National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon and welcome to today's Plenary meeting. The first item on our agenda this afternoon will be questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Delyth Jewell. 

The Welsh Labour Government is determined to take the pressure off our roads, in particular the M4, and developing the rail infrastructure in south-east Wales will give more people more choice on alternative transport options. After months of building a plan, which has now been endorsed by the UK Labour Government, we have secured a commitment for a historic £14 billion investment in Welsh railways, which puts South Wales East at the forefront of that transformation. Our immediate priorities include the delivery of six new, fully accessible stations in south-east Wales, improving access to jobs, education and services for people across the region.

Thank you for that response. 

The recent railway funding announcement that you just referred to, First Minister, from Westminster did look, at first glance, like good news, until we realised that it represented no new money. It was smoke and mirrors instead—a rehash of projects already announced, and a vague backing of an idea for more in the future, maybe, but nothing guaranteed. And Jo Stevens, who acts more and more like Westminster's voice to Wales, rather than the other way around, made clear that devolving powers was not a priority. First Minister, Wales deserves clarity, not headlines that hide the truth. Would you confirm, please, whether Wales will receive the £14 billion contained in that announcement, or is that dependent on the budget choices of future UK Governments, which might, of course, have different priorities? How many of those billions are guaranteed at this time, right now, and why should we trust anything this UK Government says to us on rail when they have denied us the billions we're owed from HS2?

If you aspire to be in Government, you should actually learn how it works. And what happens when it comes to long-term funding is that, actually, any Government can change those decisions. What that announcement was was £14 billion and the UK Labour Government saying, 'Yes, if we're in power, we will commit to this'. And it's an absolute shame that not one opposition party has welcomed this massive commitment that the UK Labour Government has made after years of underfunding by previous Tory UK Governments. This announcement recognises that Wales has been short-changed and makes up for that fact. We know that we didn't get proportionate funding from HS2, but this makes up for that. And I think you have to learn how the system works if you aspire to run the system.

First Minister, you'll be very pleased to hear me saying that my Welsh Conservative colleagues and I welcome the additional funding, and I'm particularly pleased to see more stations in the pipeline for my patch. And I want to pay tribute to campaigners in Magor and Undy, who I've had the privilege of working alongside, in their efforts to get their plans for a walkway station off the ground. But let's be frank here, First Minister: this announcement, if you can even call it that, is nothing more than a pre-election stunt. The Prime Minister dragged himself to Wales to announce £445 million for seven new stations, but that's old news, because this was announced last summer, to be fair. The look on your face at the time said it all. You mentioned in your response to Delyth Jewell just now the £14 billion package of support to improve our rail network, although, as usual, there were no solid commitments, just warm words, and it raises more questions than answers for all of us. So, First Minister, this feels, for me, like nothing more than a case of reheating old commitments and making empty promises as part of a desperate publicity stunt in a last-ditch attempt to drum up some support for a failing Labour Government. Let's be honest, that was the case, wasn't it?

There was a document that was issued that, actually, in terms of the £14 billion, demonstrated where that money would be spent, and it would be spent across the whole of Wales. That is a commitment that your previous Tory Government wouldn't make. And I think it's important to recognise that there is now a detailed plan. We learnt from Plaid this weekend that you love plans. You love a plan for a plan. It's a stunning proposal after you've had 27 years to develop your ideas. But what's important, I think, is to recognise, that, no, they wouldn't have given us the money without a detailed plan. Transport for Wales worked up that plan, got it agreed by the transport department, and now that will be rolled out. We're starting with that £445 million. We know about rail funding in Wales, we know about long-term rail funding in Wales, because we've delivered it. Where we're in control, we've delivered it—£1 billion to transform the metro, £800 million for brand-new trains. This is a proud legacy that we have in Wales.

Well, I welcome the announcement made by the transport Minister and the First Minister, and I think it demonstrates the power of negotiation, and I congratulate Ken Skates on his work. Do you know who else welcomes it? The people of Abertillery—the people of Abertillery, who want to see the investment in the Abertillery spur, reconnecting that town to the UK railway network. And can I say this, First Minister? The point you just made in answer to Natasha Asghar is a powerful point. When the Welsh Government is in control, we can make the investments. If that isn't an argument for the devolution of rail infrastructure, I don't know what is. But will you work with me and the local authority in Blaenau Gwent, First Minister, to ensure the Abertillery spur, the Ebbw valley line, receives the same level of investment in the future as the Rhymney line, running through my new constituency?

Thanks very much, Alun. I must say, when I first saw the document 'Today, Tomorrow, Together', which has been built—and thank you, Ken, for your leadership on this, along with Transport for Wales—the first thing I looked up was, 'Is the Abertillery spur on there?', because I thought it would be a problem for you if it wasn't. I was delighted to see that that commitment is there. So, this is about the UK Government saying, 'Yes, if we're in power, we will give you that money, we will give you that long-term commitment.' If you're serious about building an economy, you have to do long-term commitments; you can't change rail funding halfway along. That's why there's no point in giving us money if you can't spend it in time. You need a long-term framework. You need to make sure you've got the people with the skills ready to deliver that. That is precisely what has happened with 'Today, Tomorrow, Together', the vision for Wales, which has been endorsed not just by the Welsh Labour Government here, but by the UK Labour Government in Westminster.

I very much welcome that £14 billion commitment, First Minister. It's really important to help us achieve the integrated transport system that we need here in Wales. We've seen important steps forward, paving the way for a properly planned bus system and bus services in Wales, with active travel, and important advancements with rail as well, on the core Valleys lines, for example. Now this announcement gives us the opportunity to build upon that, and certainly it will be very welcome in Newport, with new stations at Somerton, at Llanwern, and also at Magor and Undy. Would you agree with me, First Minister, that one example of what you were referring to in terms of helping to deal with the congestion on the M4 would be that new Llanwern station? We have some 4,000 houses shortly to be in place at that Glan Llyn development on the old Llanwern site in Newport. Many of the people living there commute to Bristol and Cardiff for work. It's easy to understand how providing that station there at Llanwern will make a real impact on that congestion on the M4, which continues to be such a huge problem for Newport and the surrounding area.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, John. Just to be clear, we made an announcement at the end of last week that we'll be freezing rail fares from 1 March. I hope that will help to take the pressure off families in Wales at a difficult time. Also, of course, we were in Newport yesterday, where we confirmed that, if we are in Government post May, there will be a £2 cap on bus fares, alongside that commitment for free bus rides for the over-60s, and £1 bus fares for under-21s. But you're quite right, when it comes to taking the pressure off the M4, we're seeing Newport grow and grow and grow. What is important is that we provide the infrastructure to allow that growth to happen. That's why developing those stations will be critical and will take the pressure off the M4, which I know people are very keen to see.

This Welsh Labour Government is delivering when it comes to transport in north Wales, with network north Wales already rolling out an ambitious plan for an integrated high-frequency public transport network. We've launched the new T51 bus link, improved stations, and secured UK Government backing for improved rail infrastructure and a new Deeside station. Next steps include rolling out pay-as-you-go ticketing, increasing service frequencies across the main line, and progressing the direct Wrexham to Liverpool link, unlocking jobs, access and greener travel for communities across north Wales.

Thank you for that response. I recently spoke at the Deeside business forum transport seminar, along with Transport for Wales and Flintshire council. The excitement was palpable there about what is being delivered now. I once was told that there are 400 businesses there, 9,000 jobs, and they struggle to get them there, to transport them there. The new parkway station will now be delivered at the end of next year. We've been campaigning on that for a long time—tick, that's been delivered. Getting freight off at Padeswood station and crossing improvements for increased services, which can then lead to electrification in the future, are happening—tick, another one over the line. These were parts of bids twice refused by the UK Conservative Government under levelling-up funding. It's happening now. Also welcomed is the integrated transport system with tap on, tap off, as you just mentioned, and the franchising of bus services, under the bus Bill. Again, the Welsh Conservatives voted against that. First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary told me that it's taken two years of working on this to get that £14 billion over the line, that had to be signed off by the Prime Minister, which is why he came here to Wales. Do you agree it took a change of UK Government to get rail investment over the line, along with continued investment in Transport for Wales from this Welsh Labour Government investing in bus improvements? Thank you.

Thank you, Carolyn. You're quite right that, for years, north Wales put forward credible, well-developed ideas and bids, including for Deeside, Padeswood, and wider connectivity, and they were turned down. They were turned down time and time again by the previous UK Conservative Government. The ambition was there, the economic case was there. What was missing was the partner in Westminster willing to back north Wales, and what's changed is very simple: we now have two Labour Governments and that alignment is making a real difference.

We've committed, as a Government in Wales, £13 million to kick-start that network north Wales. Let's be clear, this doesn't happen by accident. It happens because we've consistently, and Ken in particular has consistently, made the case for north Wales. Now, we've got a Government that's prepared to listen—so, shovels in the ground, services increasing by 50 per cent on the main line, new stations coming forward, better connections for the 9,000 workers at Deeside industrial park and the 400 businesses that are based there. This is transformational stuff.

As much as we all welcome any additional investment in rail, the problem I and Professor Mark Barry and other people have with this, of course, is that the £14 billion figure that's being bandied around is a long-term headline figure, but it doesn't have a secured funding stream. There's no clear allocation in any current or, as far as we know, existing budget anywhere. Now, it's a familiar tactic straight out of the Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak playbook, because they promised electrification of the north Wales line. They promised that, and large numbers were trailed around, weren't they, for political effect, but there was no identified budget, there was no delivery schedule, and there was no ring-fenced commitment. And do you know what? It's exactly the same for this £14 billion. So, can you tell us how much is actually committed? Where in the Department for Transport or in the Treasury is the budget line for this money, because without that, then surely, yes, it can be an aspirational figure, but unfortunately, it just sounds like electioneering?

We're not irresponsible as a Government. We wouldn't have put ourselves in that situation without being absolutely clear. This has been a programme that's been worked up over two years, and, let's be clear, no long-term project is guaranteed. HS2 is not guaranteed. Let's be absolutely clear that that is the nature of democracy. What we're saying is that if Labour remains in power, that commitment is absolutely there. That commitment is absolutely there in both areas. I think we should be very clear about this: this wasn't just the Department for Transport signing this off, it was this Treasury signing this off as well. You just can't bring yourself to accept good news when you get it.

