendation from the Jo Cox Foundation report, and follow close discussions with and a formal recommendation from the Electoral Commission.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. Thank you for this opportunity to explain the background to the statutory instrument consent motion in relation to the Legislative Reform (Disclosure of Adult Social Care Data) Order 2025. The memorandum laid before the Senedd on 23 May, together with a written statement published the same day, summarised the provision of the Order and set out the changes to primary legislation for which consent is sought. I would like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for its work in scrutinising the statutory instrument consent memorandum and its report published yesterday. 

The Order makes amendments to the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 and equivalent UK Government legislation. The purpose of the Order is to enable the recommencement of the sharing of matched adult social care data between the national fraud initiative, a team within the Public Sector Fraud Authority, and local authorities in Wales and England for the purpose of identifying fraud and error.

Amendments made in 2016 by separate UK Government legislation to section 251(12A) of the National Health Service Act 2006 had the unintended effect of preventing local authorities in Wales from being able to access the results of adult social care data matching under the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004. Local authorities' adult social care data became defined as 'patient' data and, once matched, could only be shared with relevant NHS bodies. Local authorities in England and Wales were not designated as relevant NHS bodies for the purpose of sharing the results of data matching, and therefore local authorities’ social care data could not be shared with local authorities, even though local authorities are responsible for the provision of social care. This consequence was wholly unintended. 

Data matching is done for the purpose of fraud detection, and the amendments made in this Order will, once again, allow the national fraud initiative to share matched adult social care data with local authorities. Examples of adult social care fraud or error that the Order has identified are deceased care home residents who were still in receipt of direct payments; care users receiving a personal budget from more than one authority at once; and undeclared capital or property ownership in relation to care funding.

So, it’s my view that it is appropriate to deal with these provisions in this Order. The power to make this Order lies with the Secretary of State under section 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. That power can only be used to legislate in areas that are devolved, with the Senedd’s consent. If approved, these provisions will support work by local authorities in Wales to identify fraud and error and ensure the best use of public money. Estimates suggest that, on average, £7,000 per authority per year can be saved.

I have laid the motion in accordance with the requirements under Standing Order 30A, and I consider the Order to be relevant to statutory instruments because it makes provision in relation to Wales amending primary legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Senedd. So, it’s on that basis that the statutory instruments consent motion is placed before you for your approval.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the Welsh Government’s statutory instrument consent memorandum for this draft Order last week. We noted that the UK Government must secure the consent of the Senedd before making the Order, in line with the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. We also noted that the Welsh Ministers have no power under that Act to make a legislative reform Order such as this one.

As a committee, our assessment of the provisions within the draft Order that require consent aligns with the Welsh Government’s assessment, and our report, which was laid yesterday afternoon, confirms this position.

While we agree with the underlying rationale for this Order, and we of course support efforts to enhance the effectiveness of anti-fraud monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in the social care sector, from a legislative perspective, we are concerned by the method through which this change is being enacted. The Cabinet Secretary will appreciate the reality that a statutory instrument consent motion provides an even thinner layer of scrutiny and accountability than an ordinary LCM. And when we consider the particular sensitivity surrounding issues of data handling and sharing, this does set an unfortunate precedent. So, while we don’t object to the practical implementation of this Order, I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary were to elaborate on her thoughts on whether this is the appropriate legislative vehicle to achieve this end. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. Thank you for the contributions. As I outlined in my opening remarks, the provisions that amend primary legislation within the legislative competence of the Senedd are made to correct an unintended consequence of separate UK Government legislation, so there is no change in policy.

In response to Peredur's point, I think I laid out in my opening statement that it is my view that it is appropriate to deal with these provisions in this Order, and as I said, I think that is clear from my opening remarks. The purpose is to ensure that relevant data can once again be shared to identify fraud in adult social care. Diolch.

I move formally.

Thank you, Llywydd. I stand to move amendment 67 before us today. In my opening contribution here today I want to make some broader points in relation to the legislation in front of us and reiterate the Welsh Conservatives’ general opposition to this visitor levy Bill.

The tourism sector is united in its opposition to the Bill, and that's for very good reason. The sector, particularly after COVID, desperately needs a Government that understands it and encourages it, not one that imposes taxes that will drive people away. It's a truth that whatever you tax, you get less of; certainly a good thing when trying to manage negative outcomes of choices, but our visitor sector is one of the most positive parts of our struggling economy in Wales, and does not need a barrier to make it even less competitive.

We know that tourism is responsible for one in eight jobs directly and through the supply chain here in Wales, supporting our communities through economic growth—a multibillion pound sector that already pumps significant sums into the public purse through business rates, through income tax, through corporation tax, through dividends tax, through value added tax, through national insurance and through capital gains tax. Tourism businesses in Wales are already taxed significantly, making them less competitive than the international market.

Our opposition to the Bill remains steadfast, but of course our tabling of amendments today recognises the political reality of the situation given Labour and Plaid Cymru's agreed support in general for the principles of this Bill. I hope the amendments I've put forward today are taken in the spirit of constructive amendments seeking to make the Bill stronger and better for the people of Wales.

On to group 1 of the amendments, regarding berths and moorings. I'd like to recognise the campaigning work of British Marine Wales, who are vocal in support of the sector they represent, and the three amendments here are laid in support and recognition of that sector. We are proposing to remove berths and moorings from the visitor levy, for example through amendment 67, which removes the power of Welsh Ministers to extend this Act so it applies in relation to berths and moorings provided for vessels.

The reason for this is simple. In my view, the Act would unfairly burden those using berths and moorings as they aren't visitor accommodations in a traditional sense, as boats are meant to move, not stay put. Boaters don't sign up for accommodation. They pay for moorings or marine services, which is something very different, and recreational boating is a leisure or sporting activity—it's not an overnight accommodation. Since the stated aim of the Bill is to supposedly support communities impacted by tourism, it's worth noting that boaters are largely self-contained within the mooring area, and the impact on local services is significantly less than someone staying in a town-centre hotel, for example. These are the reasons I've laid these amendments before us here today. Diolch yn fawr. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. The issue of berths and moorings has been discussed at both earlier Stages of the Bill. The Government's position is unchanged. Application of the visitor levy to berths and moorings is properly within the scope of this Bill. Wales has an industry where cruise liners and private boats come to Wales and stay in Welsh waters. They are types of visitor accommodation, just as are hotels and guest houses. They should be captured by the levy, and the Bill will allow that to happen.