Communities across north Wales feel increasingly forgotten when it comes to investment in transport. We've not seen any major investment in road infrastructure in the Vale of Clwyd since the mid 1990s, and that was pre devolution, the last time we had a Conservative Government in charge of Wales, which actually delivered on road infrastructure and our transport systems. Maybe this could be forgiven if we'd seen investments in public transport instead, but we haven't. Wales has lost out on an estimated £4 billion in consequential funding because HS2 has been classified as an England and Wales project.

Last year, the Welsh Government announced £2.1 billion proposals for network north Wales, yet there's been no corresponding funding commitment from the UK Government to deliver them. Instead, Wales has received only around £400 million for all rail projects across this country combined. Of the seven new stations originally announced, only one is located in north Wales, and many of the supposed new stations have been in the pipeline for years. So, what specific steps is the Welsh Government taking to secure fair funding from the UK Government for rail infrastructure in north Wales, which has consistently lost out, to get the network north Wales project moving? Because we're not seeing any evidence of it so far within my constituency and on the north Wales line.

Gosh, this place is so full of negativity today. There's so much to celebrate when it comes to rail in Wales. This is something that we can be terribly proud of—the fact that in Wales we've got control. You've seen a transformation of the Valleys lines. We've seen an increase in passenger numbers of 10 per cent per year. What a difference that makes. That means we can take away revenue as more people are using those services. I think this is something we should celebrate. You're going to see the May timetable change in north Wales, with a 50 per cent increase in services on the north Wales main line. That will also simplify and add more resilience to the timetable, helping to improve performance for passengers, and that includes a new hourly service between Llandudno and Liverpool.

Questions now from the party leaders. Leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. I know I speak on behalf of everyone in this Chamber when I express my deep concern about the escalating violence in the middle east, including its impact on Welsh citizens. I know, too, that we all condemn the brutality and the cruelty of the Iranian regime over many years. But the actions of President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu are reckless. They are dangerous. They aren't based on any democratic mandate. And there is clearly no plan for what happens next. And it was contrary to international law. So, I'll place on the record again Plaid Cymru's unequivocal view that international law has to be respected, and that it's a matter of deep concern to us that the UK has now been drawn into the conflict through permission being given for the US military to use RAF bases. The Prime Minister did not need to agree to this. Certainly, parliamentary approval should have been sought.

Llywydd, I'd like to focus my question on the Welsh citizens caught up in this, whether residents in the region, or they're on holiday, or indeed in transit. Military action has put them at risk. Knowing that some limited details have now been released in the last hour or so about repatriation flights, and noting the First Minister's written statement too, I'd like to press her some more and would be grateful if she could provide the fullest possible details this afternoon about the situation regarding Welsh citizens, how many are currently in the region wishing to travel back to the UK, and what are the next steps in ensuring that they are able to do so as quickly as possible.

I think the situation in the middle east is deeply concerning. I have set out the Government's position in a written statement issued today. There are many innocent civilians who are already being affected in all parts of this conflict area. There are many Welsh people who have been caught up in the situation—some working there, some on holiday. The safety of our loved ones is absolutely paramount, and that's where we've been focusing our attention.

We have Welsh Government officials located in the area, based in Dubai and Doha. All are accounted for and they're safe and well. They are co-ordinating with and helping out the UK Government's crisis management teams. They have been very clear that they're asking British citizens to register their presence in the area. There are an estimated 300,000 UK nationals in the region, and 102,000 have already registered. So, you can imagine that, at this point, it's very difficult to say precisely how many Welsh people are involved there. 

I think it's really important also to make it clear that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is advising against all travel to Israel and Iran, and essential travel only to Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

I'm grateful to the First Minister for that response. I'd ask that she continues to update Senedd Members so that we can pass on any relevant information to constituents of ours who I know have been contacting us, too. 

Llywydd, turning to matters closer to home, the Chancellor's spring statement is yet another lost opportunity to inject fiscal fairness into the devolution settlement. It looks like the goodies the First Minister has been asking for won't be coming. In their absence, the so-called new chapter for Wales, which she promised yesterday, also known as more of the same, will rely on pledges either drawn up on the back of a fag packet or simply rehashed—ending homelessness, as an example.

The First Minister went big on delivery yesterday, but this Government has failed on homelessness by any measure. They promised to eradicate homelessness by this year. Now it's kicked back to 2034. Why should Labour be rewarded for failure in this forthcoming election? 

I think it's quite extraordinary that you're bringing those issues to my attention. I must say that we're just getting the details of the Chancellor's statement, but it does look as if there will be over £0.5 billion of additional funding in Wales from 2026 to 2029. I find it quite startling that you talk to us about not being able to set out how we're going to pay for things. You launched on the weekend your first 100 days in office, and what we saw was a plan for a plan. In 88 points, we have 13 reviews and audits and 20 commissions. The time to do your homework is before you get anywhere near power. You've had 26 years to prepare for this; we expected more.

I must be clear that what we had yesterday was, in fact, something very different from Welsh Labour, being very practical in terms of what the offer was for the people of Wales. They are concerned with issues relating to the cost of living. And so we have been clear that we will help them with the cost of living by capping bus fares, by freezing rail fares, by making sure that we are providing 20,000 people with extra childcare facilities in Wales. All of those things are the things that matter to the people of Wales. We'll be looking for jobs for the future, working towards a very practical, energy-independent Wales, protecting families from unstable global markets—precisely the situation we're in today—good jobs, ensuring communities will benefit. And crucially as well, we'll introduce a lifelong retraining guarantee. If your job changes, you should not be left behind.

I note that the First Minister avoided the question on homelessness and avoided responding on Labour's 27 years of failure. Yesterday, she held up a piece of cardboard with five sentences on it; Plaid have a detailed plan for our first 100 days, and that's just a precursor to the detailed manifesto still to come. I'll let the public decide which party is more serious about preparing to transform Wales's fortunes.

The First Minister's plans don't add up. Within hours of guaranteeing same-day mental health access, the promise fell apart, she couldn't explain what 'same-day support' actually looks like. She also wrongly claimed that her mental health strategy explains how to increase the workforce—it does nothing of the sort. Then, she promised £4 billion towards new hospitals without offering any detail at all about how they would be paid for, just like those empty promises on rail a couple of weeks ago. And on that, to borrow a phrase, show us the money. There is none, and nobody will fall for Labour's rail con. But I'll tell you this: yes, we do need new hospitals, but given the condition of the NHS estate after 27 years of Labour rule, perhaps the First Minister could tell us where this would leave the NHS maintenance backlog, which has ballooned to £1.2 billion on Labour's watch.

We're very proud of the work that we've done during this Senedd term when it comes to homelessness; the fact that we've been able to pass an Act is absolutely crucial. We're very proud also that we've done the background work when it comes to mental health same-day care. It is written into the budget, it is there. You weren't even aware that it was there, but it is there. We're very proud of the fact that we have seen a sea change in terms of the support for mental health in this country. In fact, we're one of the only parts of the United Kingdom where there's a ring-fenced amount of money for the NHS. We're very clear in terms of what we want to achieve, and that was set out yesterday.

Let's talk about your plans for 100 days. You say that you don't expect to see a difference in NHS waiting lists in 100 days. Let me tell you what we've delivered in the past 100 days: the largest, most sustained reduction in overall waiting lists on record; the longest waiting lists falling sharply; fewer than 5,300 people waiting for two years for treatment—a drop of 1,600 in a month; we've hosted the international investment summit, where we landed £16 billion over the course of the year; we've announced £30 million for the Royal Alexandra Hospital in north Wales; we've confirmed that we've created 100,000 apprenticeships; we passed a £27 billion budget; we've taken action to support employers and businesses on our high streets; we've secured Wylfa and AI growth zones; we've secured a trailblazing deposit-return scheme; and we've frozen Welsh train fares. Those are just a fraction of the things that we've done in the past 100 days, and you're already making excuses for what you won't be doing in the first 100 days if you ever got a sniff of power.

Leader of the Conservatives, Darren Millar.

Llywydd, can I begin by associating myself with the comments made by the First Minister and the leader of Plaid Cymru in relation to the safety of British citizens from Wales who are in the middle east at this time? Our hearts go out to them and we pray for their safety and for their return to the UK, if that is their aim. I want to also send my very best wishes to the brave men and women of the British armed forces currently involved in the defensive operations in the middle east. We know that the Iranian regime was a dreadful regime, responsible for the repression of its own people, including the killing of thousands simply for demanding basic freedoms that we take for granted here in Wales each and every day. That regime poses a threat not only to regional stability, as we're seeing right now, but also to international security. Can I ask you, First Minister, will you join me in standing unequivocally with the people of Iran, including the brave women who've protested for their rights in recent years, and reaffirm the Welsh Government's support for NATO and for our alliance with the United States at a time of global instability?

I've expressed my deep concern, and my concern for the people living in Iran and in the rest of the region. There are innocent civilians who are going to be affected by what is happening in a war where it's unclear what the outcome is set to be. I have real fears that there's a danger that this could escalate beyond our control. Also, I have fears, and I think it's really important that we in Wales understand that we need to keep community cohesion together in our country. There is a potential and a danger that this could spill over into our own communities here, and I would urge everybody to work together for peace, reconciliation and, particularly in our country here, to make sure that we do not see the kind of tensions that I fear could develop if things continue.

I'm very sorry, First Minister, that you didn't express your direct support for the military alliance that we have with the United States, unlike the Canadian Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister. But I do want to wish everybody in the middle east who is fearful at this time for their safety all the very best. Of course, I know that British troops are doing what they can to secure their safety.

Turning to another matter, First Minister, there's been growing public concern about the funding of Labour Together, and there have been serious allegations about the actions of its leadership, including claims that money is being funnelled from the Cayman Islands and that money is being paid to a US lobbying firm to generate smears against journalists who've been investigating the funding of the organisation. One UK Labour Government Minister has already resigned in relation to this matter, but, of course, you're the leader of Welsh Labour, and a number of Labour constituencies in Wales have received funding from this discredited organisation.

Two weeks ago, I wrote to you regarding a £10,000 donation made by Labour Together to the Labour Party in Carmarthen, an area that you represent. Now, given the concerns that the public have, can you tell us whether you were aware of that donation at the time that it was made, what due diligence was undertaken and, in light of the public concerns that there are now, will you consider returning that money to protect confidence and uphold standards in Welsh public life?

I want to be clear that I was absolutely unaware of any financial contributions from Labour Together, and I've directed your questions to the general secretary of the Welsh Labour Party.

Well, I think people would expect you to answer as the leader of Welsh Labour as to what you think should be done with that money. Certainly, at least you could express an opinion as to whether you think that money should be handed back, given that many people regard it as dirty money.

Now, Labour Together is not the only organisation that has been bankrolling the Labour Party. Figures show that over a recent 10-month period last year, the Welsh Government provided at least £1.7 million in funding to trade unions in Wales under the guise of social partnership. What we also know is that the Electoral Commission data showed that in 2025 the Labour Party received millions from trade unions across the UK, including £1.5 million from Unite, £720,000 from GMB, £735,000 from Unison, £733,000 from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and £350,000 from Community. All of those organisations have received funding from the Welsh Labour Government.

Now, when the same organisations are major financial backers of the governing party and substantial receipts of public funds are flowing in their direction, it creates a clear perception of a closed financial loop. Taxpayers' money out, Labour Party donations in. So, will you set out very clearly what safeguards are in place to ensure that public money is not subsidising Labour Party donations?

I'm extremely proud of our relationship in Welsh Labour with the Labour movement. This is a proud, long-standing association. We stand with the Labour movement. But let's be clear, we are also very pleased to have introduced things like the Wales union learning fund. That is a way in to upskill people in the workplace. I'm not apologising for upskilling people. Very often, they have access to individuals that traditional mechanisms of upskilling can't get to. So, this is a really successful programme. It's a programme that I hope we'll be committed to in future. I hope everyone else will commit to it in future. If you're not going to, Darren, I think we'd like to know about it.

In Wales, people have access to free prescriptions. This is a political choice that we have made, and it's not available to patients in England. The Welsh Labour Government works with the UK Government, the NHS, manufacturers, wholesalers, prescribers and pharmacies to ensure that patients can access the medicines and medical treatment that they need.

Thank you, First Minister. I welcome the news that an alternative supply of bone cement has been secured and the orthopaedic operations can continue, but with such a huge waiting list, even this short delay may have huge consequences. However, what is most concerning to me is the situation exists. How did it exist in the first place? How did the NHS become so reliant on just a single supplier, and why were stocks so low? The type of bone cement used in our health services has a three‑year shelf life, yet we only had days of supplies rather than months or years. First Minister, do you agree that this situation should never have occurred in the first place, and will you now order a review to ensure that the NHS is not at the mercy of a single supplier for our medicines and medical supplies?

Thank you very much, Altaf. I know how upsetting it must be for patients and clinicians when they're told that operations need to be cancelled. Most shortages can be managed without interrupting people's care, so it is important that that steady flow of medicines and equipment is available.

In relation to the issue that you talk about, there was a global, unplanned shortage of bone cement, which was affecting a German supplier. That resulted in the UK NHS organisation pausing some planned orthopaedic operations and prioritising the trauma operations. Now, I'm very pleased to say that this situation now has been fixed, and we're in a situation where work has recommenced. Work recommenced yesterday, so we're back on track and the health Secretary has made it clear that he will publish the figure in terms of the impact that that's had on waiting lists.

I attended a fascinating event organised by John Griffiths last week into rare diseases. Of course, many people suffering from rare diseases can't get some of the drugs required for their situation. Another event that I attended recently was a conference with some pharmaceutical companies who said that they don't do Wales because they produce low‑volume, high‑cost drugs that Wales can't get in, because it's too expensive and we don't have enough patients. So, what work are you, as a Government, doing with maybe the Scottish Government and the UK Government to ensure that patients in Wales who need those drugs access them, even though they're not currently available in Wales?

I am very proud, actually, that we introduced the new treatment fund in 2016, and that has improved access to new treatments that had been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group. On average, new medicines are made available through the new treatment fund just 16 days after they're approved. It is quite remarkable, and that is not a system that you see elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I think it is important for us to recognise that.

When it comes to expensive medicines, there is a system, a mechanism and an approach that is centralised across Wales, where there's a group of experts who determine whether that patient is eligible for a particularly expensive medicine. Politicians, I assure you, don't go anywhere near this stuff. It's got to be driven by the medics, by the clinicians and also by NICE guidance.

First Minister, I was contacted by a constituent who has to take statins on a daily basis to control their blood pressure. When they went to their pharmacy, they were told that there's going to be a national shortage of statins across the world due to raw material shortages. Obviously, people taking these drugs does reduce pressure on the wider emergency services, because if their blood pressure spikes, they're going to end up in accident and emergency departments or primary care. So, I'm just interested in what the Welsh Government is doing around this medication, to make sure that people have got these medications available to control their blood pressure.

Thanks very much. I know there have been issues with some drugs, but I hadn't heard that there was an issue with statins, so I think we'll come back to you on that, because I'd like to know if that is the case. But the fact that it's not listed here suggests to me, in fact, that we don't have a problem in that area.

The key thing to remember is that, actually, in terms of procuring medicines, it's the UK Government that takes the lead on these issues.

Getting around the city of Cardiff and surrounding areas easier is essential to promote job opportunities and to make life easier for the people who live there. I'm very pleased that from St David's Day on Sunday we've frozen rail fares, helping people with the cost-of-living challenges that so many are facing.

The north-west corridor project is an aspiration included in Cardiff Council's transport White Paper, 'Transport Vision to 2030', where Cardiff sets out their ambitious regeneration plans. The first phase will improve transport between central station and the bay and is an essential precursor to any future development of the north-west Cardiff corridor scheme.

Thank you for that answer. Of course, the north-west corridor is due to extend in due course to Pontyclun, to Beddau, and, of course, the old railway line that exists and has been retained is there for that particular purpose. Of course, the key issue is going to be funding.

The area of Taff Ely, of course, is likely to experience, over the next decade, some 10,000 to 20,000 new homes, and it's an area where the only transport solution is actually the reopening of that particular railway line along the north-west corridor. Rhondda Cynon Taf and Cardiff Council, of course, have been collaborating. There's been £1 million of investment, I've liaised closely with the Minister for finance and the Senedd Member for Cardiff West, Mark Drakeford, and it's very clear that the potential business case is one that is being well established.

In view of the fact that we now have the opportunity of exploring funding over the course of the next decade, can you assure us that the development of that north-west corridor, and the development of Taff Ely and the reopening of that railway line, is one that will be very much in the forefront of the next Labour Government?

Thank you very much. The north-west corridor rail link is included within that Transport for Wales vision—'Today, Tomorrow, Together'. And you've heard that this is a £14 billion package, that it is transformational rail schemes, and the UK Government have committed to the delivery of that vision as soon as possible.

Now, our focus in delivering these schemes, first of all, is on those schemes that have received funding already. That includes the first phase of Cardiff Crossrail, which is jointly funded by both Governments, and the upgrade of the Cardiff West junction, which was funded by the UK Government in the spending review last year. Obviously, you need to get those schemes—they're essential enablers of those bits of the scheme—in order to open up the areas that you are concerned with.

As someone who supports the north-west corridor and visited the proposals many years ago, that would be a welcome addition to the jigsaw that is the transport options that are available to people in the north of my region.

But the south of my region, in the Vale of Glamorgan, has fared very poorly, (1) with increased train capacity on the Vale of Glamorgan line, which has been promised for at least the last five years and still hasn't materialised, and (2) the lack of forward planning to build a railway station in the village of St Athan. This is an area that successive local development plans have identified for large-scale housing development, and, indeed, all across that roadway that leads on to Bridgend, there are significant new developments that need that extra capacity on the Vale of Glamorgan line, and in particular the new station at St Athan. Can you tell me why the Welsh Government has a blind spot when it comes to investing in the Vale of Glamorgan and the Bridgend line?

The region, let me assure you, is working on this issue. Cardiff capital region is making sure that they work together. We need to make sure that there are opportunities for everybody to get around our country. There are opportunities for expansion when it comes to building new homes. This opens up economic opportunities, but we don't want to see miles and miles of traffic on our roads. We have to make sure the infrastructure is there, and that's why that £14 billion over 15 years is absolutely crucial.

The key thing now is we can plan. We can plan for the future. You can't switch these things on overnight. You need to go through planning permission. You need to make sure that there are no environmental issues associated with it. You need to make sure you've got the skills available in the community to deliver the projects. So, that's why we're having that long-term plan, working with the Cardiff capital region, to ensure that there is a future for rail in that part of the world.

I'm really pleased that the additional money we've had from the UK Labour Government has been invested in helping to bring waiting lists down for all of the people in Wales, including those in Powys. They are now down 92 per cent, since the peak, for the longest waiters.

Now, as a provider—and can I emphasise that word, a 'provider'—Powys Teaching Health Board had zero pathways waiting over 52 weeks for a first out-patient appointment, and zero referral-to-treatment pathways waiting for over 104 weeks at the end of December. But Powys health board commissions care for its residents from NHS providers in England and some other health boards in Wales, and some of those patients are waiting longer.

Thank you, First Minister. It would be helpful if the health Secretary made that same statement when he makes his statement about waiting times.

Last year, the Welsh Government provided £120 million of additional funding to the seven health boards across Wales to help tackle the waiting time backlog. Cardiff and the Vale Health Board in south Wales received £20 million. Powys health board received £115,000 only. That is less than 0.1 per cent of that total allocation. When I raised this with the health Secretary last week, he said that was because Powys health board doesn't provide the same breadth of services that other health boards provide. How should that in itself be rectified? And, of course, you will realise that many patients in Powys have their treatment in other counties, but the health board, Powys health board, still has to pay for that treatment to be provided. So, on that basis, can you explain your rationale as to why that £120 million was not allocated across Wales on a per-population basis? If it had been, Powys would have received £5 million, because Powys's population is 40 times greater than 0.1 per cent.

And can you now confirm if Powys health board will receive any additional funding to deal with its waiting time issues? And as you answer the question, can you bear in mind that Powys health board has told providers over the border to deliberately slow down treatment for Powys patients because it can't afford to pay for it?