But as we have acknowledged, there are complexities in the marine sector that need further exploration and resolution, so the Bill takes a power to return to this issue in the future. I don’t believe it would be thought a good use of Senedd resources to bring a single piece of primary legislation, divorced from its context, simply to deal with berths and moorings. But before proposals are brought back to the Senedd, more work will be undertaken, including further consultation with the marine sector.

The Scottish Government considered including cruise ships in their visitor levy Act, but also decided to treat them separately due to the distinct operational and legal complexities involved. The Scottish Government has concluded its consultation on a discrete cruise ship levy, and is currently analysing responses, which their Ministers will consider. We will continue to reflect on that experience.

In the meantime, this power should remain in the Bill as that wider work is undertaken. I call on Members therefore to reject amendments 67, 104 and 108 related to the application of the levy to berths and moorings.

Do you want to respond? 

Of course, I'm not surprised by the Cabinet Secretary's position on this. I'd like to remain with our position in terms of the amendments laid before us, because the matter of boats and craft is very different to that fixed accommodation that the Cabinet Secretary outlined, so we still believe that these should not be within the scope. Thank you.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to begin this afternoon by thanking the Finance Committee team for their work on this Bill, especially while supporting members of the committee with the scrutiny of the draft budget, the supplementary budget, all the financial resolutions of all Government Bills, and the scrutiny of budgets of the directly funded bodies at the same time. This important work can go under the radar, but I'm sure all members of the Finance Committee would like to join me in our thanks to them.

Turning to my amendments in this group, I'd like to move that amendment, and I'm grateful for the constructive discussion we've had with the Government since Stage 2, and I'm pleased that we have been able to come to an agreement on this review mechanism, following the recommendations made on this issue by the Finance Committee. It would oblige Welsh Ministers to conduct a review of the Act within five years, as well as enabling relevant input from the Welsh Revenue Authority. We've always been of the view that periodic reviews of the effectiveness of policy is good practice. As such, I urge Members to support these amendments. Diolch yn fawr.

I'm grateful to Peredur Owen Griffiths's amendments, as laid out here. From our side, just to confirm that we would support the amendments as laid out. We recognise that amendment 105, which I have laid, does a very similar role. I was seeking for that review to take place in a shorter time period. Also to confirm, Llywydd, that if amendments 65 and 66 are supported, I would look to withdraw amendment 105, as our amendment looks to achieve very similar outcomes. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Firstly, I'd like to reiterate Plaid's support for this Bill, which was a part of the co-operation agreement. As we've mentioned several times, we strongly believe the current model of tourism in Wales is overly extractive in nature, which then puts considerable pressure on communities without allowing them, then, to fully reap the rewards from the thousands of people who visit our nation each year. The current model is also unfairly weighted against our domestic tourism industry, which of course exists in a symbiotic relationship with the communities that accommodate those visitors. So, there is a clear case, therefore, to even the playing field and nurture a more sustainable approach to tourism in Wales, and this Bill is an important step forward in this respect.

Let's remember, the introduction of a levy of this kind would, of course, be in line with the arrangements that are already in place in many countries and cities across the globe, arrangements that are either in place or are being considered elsewhere in the UK, like in Liverpool, like in Manchester, and being considered in places like Cornwall. They've done this, or are considering a levy, for a reason, because we all know the pressures on our local authorities. This potentially unlocks investment for those local authorities to put into our communities.

So, in support of amendments 65 and 66, tabled by Peredur Owen Griffiths, it's important that as the levy beds in, a review is conducted to work out if it's achieving the very things that I've just mentioned. It's a sensible step, and we will be supporting those amendments.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Government welcomes amendments 65 and 66. We agree that it's good practice to review the effect of the policy and the legislation, and that has always been the Government's intention. At Stage 1, as Members have heard, the Finance Committee recommended that the Welsh Government amend the Bill to commit to undertaking and publishing a review of the operation and effect of the entire Act no later than five years after Part 2 of the Act comes into force. The Chair of the committee has now moved an amendment based on its work in this area, and I'm very grateful to the Chair of the Finance Committee for the discussions we've had on this matter. I heard, of course, Llywydd, what Sam Rowlands said about amendment 105 and acknowledge that it's a different form of review. The Government believes that amendments 65 and 66 are more practicable, and we will support those amendments, and were it to be put to a vote, we would therefore ask Members to reject amendment 105.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. As you said, the amendments in this group all relate to partnerships and unincorporated bodies. Partnerships and unincorporated bodies are entities that often require technical provisions to ensure tax liability applies correctly to the persons who are members of them. This is because these business arrangements do not sit neatly within the categories of individual or body corporates, which are both legal entities. Most partnerships and unincorporated bodies do not have such a legal personality, and therefore responsibility lies with the members of the partnership. Many businesses registering as a visitor accommodation provider will be partnerships, for example some smaller bed and breakfasts owned by spouses or civil partners. All amendments in this group are designed to clarify the legal obligations of partnerships and unincorporated bodies within the Bill, and therefore the majority of the amendments in this group are technical in nature. They make clear what people are expected and not expected to do, to support our goal of ensuring clear understanding of duties and responsibilities.

Amendment 1 and amendment 20 remove those parts of the Bill that previously defined the term 'person' as including two or more people acting in partnership. We're adding a new section that covers partnerships and unincorporated bodies. Amendment 19 inserts that new section, which makes provision about the continuity of registration when members of the partnership or unincorporated body changes. It also provides clarity that anybody who leaves the partnership or body will continue to be treated as a member until the register is updated to reflect their departure.

Amendment 53 requires that the register must contain the names and addresses of each member of the partnership or the unincorporated body, an issue to which we will return with further amendments in group 4.

Llywydd, amendment 60 amends the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act 2016 in relation to the application of penalty points to partnerships and unincorporated bodies. This provision means that the penalty points are, in effect, awarded to and held by the partnership or body as a whole, but that the individual members will be jointly and severally liable to any fines that result from the accumulation of penalty points.

Amendments 38 and 39 are technical amendments to section 54 of the Bill. Both amendments are intended to clarify the effect of provisions in Part 2 of the Bill and remove any suggestion that they operate only in relation to provision that is expressly about partnerships or unincorporated bodies.

Amendment 40 deletes the definition of 'managing members of an unincorporated body' from section 54. This is now included in the interpretation section of the Bill, as this term appears in several places across it.

And finally, amendment 51 defines 'managing members of an unincorporated body' in the interpretation section of the Bill, that is section 63. This has general application throughout the legislation. The approach was adopted in the light of amendment 53, which introduces a reference to 'managing members' in Schedule 1 to the Bill.

Llywydd, while these are technical amendments, given the nature of visitor accommodation ownership in Wales, they are important ones, and I ask Members to support them all.

Llywydd, this group of amendments focus on the operation of the register, an important foundation stone of the Bill, primarily to provide for the collection and management of the visitor levy, but also to support wider decision making through better data. The registration system also takes us a step further towards licensing proposals, and those will be brought in front of the Senedd through a separate Bill.

I'll deal first with Government amendment 3. During Stage 2, an amendment was tabled and agreed that requires the WRA to establish and maintain the registration system. It also sets out what the WRA must, may and may not publish from the register of accommodation providers. Amendment 3 deals with and aligns the publication of names of individuals operating in a partnership or unincorporated body, with the exemption for the publication of names of individual providers. This provision balances ensuring the published register is transparent and fit for purpose, while affording protection to individuals who operate visitor accommodation businesses. It has the effect of preventing the WRA from publishing without consent the names of such individuals unless the individual's full name and surname are part of the business name of the visitor accommodation provider. This also aligns with amendment 53, which was discussed in the previous group, which provides consistency in approach between members of partnerships and unincorporated bodies with individuals.

The amendment also changes the approach taken in the Bill to addresses, applying the same rationale. The amendment means that the WRA cannot publish the addresses of any individuals, including those operating through partnerships or as managing members of an unincorporated association, without consent, except where an individual's address is the place at which the visitor accommodation is provided. It is important that the address as provided remains visible on the register, even in those instances where the individual lives there, to ensure the register is an accurate, open record of visitor accommodation in Wales. It means that a partnership operating visitor accommodation from their home would be able to refuse consent for their names to appear on the public register, but their address would be published.

Amendment 2 is a technical amendment, consequential on the subsections inserted by amendment 3.

If I turn to the non-Government amendments in this group, I cannot support amendment 116, which would place a duty on principal councils to notify the WRA when it receives information that a visitor accommodation provider has not registered and is satisfied that the information is not 'frivolous or vexatious'. I have thought carefully about this amendment, Llywydd, because I agree that such information sharing is important. The question is whether a duty has to be placed on principal councils to secure that information sharing. My conclusion is that the sole purpose of amendment 116 could and will be secured in other ways. There already exist information-sharing gateways that permit the disclosure of data for compliance purposes, and I believe that local councils have every incentive to do so. However, in view of the serious purpose of the amendment and to reinforce those powers and incentives, I have given the undertaking this afternoon that we will issue guidance to local authorities that encourages and supports providing the WRA with useful information for those compliance purposes. I agree, of course, that the operation of the Bill will need to be reviewed, but as we have already supported amendment 66, tabled by Peredur Owen Griffiths—we debated that earlier this afternoon in group 2—therefore, I cannot support amendment 68.

Amendment 106 removes the power of Welsh Ministers to make different provisions for different areas within regulations made under the Bill. A similar amendment was rejected at Stage 2 and I cannot support this amendment now. Given that it is likely that the Bill will, in practice, operate in some areas of Wales but not others, it is entirely reasonable for the Welsh Ministers to make different provision for different areas within the regulations made under section 62. There is no case to fetter how we will implement the legislation in this way, and having the flexibility allows us to ensure that the correct approach is taken.

In the same way as amendment 106, amendment 111 removes the power for the Welsh Ministers to make different provisions for different areas, with this amendment removing the flexibility for the commencement Order for provisions relating to the register. There are good reasons, Llywydd, why a Government may wish to phase-in the registration requirements by area and there's no case, I believe, for removing this flexibility. I therefore ask Members to reject amendment 111.

Another amendment that seeks to remove decision making from principal councils is amendment 109, which stipulates that the regulation required to be made under Sam Rowlands's amendment 112, related to commencing the levy, cannot be laid before the Senedd until the report required by Sam Rowlands's amendment 68 has been laid before the Senedd. The required regulation may not be approved until 90 days have passed since the draft Order was laid. Amendment 110 is linked to this amendment, as it removes the wording that commences Part 3. The effect of all these amendments together is to delay the levy coming into force. We believe that local authorities must have freedom of action. Some may choose to wait for the data from the register; others will have good insight and better data from which to make decisions. It is a matter for principal councils to decide. I therefore reject amendments 109 and 110.

Amendment 112 is in a separate group, but, as it is linked to these amendments, I want to be clear with Members now that I will also reject it. The risk of accepting these amendments is clear; delay would turn into a permanent inhibition on direct introduction of the levy. By contrast, the Government amendments in this group take our ambition forward. I therefore ask Members to support amendments 2 and 3, and to reject all others in this group.

I shall speak to amendments that the Cabinet Secretary referred to in his closing moments there, which are the amendments I've laid, the principal amendments being 68 and 109, with the associated consequential amendments. The issue that is trying to be tackled with these amendments is the acknowledgement by many, and clear in the explanatory memorandum, that the data available to the Government in preparing this legislation is very limited, to say the least. For Members who've had the pleasure of reading through the explanatory memorandum, you will note that the range of outcomes and the range of impact as a result of this legislation is significant. That is because very little is actually known about the detail of the accommodation likely to be impacted as a result of this legislation. What this amendment seeks to do—. Rather than having an ad hoc approach to registration by various councils across Wales, this amendment seeks to have an all-Wales registration take place at the same time, so that Members in this place can get a better grip and understanding of the accommodation picture that this legislation is going to impact in Wales.