So, the amount of money they receive is based on activity and, clearly, you're in a situation, in Powys, where there is no district general hospital. But there has been a lot of additional funding to Powys on top of the baseline money that it receives. And let me be clear that management information shows that, at the end of November, there were around 170 residents waiting for more than 104 weeks. Of these, around 130 residents were waiting for treatments by English NHS providers. And there is no suggestion that delays for Powys residents who've had their treatment commissioned from providers in England are related to lack of funds. I think this is really important, because, when you hear the numbers that they quote in England in terms of people waiting, you think that's actually, proportionately, quite a high number of the numbers that they quote in England.

Good afternoon, First Minister. We're hearing real mixed messages in Powys—completely contradictory information is coming about treatments in English hospitals. I received a letter from the Wye Valley NHS Trust, which covers Hereford hospital. They are explicit about this policy, and they say, and I quote, 'this policy has been operationally and clinically challenging to deliver' and they, and I quote again, 'project this creating additional operating challenges and pressures from the early quarter 1 of 2026-27.' They further note that the gap between English and Welsh patients will only continue to widen as the move to meet NHS England's new target of 92 per cent of patients treated within 18 weeks becomes apparent. People in Powys, as Russell George has highlighted, are being treated unfairly. We don't have our own general hospital, so we do have to commission our treatment from other hospitals, and many of those are in England. So, will you ensure that Powys receives fair settlement from the £120 million allocated last year, and help residents who are currently living in pain and agony to get the treatment that they deserve? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Well, board-approved changes to align planned care services commissioned from providers in England and Wales to NHS Wales recovery targets came into effect at Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt and the Wye Valley trust from 1 July 2025. They are commissioned by the health boards to deliver. Shrewsbury and Telford NHS trust has not enacted the new commissioning intentions.

It's been non-stop rain in Wales almost since Christmas, and that, alongside the cold, creates more potholes. When I became First Minister, I took a direct instruction from the Welsh public to fill potholes. In fact, I've done a few personally myself. We have been improving our roads, and we've made that a priority. Now, this financial year, we provided £10 million to local government in Wales, unlocking over £70 million for additional maintenance improvements. We meet the councils monthly to review progress, and already around 200,000 potholes have been prevented and fixed across Wales. Of course, as the rain continues, it will create more potholes, but just imagine what it would have been like if we hadn't filled 200,000 potholes.

First Minister, oh, the irony: I feel like I should almost declare an interest this morning as someone who spent the morning in a garage in Monmouth, ironically from a tyre blowout from a pothole. Roads in Wales seem to have more holes than your Government's transport strategy. The cost to residents in my region and across Wales is massive—damaged tyres, broken suspensions, constant repairs—and yet people are paying more council tax for roads getting worse.

First Minister, across the UK, a number of councils are using the latest modern repair technology, such as the JCB Pothole Pro, which can fix potholes the first time, saving money in the long term. You have thrown money at councils recently in regard to potholes, which is great, but without any thought behind it. An investment in this latest technology for councils across Wales would be a much more efficient approach, cutting costs in the long run. So, will you commit to jointly working with local authorities to properly invest in this technology, like the JCB Pothole Pro, which will save our councils and hard-working taxpayers money? Diolch.

Thanks very much. It sounds like the wheels are coming off Reform already. I'm very excited about the JCB Pothole Pro; in fact, I have driven one, and it was very great to see the investment that Flintshire council has made in buying this new technology. It is actually making a significant difference to them. On top of that, the Welsh Government's stone mastic asphalt or Dragon mix is also available to local authorities to use on their roads, and that is a specially developed material that can withstand temperature extremes and increase the durability of roads. I know way too much about potholes.

The people of Wales were clear about their priorities in the last Senedd election when they elected us and supported our manifesto, and the vast majority of the programme for government, based on that manifesto, will be delivered by the end of this term.  

When I became First Minister, the first thing I did was to listen again to the people of Wales about the things that matter most to them and to make it my priority to deliver for them. They told me they want the fundamental things that make Wales better and fairer: more homes, better transport, filling potholes, more jobs and better health. That's what this Welsh Labour Government is delivering.

Well, people, First Minister, will have told you that the NHS was absolutely central to the things that they believed to be important. Many constituents that I know will be concerned by the £1 billion—and growing—maintenance backlog that exists within our NHS. Look, we are in our second week in a new £4 million Chamber. It's built to accommodate £120 million plans for 36 more Senedd Members. That is where Labour and Plaid Cymru chose to spend money in this Senedd term—not on fixing that maintenance backlog in our NHS, but instead on itself. That speaks to the priorities both of Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party, two parties that are too interested in navel gazing, too interested in more politicians, too interested in themselves, and less interested in the priorities of the people of Wales, like fixing our NHS.

We heard yesterday what the chief concerns are of the people of Wales: they are concerned about the cost of living and they're concerned about the NHS, and that's why those were two key commitments that we made clear yesterday, when we announced our initiatives post May. So, we've said we've frozen rail fares already. We're going support people to insulate and upgrade their homes, and we're going to have a realistic offer on childcare—20,000 new childcare places over the next Senedd term—unlike the unrealistic proposals that others are proposing.

Now, when it comes to the NHS, let's be clear: we were starved of capital by the last UK Government. Now we're in a situation where we made a clear announcement yesterday that, if we are re-elected to lead here in May, we will build a new hospital in Cardiff at the University Hospital of Wales. There will be a complete overhaul of the Wrexham Maelor Hospital, and a new hospital in west Wales. These are things that I think should be done, and we haven't been able to do them until now, because your UK Tory Government starved us of the funds.

The decision to have an abortion is a traumatic one for any woman, so it's important that we provide abortion services sensitively and efficiently. Improvements to abortion services have been made, with the introduction of early medical abortion at home. We recognise access to surgical abortion is not where it should be. The women's health network is working with clinicians and stakeholders to develop a sustainable plan for later stage abortion that ensures women across Wales can access safe and timely abortion care when their need goes beyond routine services.

Thank you, First Minister. Pills in the post was one of the few positives from COVID, but women who don't realise they're pregnant discover too late to qualify. So, most people who require a surgical abortion at the moment are being forced to travel to England, because obstetricians and gynaecologists in far too many Welsh health boards have turned their back on women's right to choose. And I pay tribute to Sarah Murphy, who's joining us remotely today, because I know she has been fighting to rectify that.

So, this situation of people having to travel to England includes young women who've been trafficked and become pregnant in horrendous circumstances, and the National Youth Advocacy Service is having to use its charitable funds to pay for their travel costs to Birmingham, London, Exeter or Liverpool and an overnight stay. As Scotland and Northern Ireland are both planning to expand their abortion provision up to 24 weeks gestation so that none of their women are forced to go to England, it leaves Wales, at the moment, as a serious outlier. So, I'm glad to hear that something's being done about it, but it's something that needs to be rectified as soon as we possibly can.

We obviously sympathise with women who've needed to travel outside of Wales for the difficulties they've experienced and for the difficulty they've experienced in accessing the care they need. We are very keen for Wales to be able to access health services locally, where possible. Only three health boards currently offer surgical abortion services, with the latest gestation for which they can be offered at 14 weeks. In all other health boards, and for later gestations, women are referred to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, and the BPAS clinic in Cardiff is currently unable to undertake surgical abortions due to the availability of surgeons, and that's a UK issue.

I'm very pleased to say that, last week, the Welsh Government and the women's health network convened a workshop to bring together all health boards to facilitate a focused discussion on abortion services in Wales, and that highlighted to all health boards the need for improvements, and provided an opportunity for all to discuss potential approaches.

I thank the First Minister.

The next item will be the questions to the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery. The first question is from Lindsay Whittle. 

We are committed to tackling void properties. Local authorities hold a suite of comprehensive enforcement powers and are supported by a range of Welsh Government grants to bring empty properties back into beneficial use. The Welsh Government issues the empty properties handbook, outlining key legal tools available to address the issue.

I thank the Counsel General for that response, but the legal reality on the ground in my constituency remains one of deep frustration. The homelessness and social housing allocations Bill was marketed to the public as a radical shift in how we house our most vulnerable. It creates a new statutory duty for social landlords to co-operate with local authorities, but, as we know, a duty is only as strong as its enforcement. And that works both ways. In Caerphilly, we are seeing the human cost of voids sitting empty for nine months or more. 

If a social landlord—and I include councils in this—consistently fails to turn around the properties, the co-operation promised in the Bill becomes a hollow gesture. Therefore, can the Counsel General please clarify exactly what legal teeth are provided to the Welsh Government to confirm that the Welsh Government has the powers to step in to issue financial penalties or mandate the immediate release of these properties when landlords, including councils, fail to meet reasonable turnaround targets, please?

Diolch, Lindsay, for the question. Obviously, the Bill is not in force yet. We await its sealing very soon now, and I'm really delighted that the Bill went through.

I'm sure you know that the Bill is aimed at ensuring that homelessness in Wales is rare, brief and not repeated, and, obviously, increasing housing supply is a key dependency in achieving this aim, and it makes it all the more important that empty properties are swiftly brought back into use. 

As I'm sure you know, the Bill does not contain provisions directly relevant to void properties, but, as you've just pointed out, it strengthens joint working between local housing authorities and registered social landlords on allocations, including provisions that enable the local authority to request that a social landlord accommodate a homeless person owed the final housing duty as part of prioritising those in greatest need. We think that will be a huge incentive to turn over voids, as they're called. We all use this jargon, don't we? A void, by the way, is an empty property capable of being—I know you know that, but for other people listening to us, it's a jargon term, isn't it—an empty property that's capable of being used as a home. 

We are firmly committed to tackling empty homes. We have enforcement powers that local authorities have, and we support local authorities with grants, loans and national programmes that help bring residential empty properties back into beneficial use. That's in the private sector, as well as in the public sector. We have the empty homes action plan, and I've just referenced the Welsh Government's handbook on empty properties, which has a load of practical guidance on identifying, assessing and restoring empty residential properties. So, there is a range of things that we can do. 

We also have a programme that is part of the 20,000 social homes for rent programme. And, again, I'm sorry for the jargon, but it's called the TACP programme—the transitional accommodation capital programme. And where a void would have otherwise been sold, because the amount of money that it would have taken to bring that void back into beneficial use was more than the social landlord thought it could expend, and it would otherwise, therefore, have sold that property out of social housing, we've allowed social landlords to access TACP funding to bring that home back into use. And we've been very careful not to have double counting in that. So, it's for homes that have come out of the social register because they were too expensive to bring back into use, and I'm pleased to say that we're almost at the 1,000 mark of those also brought back into use.