We've heard historically that we should be led by the science and we should always be looking at more and better data to inform our decision making. These amendments seek to do that; they seek to provide much better data all at once, so that an informed decision can be made as to whether a visitor levy is a good or a bad idea, and the impact of that levy being in place. I think it's a very reasonable set of amendments that I've laid in relation to this. We support registration; I think that is a good idea within this legislation, so Government and local authorities and our communities have a better understanding of the picture that's in front of us. I think the ad hoc approach that is likely to take place, with various councils instigating registration at different times, has a risk of causing confusion and does not paint a picture of accommodation providers in Wales all at once. So, I would ask Government to reconsider their current position on the amendments I've laid here.

Turning to Government amendments that have been laid in this section, we're happy to support those; they make sense. As I say, the general principle of registration is an important one and we're happy to support those. I would also, though, echo the Cabinet Secretary's comments in relation to amendment 116. We do not believe that placing a duty on councils in relation to this is the right approach, and expect this will be dealt with in other ways that will be more practical and more efficient ways of doing so. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

We have a situation here where there is cross-party agreement. Registration is very important if this levy is to work. We heard it from Sam Rowlands, we've heard it several times from the Cabinet Secretary, that the lack of data within the sector and the lack of understanding around the different types of accommodation that are within our communities creates a problem. So, it's incredibly important we get this right for a number of reasons, not just now, but also into the future. 

That's what is behind the spirit of amendment 116, and I would like to just say thank you to Siân Gwenllian for helping to put this amendment together. The purpose of this amendment is to place a duty on local authorities, as we heard from the Cabinet Secretary, to co-operate with the Welsh Revenue Authority in cases where credible information has been received that a qualifying visitor accommodation provider has not registered in accordance with the terms of this Bill. Now, the Cabinet Secretary is completely right in terms of his argument that we need accuracy when it comes to this register, and we believe that this helps towards that objective. It enables an appropriate and effective safeguard against unfair non-compliance, as well as then embedding collaboration between the responsible oversight bodies and the local community.

Of course, I welcome what the Cabinet Secretary said in terms of issuing guidance. However, on this occasion, we would want to see something a bit more cast iron. That's why we've called for a duty on local authorities, and we will be looking to push to a vote. But, in terms of the Government amendments, I fully support the Government amendments going forward.

Diolch, Llywydd. This Bill will improve data through the maintenance of the register. I'm grateful to both Luke Fletcher and Sam Rowlands for acknowledging that. But, Llywydd, the Bill has always been one that seeks to provide a permissive power for local authorities. It's for local authorities to decide whether or not they wish to introduce a visitor levy in their area. Sam Rowlands refers to that as an ad hoc system. For the Government, it is a system designed to offer choice to local authorities. I do not see the argument that suggests that a local authority in north Wales that wishes to go ahead with a visitor levy and has the data from the register for their area should be held up in doing so until the whole of the rest of Wales has been registered, including in local authorities that don't have an intention to introduce a visitor levy. That's why I'm asking Members to reject his—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Cabinet Secretary, just to build on the point I was making, what you're asking Members in this place to do today is to support the introduction of a levy at a rate, which we'll come on to in later discussions, but without the data to understand the impact of that. So, my amendments seek to provide us in this place, as responsible decision makers, an ability to understand the full picture before being asked to enable a levy to be implemented. Surely that is a commonsense approach.

No, I think it's an approach that misunderstands the purpose of the Bill, Llywydd. The decision whether or not to go ahead with a visitor levy is not one that will be made in the Senedd. The Senedd is providing a permissive power for local authorities, who go on and make that decision. There is no case, as I see it, to delay that decision making for an authority that has the data and the register and wants to go ahead because there are other local authorities in Wales where that has not yet taken place. That would be the effect of the amendments Sam Rowlands has introduced. It would delay every part of Wales until the whole of Wales has completed the register, and that has never been our intention.

Llywydd, Luke Fletcher makes a good case for his amendment. It's one that I thought carefully about in advance of today. The difference between us is not in the intention or the object of the amendment; it's whether or not you need to place a duty on a local authority to do something that I believe a local authority has every incentive to do in the first place. Because a local authority will want to collect the levy, and, if an accommodation is not on the register, they won't get the levy and therefore they have every incentive to make sure that the WRA is alerted to visitor accommodation that ought to be registered and is not. And I don't think it's necessary always to place a duty on public bodies to do what they would do in any case. As I say, we will publish guidance to reinforce that point with them, and I share the intention behind the amendment, even though, from a Government side, we think it is unnecessary. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The amendments in group 5, while technical in nature, are important to ensure the correct operation of penalties in the Bill. 

Amendments 17 and 18 ensure that, even after someone stops being a visitor accommodation provider, they can still be held responsible for any penalties they incurred while they were providing accommodation, such as not registering under section 7, or failing to inform the WRA of changes or inaccuracies, as required by section 10 of the Bill. Amendment 55 inserts an amendment into the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act 2016, which will apply Part 7 of that Act to fines levied on persons relating to the register. Part 7 of the Act deals with the mechanics of the collection and enforcement of fines by the Welsh Revenue Authority and makes other related provisions. Amendment 54 amends section 25(1) of the TCMA to make it clear that any funds collected by the WRA in the exercise of its functions relating to the register—that is to say any financial penalties collected relating to registration—should be paid into the Welsh consolidated fund. 

Llywydd, as you have said, we have also a series of amendments made to section 7 of the Bill, amendments 4 to 16. Those amendments substitute the word 'person' with 'visitor accommodation provider'. Legal drafters advise that, because the penalties for failing to register within section 7 only apply to people who are visitor accommodation providers, the terminology in the Bill should be amended to reflect that fact. I ask Members to support all the amendments in this group.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 69, as the lead amendment for this group of amendments. There are three main amendments within this group, which I will speak to, with their consequential amendments as well.

The first is amendment 69, and in agreement with the Cabinet Secretary's comments about the power to principal councils and, as he described it, the permissive power to local authorities within this legislation, my amendment 69 provides principal councils with the power to introduce one rate of the levy without the other. The amendment seeks to give greater flexibility to councils when introducing the levy.

For Members' awareness, currently, with the way in which the Bill is laid out, a council has the ability to implement the levy in full or not at all. The Government has identified and introduced two distinct groups of accommodation providers—one at a lower rate and one at a higher rate. I believe that it would be beneficial to councils to have flexibility as to whether they choose to introduce the levy into one of these groups, another of the groups, to all of the groups, or to none at all. So, currently, councils can either have a levy on all types of visitor accommodation or no visitor accommodation at all. This amendment and its consequential amendments seek to give greater flexibility to local authorities reflecting the areas that they represent and the constituents that they are responsible for supporting.

Members in this place—and we've already heard it here today—often like to quote and point to other schemes around the world or, indeed, in places like Manchester, which only apply a levy to limited groups of accommodation providers. The scheme in Manchester, which has already been mentioned today, is limited to hotel providers there. This amendment in front of us today allows councils to do a similar thing in identifying the differences in those accommodation providers—in those separate groups that the Government has identified—and ensuring that only one of those groups, if a council chooses to do so, is liable for this levy.

Amendment 79 revises the basis on which the levy is charged, changing it from a fixed figure on a per person, per night basis to a percentage rate of the cost of the accommodation. I believe that this is a fairer system and better reflects the differences between different types of accommodation and the resulting visitor levy bill that people have to pay. Of course, a percentage charge, by its very nature of being a percentage, is a proportionate charge for the visitor levy. We know that the fixed amount per person, per night is clearly not fully proportionate. A percentage charge is a much fairer way of implementing this tax. Also, and I think importantly, it avoids the frequent, what is likely to be painful, exercise of having to adjust the value of the charge, as of course, every year, inflation will eat into the relative value of a fixed amount per person, per night, as laid out in the legislation. I think a percentage charge would be much fairer for families as well.

This amendment also removes the higher and lower rate of the levy and replaces them with a single standard rate, because, of course, we won't need a lower and higher rate, because a percentage is relative. This will be easier for visitor accommodation providers, and also easier for visitors to understand, imposing less of a burden, and also making the payments more transparent and, again, fairer.

If those particular amendments to implement a standard percentage rate fail, then I have a further amendment in here, where I wish to see a pitch or area for camping, and a dormitory or other room provided on the basis that it may be shared with other people, being subject to the lower rate, and mobile homes, such as static caravans, should also be subject to the lower rate of the levy, as outlined in amendments 84 and 85. Again, these amendments attempt to reflect the fact that this type of accommodation may typically be used more by families, especially those at the lower end of the prosperity scale.

I think we must be really careful to not assume that families can just afford the additional payments of the visitor levy. We know, for example, a family staying in self-catering accommodation at around £300 a week, that would cost that family an additional £60 because of the tourism tax. That's a 20 per cent increase in the cost of that family staying away on that holiday. It's an extra cost that, sadly, for too many families, is the difference between taking a break here in Wales and not having that break that they'd like to have.

I do have other amendments in here that the Cabinet Secretary may believe are slightly more facetious. Amendments 80 and 81 seek to set the levy at 1p rather than the amount identified by the Cabinet Secretary, but my other amendments are, I hope, to be taken very seriously. I truly believe a percentage levy is much fairer, clearly proportionate by its very nature, and I believe amendments to enable councils to have that flexibility, which we've already heard about the importance of from the Cabinet Secretary, to implement parts of the levy would be a significant improvement. Diolch, Llywydd.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I've listened carefully to the case the Member has made for his amendments, but I want to remind colleagues of the underlying principles on which the Bill has been created, and that is that the visitor levy should be as simple, as straightforward and as easy to administer as possible, where the charge per night, per person is kept as low as it can be by having a broad base to the tax. That's why I can't agree to amendment 68, which allows local authorities to choose to have either the higher or the lower rate to be introduced. If you choose between the two, you inevitably lower the amount of money that is taken in through the tax, and that erodes the viability of the tax for any local authority, because the Member makes no proposals as to where that money should be made up. I don't recall a single local authority advocating for this sort of amendment during the passage of the Bill, and I don't think that the amendment aligns, therefore, with the intention of the legislation. 

Nor do I accept amendment 79, which seeks to remove the higher and lower rates and introduce a percentage rate. I'll come to why I reject them, because I do think that that is a serious amendment and does deserve, and has had, considerable consideration. Amendments 83 and 84 are consequential to amendment 79 and therefore would have to be rejected as well, as would amendments 77 and 78, which are consequential to amendment 79.

On the issue of whether a per person, per night levy should be preferred to a percentage rate, as I say, I think the Member has made a case for that, but the reason that the Government decided not to do that is that I'm afraid it does not have some of the advantages that Sam Rowlands claimed for it. Particularly, it does not have advantages of simplicity. If you are a visitor accommodation provider under this Bill, you know very straightforwardly how much you have to charge each person in your accommodation. If it is a percentage rate, you have to decide which items on the bill are captured by the levy. If it is bed-and-breakfast accommodation, you would have to apply 5 per cent to the bed and you would have to extract the amount charged for breakfast. It inevitably creates additional burdens on the shoulders of accommodation providers, and our aim is to keep the system simple and easy for them to administer.

I am interested in it because I was able to say to the Member that, when I was in Scotland recently, the largest campaign by the industry against the Scottish levy is a campaign to abolish the percentage rate, which they have there, and to use instead the flat rate that we are proposing in Wales. The industry is doing that because of the reasons that I just outlined. So, while it does have advantages—I’m not denying some of the advantages that the Member referred to—those advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages of the complexity that a percentage rate introduces.

Of course, Llywydd, I reject amendments 80 and 81. I am happy to say that the majority of the amendments we have debated this afternoon so far from the Welsh Conservatives are constructive amendments, and there is a proper case to be made for them. There is no case to reduce the rate to 1p. That is simply a wrecking amendment that would destroy the purpose of the Bill. Now, of course, that is the position of the Welsh Conservatives, but I do not think you can overturn the will of the Senedd, which at Stage 1 was to proceed and to accept the general principles of the Bill, by hokey amendments that simply seek to undo the Bill in other ways.