So, we have been working on this for a long time. I think there are still too many properties that are empty; it's quite hard to get a definitive number because of the turnover. But I couldn't agree with you more, Lindsay, that this is something we have to tackle, and tackle urgently.

Diolch, Rhys. Legal aid deserts are a critical challenge across Wales. Whilst legal aid is reserved to the UK Government, I continue to take every opportunity to highlight the fragility of the sector in Wales. Our single advice fund offers some support, but obviously can't replace the need for a properly funded legal aid system.

Thank you very much, Counsel General. The word 'crisis' is used very often, but I do genuinely believe that access to justice is approaching the level of crisis. I know that you agree with that; I remember you saying here, on the floor of the Chamber, that this is perhaps something that you are looking forward to contributing to after you leave this place. Because it is a major problem.

Delays in courts will grow 40 per cent in the next six years. Sixty per cent of people are representing themselves now in family law. Almost half of our police stations do not have a solicitor available at all times. And tenants are having to defend themselves because of a lack of solicitors working in housing law. Already, London has 40 solicitors for every 10,000 residents. That goes down to 12 in Cardiff, and even down to 1.9 in Gwynedd. This situation will only deteriorate, Counsel General, because only fewer than 8 per cent of law companies in rural Wales are training people to be solicitors.

Now, I've raised time and time again in this place a simple solution, I believe, to this problem, and that is to have legal apprenticeships, so that people, through apprenticeships, could become solicitors. It happens in England. Why is it not happening in Wales? Thank you.

Diolch, Rhys. I completely agree with you, as you know, about the legal deserts across Wales. I really welcome the Law Society's report that they issued on 2 February—you quoted some of the stats in it there. It is a matter of huge concern to us that we have an increasing issue with the commercial viability of high-street solicitors outside of the main population centres. There is a whole range of reasons for that. We do have the single advice fund, but that is no substitute at all for proper legal aid. The UK Government did make a small step in the right direction, but I am very, very keen that they continue to do that. So, I was very pleased to see the Law Society's report, which we absolutely welcome. I have myself raised this issue in every single inter-ministerial group I'm in until people are sick of hearing me saying it. But the truth is, in a democracy, if you don't have access to law, you don't really have a democracy, because people are not equal in front of the law if they can't get proper legal advice. It's just a complete truism that that's the case. So, I couldn't agree with you more.

I would like very much to see the apprenticeship programme extended. We do do a whole series of other apprenticeships. We've had this conversation a number of times. I'm pleased to see that some law firms have taken some of that up—not as many as I'd like. So, we'd like to see some more take-up of the lower level, below level 7 apprentices. I think that would actually help if we could get law firms to do that. I've been really pushing that very hard myself. We have been watching very carefully the level 7 apprenticeship programme in England, and I think that, very soon, there'll be an evaluation of that. I'm sure the next Welsh Government will want to look very carefully at whether that is something that can happen. My only caveat is that it has genuinely got to go to firms that are struggling, and not be a way for firms that are already pretty successful to find a different route to fund trainees and not use their own money. But otherwise, as long as we can find a way to stop that happening, I completely agree with you.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

Counsel General, I'd like to ask you a question today in your role as Minister for Delivery. In its new pledge document, Welsh Labour talks about expanding childcare, growing our national forest, ending homelessness and raising school standards. But by repeating these pledges, you are highlighting your own failure to deliver. The Flying Start expansion promised this term remains incomplete. Tree planting is well below the trajectory required for the 2030 target. Your Government published a high-level action plan to end homelessness by 2026, and yet, as of December last year, 10,605 people, including nearly 2,300 children, were in temporary accommodation. And on school standards, the Government set an explicit Programme for International Student Assessment target of 500 points, then quietly dropped it before Wales recorded its lowest ever scores. The ambitions you announced yesterday, they weren't new, they're old promises you have failed to keep. So, do you accept, Minister, that under Labour, Wales has had a delivery problem? 

Of course, I don't accept that, Adam. A nice try, I would say. We have an extensive programme for government based on our manifesto. We have delivered the vast majority of the programme for government. Of course, there's more to do. No government can solve everything in a single year or even in multi years. These problems are really entrenched in our society. 

If you just take the homelessness figures, for example. The figures you quote sound terrible, I have to say, but a very large number of the people in temporary accommodation are in temporary accommodation that's actually very good accommodation, and I would be very pleased to live in it myself. I've visited quite a lot of it. Some of them are in terrible accommodation, and I absolutely agree we need to get those out as soon as possible, and we absolutely have a very high turnover of people out of the worst kinds of temporary accommodation. The figure is an interesting one, because it's a figure that doesn't change very much as a headline. But if you actually look at the revolution inside the figures, it is actually interesting how many people move out of temporary accommodation and also the number of people moving in.

What we haven't been able to do, and I very much hope the next Welsh Government is able to do it, is get upstream of the people who are becoming homeless in Wales and that is still far too high. So, the turnover is very high; the system is working very well in my view, but we still have far too many people becoming homeless. One of the points of the homelessness and social allocation Bill is to get upstream and to try and keep people in their home longer. We have a number of initiatives that have been put in place to try and do that, to make sure that people can stay there. The home stay initiative is one, such that it was so popular the day we brought it in that we had problems with the website. People do need help to stay in their own home and not become homeless. And then, obviously, our aim is that once they are homeless, it's rare, brief and unrepeated, and that we build enough houses to get people into decent accommodation. But those figures are interesting, because once you get underneath them, you see a very different picture of what the system looks like.

But the fact that you've moved the target of ending homelessness eight years, from 2026 to 2034, I think, speaks volumes. Now, your closest counterpart at Westminster, Darren Jones, has recently argued that when governments repeatedly miss milestones it's not coincidence, it's the machinery that is failing. And in Wales, a pattern has emerged, hasn't it? Eight years after Holtham proposed a social care levy we still have no durable funding solution. Five years after the Burns commission, congestion at Brynglas remains unresolved. The £100 million Tech Valleys initiative, announced in 2017, has committed only £43 million nine years later. And, as for the 100,000 apprenticeships target, well, Medr in its own figures pointed out that if you use the more rigorous figure, it isn't true that the target has been met, and the target itself was reduced from 125,000 in the programme for government. Wales is a smaller administration than Whitehall. We should be more nimble. Why is that patently not the case?

Well, as I say, Adam, we obviously don't agree here. I would really hate to look at the world through your eyes. It's always so pessimistic and gloomy, and we're much more optimistic here on these benches. We have achieved an enormous amount in the last five years. Our programme for government shows that. Of course, we haven't done everything to solve every problem in society, I absolutely agree with that, and, of course, as the famous politician said, 'Events, dear boy' also get in the way. We've had a whole series of things to deal with: the pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis, a whole series of other things to deal with as well.

In terms of the apprenticeship numbers, that's an interesting one. Our programme for government commitment is about apprenticeship starts. You're quoting two figures there: the apprenticeship starts and the apprentices that are still in post eight weeks later. We quote both of them, actually, so it's more transparent than not. And the programme for government talks about apprenticeship starts, so we haven't moved the goalposts. We have dropped the figure, though. We had to do that, because of the way that we knew it was happening.

I'm not ever in favour of dropping targets. We've had this conversation a lot. I think a target is not—. It's generally seen by opposition parties as a stick to beat the governing party with, but, actually, in my world, a target is a way of driving the system to achieve more. So, I'm always very reluctant to drop targets because I think what you should do is try and push the system towards the target. But, in this instance, as a result of a number of conversations with a Minister who's in the Chamber, we decided that it was more appropriate to drop the target to 100,000. But, as I say, I don't accept at all that we've moved the goalposts in that regard.

You have served across portfolios and now as Minister for Delivery, and as this may be your last question session in office, I was wondering if you would reflect on what you've learned and what you think your successors in Government, whoever they are, should do differently. Five years ago, the Welsh Government floated a national school of government to improve delivery. The UK Government is now proceeding with one. Why are we so slow to move from idea to action, even when it comes to creating institutions designed to accelerate delivery? What's holding us back? Is it resources? Is it culture? Is it a lack of political urgency? Looking ahead, Minister, whatever the political colour of the next Government, what must be transformed in the way Welsh Government works to ensure that change isn't a slogan but a system that delivers for the people of Wales?

I think it is my last ever question time, actually, which is rather sad. Although I'm quite looking forward to retirement, there are lots of things I'll miss, and one of those things is the real privilege of standing in this Chamber and talking to Senedd Member and the people of Wales. I will genuinely miss it, actually, because it is a real privilege to be able to do this.

What I will say—it will sound trite—is that being in Government is hard. It can be quite exhausting. It's a real privilege. You get a real chance to be able to do some things, and I have done a few things in Government that I'm personally very proud of, and I'm very proud of what the Government has done. There is always more that you can do, and sometimes it's frustrating to be in Government because you'd like to be able to nip at the heels, really, when you can't do that. But, overall, I would say it has been an enormous privilege to be in a position to actually change some of the things that we've changed.

You're sitting next to Siân Gwenllian—I hope you don't mind my mentioning you, Siân, since it is my last time doing OQs—and, during the co-operation agreement, you and I did an enormous number of things around community energy, around homelessness and housing, and so on. There was much more to do, but we met some amazing people along the way, particularly people experiencing homelessness who shared their stories with us. I particularly remember—I'm not going to remember the name of the place now—a community energy project that we went to in your patch, I think it was—

Abergwyngregyn.

There we are—with the most incredible waterfall and the hydroelectric one, wasn't it? It was the most amazing example of community energy. So, it shows what's possible. But what you also learn in Government is that it's hard, and sometimes it isn't possible, and you do have to be pragmatic about it. And I've heard you yourself, Adam, say that sometimes half a loaf is better than none. So, sometimes we settle for that.

The Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Tom Giffard.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can the delivery Minister update the Senedd on the delivery of the Welsh Government's homelessness strategy, 'Ending Homelessness in Wales' 2021-26, as part of its programme for government? It's now 2026. Has it worked? Have we ended homelessness?

Well, one of the problems with preparing your questions in advance is when I've already discussed it at great length with the party behind me.

I heard it. You didn't answer Adam Price either.

I'm very proud of what we've done in housing and homelessness in Wales. We did it against a programme of austerity from the UK Government that starved us of funding. We were not able to build the houses that we would have liked to have built, although we built quite a few, and far more than were ever built in England during that period. In fact, in the period in question, 750,000 social homes came off the register in England whilst we built, over the same 10-year period, 40,000. I'm very proud of that record.