Finally, Llywydd, the approach in amendment 85 would also be inconsistent with our policy rationale for the lower rate. We have a lower rate not because of families, but because the lower rate reflects the fact that some accommodation has an element of sharing with other people. It applies to areas for camping or stays in accommodation where shared accommodation is part of the deal, and therefore we apply a lower rate to it. Accommodation types captured by amendment 85 go beyond that core definition, and I ask Members to reject it and all other amendments in this group.

Sam Rowlands to respond.

Diolch, Llywydd. I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for his response to the amendments and my comments on them. I would push back on a number of points. We heard the Cabinet Secretary outline the principles of the Bill in terms of the flexibility, and we heard slightly different principles in the contribution earlier about giving flexibility to local authorities. Those principles seem to shift slightly when it comes to my amendment, which I think is a genuinely helpful amendment, for local authorities to have that flexibility of choice as to whether not just to introduce the levy in whole or not, but elements of it. I believe it would be beneficial for them to have that.

In terms of the amendment around the percentage rather than a fixed amount being introduced, I don't think it's as complicated as the Cabinet Secretary seems to try to outline. Of course, businesses are dealing with percentages all the time through things like VAT and other areas as well. In fact, there are complications with the per person, per night, in particular when accommodation providers may have to clock who is there as a day visitor in that accommodation and who's there sleeping overnight at the accommodation, and checking some of the ages of those people attending that accommodation overnight. A fixed percentage amount is a very simple way of doing it. There's a charge for the accommodation and a percentage of that charge is for a visitor levy, rather than having to clock who is in and who is out of that accommodation every single time.

I would reject the comments made by the Cabinet Secretary and would seek to proceed and seek support of the Senedd for the amendments as outlined. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

Diolch, Llywydd. This group of amendments focuses on exemptions and refunds, and I move the principal amendment 70 as I start my contribution for this group of amendments. These amendments would provide a number of important carve-outs for certain people and groups of people where we feel that the visitor levy feels particularly inappropriate. For example—and I'll talk to these in slightly more detail—these would apply to those on educational trips, members of the armed forces and young carers.

First of all, in terms of educational trips, it doesn't seem to me to capture the spirit or the intent of legislation for a tourism tax to charge children and their teachers who have an educational trip here in Wales. I acknowledge and understand that there are already some adjustments that the Welsh Government are making to the lower group of accommodation for under-18s, but it would still, of course, apply to adults supporting children on those trips, such as teachers. It would also apply to accommodation outside—[Interruption.] Is there an intervention, sorry? No. It would also apply to accommodation outside of the lower rate. Surely Members can see that an exemption for educational trips just makes sense, and would be much more in line with the spirit of the legislation in front of us.

Amendment 71 seeks to provide an exemption for carers, which I believe is a reasonable amendment as well. Members will be aware of the good work of organisations like the Carers Trust, who ran a Give Carers a Break campaign earlier this year, and recognises the importance of carers having that time to recharge and continue the good work that they do for loved ones at home. It's an example, for me, of one way in which an amendment to this Bill could have a wider positive impact, ensuring that barriers are removed from enabling carers to have that much-needed rest.

Amendment 74 is an important amendment. I believe that exemption should also apply to charities, and would capture voluntary groups and organisations such as the Scout Association and the Guide Association. This would reduce the burden on volunteers and allow those important life-changing visits to go ahead in Wales, without the additional fees and bureaucracy. I've heard Members' comments around the value of the fee only being 80p a night, but there is also, of course, a bureaucracy linked to this, because those accommodation providers—perhaps a Scout volunteer at a Scout site—would have to ensure that they don't fall foul of the law.

Currently, as the legislation is laid out, they'll have to do a return within 30 days. We need to put less of a burden on our volunteers. These organisations are struggling to recruit volunteers. The less bureaucracy that there is for them, the best fighting chance that they have to recruit those volunteers in place. So, I believe that amendment 74 is an important one to exempt those charities and voluntary groups.

Amendment 121 is an amendment that should make people in Wales happy, because I believe that people in Wales shouldn't have to pay the visitor levy. Anybody who domiciles here in Wales shouldn't have to pay the levy. I think it's wrong that someone from Cardiff spending a night in Carmarthen is charged a tourism tax. Again, it's outside of the spirit of what is intended. Or someone from Bridgend staying in Builth, the same principle. The Welsh Government's own figures show that 30 per cent of overnight stays in Wales are undertaken by people from Wales. So, 30 per cent of this tax and this levy will be raised against Welsh people. I want to encourage Welsh people to visit other parts of the country, to stay overnight, because we know that overnight stays are the best way to strengthen this part of our economy. Charging them extra to do this flies in the face of that ambition. I would urge Members to support the amendments as laid out in front of us. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I begin with amendment 70. A significant proportion of educational trips will already be exempted from the levy due to the amendment agreed at Stage 2 to remove children and young people from being subject to the lower rate. The amendment contains no definition of what is to be regarded as an educational trip. It is an amendment without borders, and as such, open to repeated challenge. I ask that it be rejected.

I also do not support amendments 71, 72 and 75. All of Sam Rowlands's amendments in this group erode the basis on which the Bill has been constructed. There is no policy rationale for the exemptions that the Member suggests, and again, the foundational principle of the Bill is that this is a modest levy, and designed to be simple.

Regarding amendment 73—and I don't think I heard the Member address amendment 73—the Bill takes an approach that is consistent with other Welsh legislation, that those staying for longer than 31 nights are more alike to residents than visitors. Therefore, these longer term stays are outside the scope of the levy. Reducing that period to 14 days, which is what amendment 73 suggests, undermines that rationale and is unworkable in practice. How would a provider know the visiting history of a visitor to Wales? Only if at all by placing a significant administrative burden on visitors and providers to demonstrate that a levy should not apply.

I cannot support amendment 74. The exemption it suggests is too broad. It could have unintended consequences, and it would mean that, in some cases, organisations that are competing with other providers in an area would have an unfair advantage. Charities can operate as visitor accommodation providers. The National Trust, for example, offers a variety of visitor accommodation across Wales, and it does it at market rates and it competes with other visitor accommodation providers in those areas. I don't think it would be fair to advantage one sort of provider against others in the way that the amendment would require.

I definitely cannot support amendment 119, Llywydd. The policy intent that underpins the levy is that visitors should contribute to the costs borne by a local authority due to the visit. It is not related to the country of residence. A person visiting Pembrokeshire from Cardiff should pay a contribution in the same way as a visitor travelling from outside Wales. It is a very curious amendment for the Conservative and Unionist Party to bring forward an amendment that appears intended to deter visitors from outside Wales from coming to Wales, and that's certainly not the purpose of the Government.

No evidence has been provided by the mover of the amendment as to the impact of these changes on the revenues that would become, potentially, subject to refund claims. Proposals to reduce revenue raised by the levy have, I believe, to be matched by proposals to raise revenue by other means. To fail to do so would fatally undermine the Bill, reducing revenue to a point where it will be unviable for any local authority to make use of the permissive powers provided in the Bill because they simply wouldn't be recouping enough through the levy to make it worthwhile. That may, of course, be the purpose of the amendment. In either case, I ask Members to reject it and the consequential amendments 120, 121 and 122 that flow from it.

Finally in this group, Llywydd, Government amendment 22 adjusts the period during which an application for a refund must be made, from three months to 90 days from the last day a person was entitled to reside in the accommodation, where the Bill already provides for such a refund to be claimed. During Stage 2, a non-Government amendment was tabled by Sam Rowlands, including an amendment to increase the amount of time a person has to apply for a refund. The Government, on that day, resisted that amendment, but I indicated my intention to bring forward a proposal that reflected the same intention, using days rather than months for consistency and clarity. That is the purpose of amendment 22, Llywydd, and I want to acknowledge the influence of Sam Rowlands in bringing that amendment forward.

Sam Rowlands to respond.

Diolch, Llywydd. In response, I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for acknowledging the work on amendment 22. We'll support the Government on that amendment. On the broader points that I laid out, in terms of exemptions, I believe I laid out what were reasonable points to acknowledge—groups of people and organisations who I believe should be exempt from this visitor levy because they do not fit within the spirit of what people would reasonably expect a tourism tax to seek to achieve. I think it's completely reasonable that children should not be taxed for going on holiday, and I think it's completely reasonable for people within Wales to not expect to be taxed for holidaying within Wales as well. I believe it's reasonable for the charitable sector, in particular those voluntary groups who work day in, day out to support all sorts of vulnerable people across Wales, to not have to be included within the tourism tax either. I do not believe they fit within the spirit of what this legislation is seeking to achieve, so I continue to seek Members' support for the amendments as laid out. Diolch yn fawr.

I move.

Is it being moved?

I move.

Move.

Move.

Withdraw.

Yes, move.

Being moved.

Move.

Move.

Move.

You're on the ball. [Laughter.]

Gwelliant 80, Sam Rowlands.

Move.

Diolch, Llywydd. This is a group of relatively minor miscellaneous amendments. Some adjust words or replace words, others omit words and phrases that are no longer required. The common theme is that no amendment in this group represents a substantial change in policy. Llywydd, I will briefly summarise the purpose of each amendment, but of course I'm happy to provide further details in replying to the debate, should Members require it.

Amendment 21 is a technical amendment that inserts the word 'and' into subsection (1). Amendment 23 is a refinement to clarify and ensure consistent drafting within the Bill. Amendments 24 and 26 amend the section that refers to accounting periods. The term 'person' has been replaced with the term 'visitor accommodation provider' because this section only applies to visitor accommodation providers. Amendments 25 and 27 improve readability and better reflect how the Bill will operate in practice. Amendment 28 is a consequential amendment.

Amendment 58 is a technical amendment that replaces references to 'provider' with 'visitor accommodation provider' for consistency across the Bill.

Amendments 61, 62 and 63 replace reference to 'visitor accommodation provider' with the word 'person'. This is to reflect the fact that the new section 122B of the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act 2016 can impose fines on persons who have ceased to be a visitor accommodation provider.

Amendments 32 and 33 improve consistency and readability. Amendment 34 deals with transitional provisions when the levy is introduced or changed. In section 47, the words 'change or abolish' are removed and are replaced with 'or change', as this section only deals with the introduction of, or changes to the levy, meaning that the word 'abolish' here is unnecessary.

Amendment 41 revises section 55, the power to make further provision about partnerships and unincorporated bodies, to make it clear that the Act, should this Bill become an Act, itself can be amended in future. Amendment 43 is a similar amendment. 

Amendment 49 revises section 58, the power to make provision about transfers of businesses as going concerns, to clarify that this Act itself can be amended in future.

And finally, amendment 52 is a minor technical amendment to reflect that sections 53 to 58 of the Bill constitute a single chapter, which should be treated as a whole for the purpose of commencement of the Bill. I ask Members to support all the amendments in this group.

I move.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm speaking in relation to group 9, adding an additional amount to the levy rate, and I move the principal amendment on this, which is amendment 82.

We do have concerns about what might be described as mission creep with adding additional amounts to the levy rate. It was previously called a premium, but has been reworded. Of course, there is the ability within the legislation currently to keep adding additional amounts and putting greater and greater burdens on people undertaking overnight stays in Wales. I don't believe that this is helpful for the sector and it is not helpful for making the sector more competitive and an attractive destination in an international market—

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

But that's what happens all the time when you have a major event, be it Oasis, be it Taylor Swift coming here—the price of a hotel triples or quadruples in price.

I think it's a really interesting intervention, because that's not what the ability of the—. The legislation, as laid out at the moment, does not give that flexibility that Mike Hedges seeks. My previous amendment of having a percentage charge would do exactly what Mike Hedges is seeking there, which is to reflect the relative changes when there is pressure on accommodation.

What is in legislation at the moment is enabling local authorities to apply the additional amount to the levy rate over an extended period of time, not reflective of seasonality, not reflective of pressures such as concerts in Cardiff here and other pressures that would drive prices up. I'm not arguing the percentage point again, but the percentage point would address what Mike Hedges was seeking to be addressed just a moment ago.