As I just explained on this side, what we haven't been able to do is stem the number of people becoming homeless in Wales. We have an enormous turnover of people through the system, but we still have an enormous number of people presenting as homeless on a monthly basis. Frankly, that's the spin-out from the appalling Conservative programme of economic disaster that we saw with a number of Governments, supported by the benches opposite. So, I'll take no lessons from anyone opposite—the frank hypocrisy of always wanting us to spend more money whilst giving us less and less.

You made a promise in 2021, under a UK Conservative Government, to have ended homelessness by 2026. It is 2026. You have not ended homelessness. Yesterday, the First Minister, in her campaign launch for the forthcoming Senedd election, promised a new pledge to end homelessness by 2034 in Wales. It sounds familiar. So, if you didn't deliver it last time, why should anyone in Wales believe that you'll deliver it now?

Because we made enormous strides, despite the fact that the Tory Government starved us of funds, and now we have a Government that invests in public services and understands the value of investment, so we're able to invest more to do it. In the meantime, we have kept most people in Wales off the streets and in accommodation, which is more than can be said for any Government that you've ever supported.

It's the latest in a long line of Welsh Government pledges and promises before elections that end up ultimately not being delivered by a Welsh Labour Government. Its last manifesto not only included that pledge on ending homelessness but also reforming council tax—not delivered; 125,000 apprenticeships—scaled down; 20,000 social homes to be built—target delayed. And previous manifestos have the same story. Eradicating child poverty was promised—not delivered; bringing Welsh wages in line with UK averages—not delivered. An M4 relief road was promised. Do you remember that? One hundred and fifty million pounds was spent, not an inch of road was built. In fact, you've made promises on educational outcomes, tackling NHS waiting lists, improving the Welsh economy, only to have delivered the worst educational outcomes anywhere in the UK, the longest NHS waiting lists anywhere in the UK, and the weakest economy. You’re shaking your head, Counsel General; it’s all true. Is it not the case, as we close, mercifully, the chapter on 27 failed years of a Welsh Labour Government, that the reason the polls say what they do about this Welsh Labour Government is because it consistently makes promises it fails to deliver and the public can see right through it? 

I'll tell you what the public can see right through, Tom, and that's the Conservatives, because as you well know, at the last election, you had no councils and no MPs in Wales, and that tells you everything about what the Welsh public thinks they can trust. We have a very proud record of delivering in government, despite the fact that we were absolutely savaged by successive Conservative Governments who have no understanding of the value of public service, no understanding of the value of investment and no basic economic understanding. What on earth you see when you look out of your eyes, I do not know, but what I see is a country that's withstood 14 years of Conservative austerity, politically imposed Conservative austerity, and is now finally seeing the results of investment with the fastest falling waiting lists we've ever seen, with the biggest house building programme we've ever seen, and with the expansion of childcare right across Wales. That's what I see, and I'm very proud of it.

Diolch, Rhys. I'm actually really pleased that this is my last ever question, and so it's a great question to have as my last ever question. The Minister for Children and Social Care and I have regular updates about progress following the recommendations. The next steps will be informed by the January workshops, which were facilitated by the Centre for Justice Innovation in each local family justice board area, and learning from the national family justice event, which is on 11 March, so just after this session.

Diolch yn fawr, Cwnsler Cyffredinol. Can I reiterate what Adam Price said? I've enjoyed our Counsel General sessions. We haven't always agreed, but I've always respected where you've come from and you've always tried to do what's best in your eyes for the people of Wales. The same is true of your time as the housing Minister. I'm looking forward to the Building Safety (Wales) Bill today, something I questioned you a lot about in your previous role. Diolch yn fawr, Cwnsler Cyffredinol. 

I was disappointed, reading Dawn Bowden's letter, that the drug and alcohol court will not be moving on by itself. It was a clear recommendation from the Lord Thomas commission. We had a very positive assessment by CASCADE and Cardiff University. The judges are in favour of it. The judges said how successful it was. Over half of the children go back to their families. And it's been successful in London since 2008, and more recently in Liverpool. I'm just concerned, Cwnsler Cyffredinol, that Wales and the families of Wales are being left behind again. Diolch yn fawr.

I don't think we need to be quite as pessimistic as that. I think there's a broad acceptance that the court was successful. The issue is, as I've said on a number of occasions, whether it could be scaled up across Wales in a realistic way. My understanding is that, at the event next week, working group members will be looking at progressing it, but not in isolation. So, they're going to be progressing it within the wider system, which includes the multi-agency practice framework, the pathfinder approach in private law, and the broader landscape of early intervention and prevention, edge-of-care services, and post-court support services—that’s actually hard to say—post-court support services.

The family justice network considered the paper at their 22 September meeting and proposed two task and finish groups. I think you know that already, Rhys. They're going to report in the first year of the next Senedd term to map and assess the existing edge-of-care service provision and opportunities for development, and consider the system and judicial design issues needed to support a public law problem-solving approach. So, I'm very pleased to say that I don't think it will stop. I do think there is an issue about a wider problem-solving approach in the courts more generally, and I think this is a really good model for it, but it probably couldn't be scaled up right across Wales. So, it is about trying to make sure that professionals seamlessly act together to get that problem-solving approach, because it is, I absolutely agree with you, completely beneficial to the families involved.

Thank you, Counsel General. 

The next item is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip to make that statement—Jane Hutt. 

Thank you, Llywydd. There is one change to this week's Plenary business. The debate on the National Health Service (Direct Payments) (Wales) Regulations 2026 has been postponed until 24 March. Business for the next three weeks is shown in the business statement, which is available to Members electronically.

Trefnydd, I wish to raise an urgent matter regarding correspondence I sent to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care over a month ago, to which I am yet to receive a response. I wrote on behalf of two parents who tragically lost their baby over the Christmas period, who are now facing significant delays in receiving answers because of the severe shortage of paediatric and perinatal pathology capacity in Wales. With only one specialist covering south Wales and around 150 cases, delays are unfortunately inevitable. Given the coroner's involvement, this means that the health board investigations cannot begin until the postmortem is complete. While inquests are not devolved, pathology services are. I have asked the Cabinet Secretary what action is being taken to address the shortage, what interim measures are in place to support families facing delays, what the current waiting times are, and who is accountable for ensuring timely access to these essential services. With Senedd dissolution only weeks away, will the Trefnydd raise this as a matter of priority with the Cabinet Secretary and ensure that a substantive response is provided before the end of the Senedd term? 

Diolch yn fawr, Heledd Fychan, and thank you for bringing to the attention of the business statement this very important issue. I have asked the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, as I do, and I will ask him to follow this up with a response in correspondence, but also to actually deal with these points that you make. I think what is very important is what is the action, short and long term, in terms of the shortage in pathology specialist services, and those interim measures supporting families, and current waiting times and who is accountable, as you said, for those needs. So, thank you for raising that on behalf of the particular family that you raised and drawn to our attention today. I will follow it up.

Trefnydd, today marks World Hearing Day, an important opportunity to reflect on the access to hearing care in an ageing society and on the awareness, prevention, early care and policy action needed to ensure people of all ages can maintain good hearing health. As you know, hearing loss already affects nearly 600,000 adults in Wales, and I have to declare an interest—as you know, I'm one of them—and it's a figure that will invariably rise as our population grows older. For many people, hearing loss is not simply an inconvenience; it can lead to isolation, loneliness, reduced independence and declining mental health. Left untreated, it is also associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline.

Timely access to assessment and treatment is therefore not a luxury, it is a necessity. It is essential preventative healthcare, something that the Welsh Government fully subscribes to. The recent publication of the future approach for audiology framework is a welcome step. It recognises the need to modernise services and to deliver care closer to home, within community settings, rather than relying solely on hospital-based provision. However, the framework currently excludes the community audiology sector, despite the fact that around 94 per cent—

You need to ask a question, please, Joel.

No worries, Dirprwy Lywydd. Despite the fact that 94 per cent of hearing loss cases are age-related and can be managed safely from a high-street setting. With this in mind, can I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on how the Welsh Government intends to address rising waiting times, and whether existing high-street audiology provision can be better integrated into NHS pathways and in a new framework to ensure patients receive the accessible community-based care that they need? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr, Joel James, and thank you for your very important question. You draw attention to the adverse impact that hearing loss can have. It disables people, I know, in terms of that impairment, which of course can happen to all generations, and indeed particularly to those in an ageing society, those who are older and need that access to good primary and community assessment, which is crucial at the starting point, and then on many occasions specialist services as well. You have raised an issue, and I know that although we have only a few weeks left of this administration, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care will want to respond to your question. I will raise it with him, but also you will have an opportunity to raise it with him again in what will be his last oral Senedd questions.

Yesterday, I visited Cwmffrwdoer Primary School in Torfaen, where I was presented with this excellent PGI Welsh leek grown by the pupils. I read online that 10,000 tonnes of leeks are now being grown in Wales, and it is to be celebrated that this is a significant increase on the 1,500 tonnes being produced in 2022 when I asked Lesley Griffiths. As leeks are such an important symbol of our history and culture, as well as being delicious, in the week of Dydd Gŵyl Dewi, could we have a statement from the Deputy First Minister, who I am glad to say is in the Chamber, on the number of Welsh leeks needed to ensure that every pupil gets to taste Welsh leeks, not just the pupils of Ysgol Cwmffrwdoer, and have them as a regular part of their school food menus? 

Diolch yn fawr, Jenny Rathbone. I think I can even smell that wonderful leek, grown by those children in that school in Torfaen. Just think how proud they must have been of growing it and giving it to you as a very important visitor to them. This is interesting because yesterday we were having a discussion and scrutiny in the Equality and Social Justice Committee about food, nutrition and the curriculum. I said, of course, that this is very cross-Government, and the Deputy First Minister was not there, but I was. But I said that the Cabinet Secretary for Education could be there, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services could be there, and the Minister for mental health. It is a cross-Government issue.