Amendment 86 seeks to remove the whole section titled 'Adding an additional amount to a levy rate' and seeks to remove the power that Welsh Ministers would otherwise have to provide principal councils the power to add an additional amount to both rates of the levy. Let me explain why that is important as well. We heard from the Cabinet Secretary a few moments ago that one of the principles of this legislation is to keep it as simple as possible. Different local authorities having different levy rates across Wales is not simple, in my view. That has the risk of causing confusion, especially for those visitors when trying to understand an additional cost of their overnight accommodation. It's not in line with the principle of simplicity as the Cabinet Secretary outlined a few moments ago. There is a risk of confusion with different levy rates across Wales.

And there's a general issue here that Welsh Government and local authorities shouldn't be constantly looking to add additional fees and additional taxes to visitors here in Wales. The fact that it's been done before the Bill has even passed through the Senedd is a concerning fact in and of itself.

Further amendments in here, 118 and 88, seek to, first of all, recognise that my principal amendments are unlikely to pass and therefore apply a cap on additional levy rates that local authorities would seek to put in place. I think that's fair. It allows the Senedd to have an element of control over any excessive levy rates that some local authorities may seek to apply. The majority of my other amendments in there are consequentials to those that I've spoken to already.

I'd like to speak briefly to amendment 113, which is the amendment laid by Luke Fletcher. This amendment seems to seek to punish larger accommodation providers. I think we should be doing everything possible to enable businesses to grow in Wales, because this particular amendment seeks to apply higher levies dependent on the number of people employed by that business. So, we will not be supporting amendment 113. It seems unfair to me when we're trying to seek businesses to invest, seek businesses to employ more people and seek businesses to grow. This is a disincentive for that investment and for that growth here in Wales. So, I'd urge Members to support the amendments as I've laid out before you today. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Speaking to amendment 113, its purpose is to enable local authorities to vary amounts added on to the base levy rate based on the number of people employed at the relevant visitor accommodation. So, what we mean by this is if we're saying that we want to support our local communities and support those local economies, we would want to incentivise people to go and stay in those locally owned B&Bs, those locally owned hotels, rather than go and stay, for example, in a Premier Inn where the profits from that Premier Inn go outside of Wales. We are looking to retain those profits within our community. So, it's disappointing to hear that the Conservatives are unwilling to support that principle, at least it seems. That's the practice of this amendment, to maintain and keep that profit within our communities, which is in the spirit of the levy as set out by the Government.

What I would like from the Cabinet Secretary, and I'm thinking back to one of the amendments that the Conservatives have put forward in relation to allowing local authorities to select to implement the levy partially rather than just in full—. I understand the Cabinet Secretary's response to that around the complication of this and I understand that this would cause some complication in that levy, but what I would be seeking from the Cabinet Secretary is to understand whether or not this is something that he thinks that we could explore. If we're talking about the spirit of the levy maintaining and making sustainable communities in the sustainable sector, we believe that this goes some way to helping to ensure that. So, I'd be looking from the Cabinet Secretary to understand whether this is something that the Government believes can be achieved and whether it can be explored.

The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that, in future, local authorities will have the ability to adjust visitor levy rates in response to the needs of their communities. We made amendments at Stage 2 that will delay that possibility until the basic visitor levy has settled in, but the Finance Committee received representations from various councils who presented compelling arguments for additional flexibilities in the rate of the levy to reflect their local circumstances. The nature of tourism in Cardiff is very different to the nature of tourism in Ceredigion. We aim to incorporate that flexibility in the Bill and we don't accept the arguments that Sam Rowlands has made for removing that ability altogether.

Mike Hedges made the point this afternoon, which he made during earlier stages of the Bill, that when a major concert happens in Cardiff, accommodation costs rise, not by a tiny additional amount as the levy Bill would provide, but by literally hundreds of pounds. People still come and they still pay those amounts. To deny the local authority the same flexibility, I think, would certainly not be justified in the way that he set out. And, of course, he also proposed a percentage approach, which I reject for the same reasons that I set out when we debated that earlier in group 6.

In terms of Luke Fletcher's amendment, I do understand the intention behind the amendment, but the Government's contention has always been that the small sums of money involved in the levy will not have a behavioural impact. We don't believe that fewer people will come to Wales because of the levy. We don't think that an additional rate locally would change people's behaviour. If that is true of the levy itself, I think it must be even more the case in relation to the marginal changes envisaged in amendment 113. The market signal that the amendment seeks to provide would, I think, be very weak, but the administrative complexity, as Luke Fletcher recognised, would increase. The number of employees at a visitor accommodation will fluctuate, with providers having to notify the WRA every time that number moves above or below this new threshold. Luke Fletcher asked whether the Government would be willing to continue to discuss the purpose of the amendment, the intention of the amendment, which is to provide some advantage to local businesses whose profits remain in Wales, rather than large multinational organisations where that is not the case. While we can't accept this amendment, and I don't think this can appear on the face of this Bill, I am very happy to go on discussing with the Member how the purpose behind his amendment might be achieved through more effective means.

Diolch, Llywydd. I am grateful for the Member's contributions on the amendments within this group. Just to address a couple of the points that have been addressed, the Cabinet Secretary has just described that he didn't believe that the levy would reduce the number of visitors coming into Wales. That flies in the face of the explanatory memorandum from him ahead of this legislation, which described hundreds of job losses, potentially, as a result of this legislation. Those job losses won't happen because we're seeing the same number of people visit Wales; those job losses will happen because fewer people would choose to visit Wales—and it's the Welsh Government's own papers that reflect that.

On the comments around the flexibility for local authorities to introduce an additional amount to the levy rate, to be clear, the flexibility being proposed by the Government here is a flexibility that would apply to all of the accommodation within that category for all of the financial year. It's very, very rigid flexibility. It's not the type of flexibility that people like Mike Hedges speak to, which is the ability to adjust when those peak and very demand-led seasonal impacts on accommodation pressure are understood and felt. So, there needs to be an understanding that the flexibility that's been described here is literally just a higher amount of levy for the year for that whole local authority area. We know, in our local authorities, some areas are much more sought after than others. This would apply to the whole local authority for the whole year. I think it's a very poor way of trying to introduce some flexibility, and I don't think it's going to be helpful for, as I say, visitors, with confusion about different rates across different parts of Wales at different points in time. It's not good for those accommodation providers either. I'll continue to seek Members' support for the amendments, as I've laid out already. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Withdrawn.