But you have drawn attention to the leek. I just wanted to say that Welsh leeks are one of the 24 Welsh products that are awarded the geographical indication status. It is supplied, as colleagues will know, through Castell Howell. It is listed in several major Welsh retailers. Welsh consumers in particular, I understand, show a clear preference for the product's provenance, plus its specific characteristics of size, diameter and abundance of green flag, which provides the consumer with that strong, fresh flavour and starchy, earthy, sweet and buttery aroma. It’s got a huge reputation across the world. Of course, the horticultural cluster is bringing Welsh growers and producers together to look at these connections. I know a lot of very tasty cawl will be made over this St David's season.

I'd like to request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health in relation to the current dispute in Cwm Taf Morgannwg. Last week, in response to my question, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care said that NHS Wales has a strong social partnership structure and that both parties need to come together to find a solution. But it's important to set out clearly that the health board is not entering this dispute in the spirit of good faith. Prior to serving notice of strike action, Unite put forward an offer to maintain a level of service for the health board during the period of industrial action. That offer was declined. Before notice was served, Unite also met with Cwm Taf in an effort to resolve the issue constructively. We have been told that there was no meaningful attempt from the health board to reach a solution. At the same meeting, Cwm Taf confirmed that this is not a question of finances, but that the funding is available. Taken together, this paints a deeply concerning picture. It suggests a health board unwilling to engage, deflecting responsibility and allowing the dispute to escalate unnecessarily, therefore an attempt to bully workers into submission. A statement from the Government would be welcomed by the health workers, with particular reference to whether or not this, if true, aligns with the principles of social partnership.

Thank you very much, Luke Fletcher, for raising this again. It was raised last week, as you say. Yes, NHS Wales has a strong social partnership structure, and we encourage, as we did last week, both parties to seek that resolution and to find an end to the dispute for the benefit of staff and patients.

It is a local dispute between Unite and the health board, not a national issue, and it hasn't been raised, I understand, by other health unions through the Welsh social partnership arrangements. Can I also say, as you recognise, that health visitors play a vital role in improving outcomes for children and families? So, we hope this will be resolved.

NHS Wales Employers are co-ordinating an expert group to develop a range of job descriptions. Unite the Union has been invited to take part. I do understand that Cwm Taf Morgannwg say that an initial meeting with ACAS was going to take place. I don't know if it did take place. It was scheduled for Friday 27 February, subject to Unite confirmation. But it certainly will take place, if not then, early this week.

I call for a Government statement on NHS general dental services contracts in Wales. Despite the health Secretary's proclamation to the contrary here last week, the British Dental Association Cymru has raised serious concerns about the process and substance of the new NHS dental services contract in Wales, including the absence of meaningful scrutiny and the lack of timely, accurate information provided to dentists. They stated last month that key operational documents had not been published, leaving practices facing major business decisions with only days to spare. They state that dentists are being asked to operate on untested contracts without piloting, carrying significant financial risk, with many practices considering handing back contracts, having major implications for patient access across Wales. 

Abergele dental practice is the latest to hand back their contract, and I have been contacted by constituents in Mold following Bryn Siriol dental practice handing back its NHS contract, forcing children and families, including my own grandchildren, out of NHS care. My own dentist told me in person that this was a direct consequence of the Welsh Government's new dental contract, the straw that broke the camel's back. The human cost is now, and a Welsh Government statement is urgently needed explaining how patient care will be protected—now, urgently.

Thank you very much, Mark Isherwood. Issues have been raised about the consultation and leading to the new dental contract, which, of course, is as a result of consultation with the British Dental Association. They have been very engaged in that. And also, just in terms of understanding the impacts on it, the changes have been well rehearsed, and, indeed, statements have been made by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. You have brought this to the Senedd today, and I respect that, but it is something that is now working its way through and that has been understood by the dental profession. We do, of course, have to make sure that there is accessibility to our NHS dental services here in Wales. It is on the record that your concerns have been raised.

Trefnydd, I'd like to ask for a statement about how the Welsh Government is seeking to keep women safe and to rebuild trust with the police. Five years ago today, Sarah Everard was abducted, raped and murdered by a Metropolitan Police officer. The Angiolini inquiry conducted after her death revealed that sexual harassment is normalised and women are often on high alert, particularly at night, in parks and on public transport, where there is a greater risk of sexually motivated crimes. The inquiry called for a fundamental shift in police culture and practice. Tonight, a memorial run will be taking place, finishing at the Senedd at 6 p.m., to honour all women murdered. It will include a minute's silence and calls for more to be done about men's behaviours. How is the Welsh Government ensuring that the police root out those accused of sexual offences and ensuring that women feel safe outside their homes?

Thank you very much, Julie Morgan. It's the five-year anniversary, yes, of that devastating kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard. We're reminded of the deep grief that her family and community continue to carry and the shared responsibility we all hold to end violence against women and girls. The violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence strategy for 2022-26 sets out that clear commitment to engage directly with men and boys in efforts to address VAWDASV across Wales. Of course, that is ensuring that we're working through dedicated work streams on gender-based harassment in all public spaces and tackling perpetration. You will know, of course, that we've introduced a communications campaign focusing on engaging men and boys to reduce all forms of VAWDASV, and we're now entering the third phase of that.

I do welcome and thank those who've organised the memorial event tonight, organised by Dr Ashley Morgan, senior lecturer at Cardiff Metropolitan University, bringing runners from across south Wales. As you said, they'll come to the steps of the Senedd. This will provide a very powerful and respectful moment of reflection, but also recognising the opportunity we have, again, to reinforce the importance of our recognition that we want to ensure that women and girls feel safe being active in public spaces.

You particularly draw attention to the Angiolini inquiry and to what this means in terms of trust and confidence in the police forces. I was minded, again, to see the Independent Office for Police Conduct press statement today about the fact that gross misconduct was proven for two former Gwent Police officers over the sharing of horrendously offensive messages, which were discriminatory, wholly inappropriate and unprofessional messages of misogyny, homophobia and racism. I know, working so closely with the police, of their keen leadership and the voices of the chief constables and the police and crime commissioners, their commitment to building that trust and confidence in policing in Wales. I'm also glad that I'm co-chairing the VAWDASV national partnership board with police and crime commissioner Emma Wools. I know that we will be reflecting that again when we meet later this week.

Good afternoon, Trefnydd. I'd like to request two statements, please. Last week, I visited Hwb y Gors in the Amman valley to discuss our green energy future. Hwb y Gors stands as a powerful example of community ownership done right. Revenue from two locally community-owned wind turbines was reinvested to purchase and renovate the community centre, ensuring that the benefits stay local. But one of the big challenges that they face is securing planning permission. It took them six years in order to get to the stage where they were able to start commissioning their wind turbines. So, I'd like to hear exactly how we can help those communities to invest in local energy projects.

I'd also like to request a statement from you, please, on the situation in Gaza. Last month, the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt reopened briefly, offering a lifeline to civilians in desperate need. But following the renewed regional escalation, the crossing at Rafah has now been closed again. There's a population of 2 million people already heavily dependent on humanitarian assistance and facing starvation. So, I'd like to hear what steps the Welsh Government is taking to support international relief efforts and ensure that those civilians in Gaza are fed. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr, Jane Dodds. Thank you, first of all, for drawing attention to that community-led energy project in the Amman valley, I think you said. What's good is, this financial year, we've backed three community-led energy projects, with nearly £5 million, putting energy assets and opportunity directly into the hands of Welsh communities. I think it's always really important that the Cabinet Secretary for economy is also the Secretary for energy and planning, because your point about planning is very relevant. We have, through Ynni Cymru, committed to invest over £32 million since the scheme was launched in 2024. Community energy, of course, is about people, and its impact is it tackles fuel poverty, creating jobs and building long-lasting social value far beyond what can be measured. But thank you for raising the point about the journey, which can be delayed, often, by planning issues, which you acknowledged in your contribution today.

The second issue is extremely worrying. Of course, the ongoing situation in the middle east is deeply concerning, and the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains extremely challenging. Over 70,000 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 90 per cent of the population have been displaced. The temporary closure of all crossings into Gaza, following the start of hostilities in the wider region, is a serious concern. Reports that the Kerem Shalom crossing will reopen from today for the gradual entry of humanitarian aid must be followed by a rapid resumption of aid at scale through multiple crossings.

Jane—. No, she's just done. Sorry. Natasha Asghar.

Thanks very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Business Secretary, can I please request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care about the ongoing health visitor strike within Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board? In line with what Luke Fletcher asked earlier, I've been contacted by multiple constituents over recent days expressing concern about the strike and the impact that it's having on families. Health visitors, as we all know, are a lifeline to new mothers, babies and families, but they feel that they have no choice but to strike due to the dispute over pay banding. If staff are not being paid adequately for the qualifications and responsibilities that they hold, that is clearly unfair and undermines the pipeline of talent we desperately need in line with demand.

I understand that the health board has been in discussions with the Government over this for many months now, so how have we got to this point? These are questions that I would like to know, and I'm sure that many others would too. Why was there no sense of urgency to date, given that the 10-year pay protection for staff was due to expire at the health board? A statement from the Welsh Government outlining how long they have known about this issue, what steps they have taken up until now and how they plan to work with the health board, staff and unions to stop the strike action is urgently needed. I appreciate what your response was to Luke Fletcher before, and I really hope that the Cabinet Secretary will be able to keep us updated as to those talks that are going to be taking place. Thank you.

Thank you. I have answered a question already this afternoon on the health visitors pay dispute at Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Local Health Board, which we hope will be resolved as a matter of urgency. I have drawn attention to the fact that NHS Wales employers are co-ordinating an expert group, developing a range of job descriptions, and Unite has been invited to take part. I understand that a meeting with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has or will take place, and of course Cwm Taf Morgannwg recognises concerns raised about the revised educational requirements, which are having an impact. In terms of just going into the detail about this, this is something that we hope can be resolved at a local level, and if there are any wider issues in terms of NHS Wales or beyond, then we will, of course, I know, be addressing those.

Trefnydd, I would like to ask for a statement on gender guidance currently operating in Welsh schools and whether this Government intends to reverse it. There has been uproar recently, as you know, about new guidance being released in England allowing children as young as four to socially transition, changing names and pronouns in the classroom, but in Wales this is nothing new, is it? Schools have long been encouraged to push gender ideology on small children. Welsh Labour, cheered on by Plaid, have even entertained the idea—an utter madness of children self-identifying as cats, treating it as completely normal: biological reality shredded, parental rights trampled, kids' minds indoctrinated, all under the guise of inclusion. Children as young as four should not be confused about basic biology. In Reform, we are crystal clear that the law and facts trump ideology. And we will defend girls’ rights, and we will back parents.

Trefnydd, when will this Labour Government finally issue clear guidance that protects girls in schools and properly puts an end to pushing dangerous ideology on innocent children that will only get worse under an extremist Plaid Government? Diolch.

Well, I think one of the things that I always turn to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and thank her for is the fact that she has said very clearly, in terms of our curriculum, 'I’m very proud of our new curriculum, which is now being rolled out across Wales, and that it is really important that schools are inclusive.' And in terms of the curriculum, one of our main purposes is for children to grow up as ethically informed citizens, and that our pioneering relationships and sexuality education, a mainstream strand of the curriculum, is now being implemented in schools.

I have to say, we had a very good presentation from an official from the Cabinet Secretary’s department on Thursday at the faith communities forum, which is a forum of many different views and faiths, hearing about the ways in which we are developing and implementing our curriculum to meet the needs of children in that inclusive way.

I’d like to call for a statement, please, from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care this afternoon, following a deeply troubling account shared on social media based on someone’s A&E experience at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd in recent days. A constituent described arriving to find the department dangerously overcrowded, with patients on beds and chairs lining the corridors. Opposite them lay an elderly, frail woman, alone on a corridor trolley. She was visibly distressed, making laboured sounds as staff and visitors hurried past. Tragically, she died there, alone, in a corridor, without privacy, without dignity, without anyone to comfort her by her side.

Now, let me be clear, this isn’t a criticism of hard‑working NHS staff, who we know face intolerable systemic pressures on a daily basis. But no patient, and certainly no elderly or vulnerable person, should spend their final moments in such undignified and distressing conditions. Corridor care is cruel, inhuman. It is not befitting of us as a developed nation. It should never have been normalised, and this incident shows the human cost of that failure. Passing alone in a corridor is no way to mark the closing of a human life.

So, I’d like to hear from the Cabinet Secretary for health what urgent actions he is taking to end the shocking practice of corridor care in our hospitals and to ensure that nobody else dies alone in a hospital corridor ever again. 

It is very regrettable to hear of that tragic experience and occurrence that you have brought to our attention. Obviously, we can't deal with individual cases, but I’m sure that you have raised this with Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board.

I think, just in terms of emergency department performance in north Wales, over the last four years, £12 million in six goals funding has been provided to Betsi Cadwaladr to improve urgent and emergency care. And the health board is accessing a further £2.7 million this year to deliver a range of interventions. And this is about actually enabling a patient to come to be assessed, and then for an appropriate care pathway to be agreed for that patient.

Of course, we know there is huge pressure on our emergency departments in terms of patient needs and patients presenting themselves, but I think the six goals funding, part of the £35.5 million investment to help support that health board and the north Wales regional partnership board, is about safely managing more people in the community, avoiding ambulance transport and admission to hospital, delivering integrated solutions with social care and improving patient flow through hospitals.

In January, I asked for a statement on the future of Aston Martin. Six weeks later, there's been no such statement, but major concerns remain. Up to 100 jobs will be lost at Bro Tathan. Last week, Aston Martin announced their intention to reduce their workforce by 20 per cent. The Welsh Government has awarded grants to Aston Martin—grants with conditions up to 2030. The details of those conditions set for those grants are crucially important. So, may we have a statement, please?

And secondly, can we have a statement on another one of your constituents, the amazing Nadine Marshall? She contacted me this morning to tell me that she'd read in the press today that her son's murderer was back in court, accused of further offences whilst at prison. I'm sure you'll agree with me, Trefnydd, that it's appalling that victims are finding out through the press that further offences have been committed. Will you, as Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, contact the Ministry of Justice to see how we can improve communication with victims? Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr, Rhys ab Owen. Clearly, I have to declare an interest, in that Aston Martin is in my constituency, and I have answered questions from you before, as indeed has the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning, and indeed the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership. I have also met with both the management and with the trade unions in recent weeks, because of the emerging news about the impact on Aston Martin. I've visited Aston Martin myself, so I'm talking very much as a constituency Member. But indeed, of course, Aston Martin, we welcomed to Wales. And in terms of the arrangements, which are very clearly laid down in terms of support for Aston Martin, clearly they are open for scrutiny and that's open for scrutiny and question, but we are confident that their commitment to Wales is strong. I think one of the points I would make, which I think is helpful, is that the paint shop has been opened in Aston Martin and St Athan, and that actually means that cars have to actually come to Aston Martin from their headquarters in Warwickshire, and the models, of course, that have been developed there are across the world. They have suffered from the Trump tariffs, as you know, but we are working at Welsh Government and UK Government to address that.

I'm very grateful that you've raised this concern from Nadine Marshall, who is also a constituent who I have supported over many years, but also I have, and will again, raise this with the Ministry of Justice. She's played a very powerful role in influencing policy and reflecting on the appalling way in which Chris Grayling divided and privatised our probation service, way back. I do pay tribute to her courage and the contribution that she's made in terms of influencing probation policy, as we look to and discuss the way we'd like to have more power and responsibility for probation here in Wales.

And lastly, James Evans.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. Trefnydd, I'd like a statement, please, from the Welsh Government on the protection of Welsh elections. In the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, it was observed by democracy observers a widespread family voting across the constituency. We all want to see the protection of our elections across the country, and I think that's especially important going into our Senedd election. So, I'd like an urgent statement from the Welsh Government about how you're going to protect the integrity of our Welsh Senedd election.

Of course, the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government is responsible and taking clear responsibility, with the returning officers from all our local authorities, for protecting and preparing for our forthcoming elections. Also, I think what's important is that this is the responsibility of many who play a part in this, including the Electoral Commission and the boundary commission—all of those organisations that meet together to discuss and find a way forward. In fact, I think the political panel has a key role to play as far as this is concerned, and we look forward to this having an impact on the way that the elections, the forthcoming elections, on 7 May are conducted, because we know that they will be conducted rigorously, and that the citizens of Wales can have confidence in the arrangements that are being made at national and local level.

I thank the Trefnydd.

Item 4 is the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Regulations 2026. And I call on the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership to move the motion—Jack Sargeant. 

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion to approve the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Regulations 2026.

The Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 includes socially responsible procurement duties, which require the Welsh public sector to pursue social, environmental, economic and cultural well-being through all public procurement. These regulations make further provisions for annual reports that public bodies must publish. These reports must include information on how their procurement activities generally contribute to achieving the well-being goals in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The regulations also extend the scope of prescribed contracts, define 'registrable contracts', and update wording to align with the social model of disability.

I'm very grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their careful scrutiny of these regulations, and I ask Members to approve the regulations in the Senedd today.

And I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mike Hedges. 

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the draft regulations on 2 February, and the Welsh Government’s response last week. The committee’s report contains one technical reporting point and two merits reporting points.

The technical reporting point highlights a missing paragraph number in the regulations. The Welsh Government accepted the point, and will make the correction prior to making the regulations.

The first merits reporting point requests further information about the impact of the extension of the definition of a 'prescribed contract', particularly whether it extends the scope of the socially responsible procurement duty. The Welsh Government’s response clarifies that the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 imposes the socially responsible procurement duty on all public procurement. The response further states that the Welsh Government has always intended to further define in regulations a 'prescribed contract' by reference to financial thresholds aligned with the World Trade Organization's Government procurement agreement. The Welsh Government has committed to update the explanatory memorandum and explain how the application of the duty has been extended and the policy rationale for doing so.

The committee’s second merits scrutiny point highlights that the consultation carried out by the Welsh Government in relation to these draft regulations did not seek views on the policy itself.

Just a brief question from myself to the Minister, to seek some clarity on how these regulations will affect small and medium-sized enterprises. I noted it mentions within the regulations that they apply to larger contracts, but some clarity on this particular issue would be very welcome.

It will come as no surprise that the Welsh Conservatives will not be supporting these regulations today. I want to reiterate that we believe in social partnership, provided it occurs naturally. However, legislation in this way will do little to ensure successful partnership, and will place an unnecessary burden on SMEs. We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and, instead of focusing on job creation, Welsh businesses are asked to report on opportunities to use, learn or improve their Welsh language skills, to report on their carbon reduction plans and their environmental policies. Are we really saying that Welsh SMEs will be prevented from supplying public sector bodies because they don't have adequate diversity, equality and inclusion policies? I urge colleagues to reject these regulations. Thank you.

The Minister to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to the Chair of the legislation committee for all of his work, and for the work of the members of that committee. I'm pleased that we've responded to the report there. Presiding Officer, just to touch on a couple of points raised by Members, I had the pleasure of reading the 2022 contribution from the Welsh Conservatives at the time when this legislation was introduced. It's exactly the same contribution that was today. I don't think—. I don't think the—. It's consistently wrong is what I think it will prove to be. It's not the case that that makes sense in reality.

To Luke Fletcher's point on SMEs, which is an important point, I think, actually, the regulations will require contracting authorities to report on characteristics, including whether they are located in Wales and SMEs. So, I think these regulations in front of the Senedd today will actually enhance the opportunities for SMEs across the country to take part in the procurement opportunities that will come from it. Then, when it comes to smaller public bodies, well, it's in the Act and the regulations where proportionality is deemed appropriate, when the nature of the risk of the procurement opportunity—. So, that also supports smaller public bodies as well.

Llywydd, just to say, as I detailed, I think, in my opening remarks, this will strengthen our approach to socially responsible procurement. It will further promote our commitment to improving social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being to the people of Wales. This is the final step of the journey in the legislative frame. Social partnership remains a destination, and we're always looking to increase and enhance that destination. I want to place on record, given that it is the final stage of the legislative process here in the Senedd, my thanks to Welsh Government officials, my thanks to Hannah Blythyn, in her role as Minister for Social Partnership, in getting to where we are today, and, of course, my thanks to the trade union movement, who have supported socially responsible procurement and social partnership for many, many years now in Wales. I ask Members to reject the opposition from the Welsh Conservatives, support the motion and approve the regulations today.

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

Item 5 has been postponed until 24 March.

So, item 6, is the Annual Returns (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2026. I call on the Minister for Children and Social Care to move the motion—Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion.

The statutory instrument before you introduces amendments to existing regulations on provider annual returns and associated penalty notices. Although technical, these changes are essential to delivering one of the Government's major reforms in children's social care—removing profit from the care of looked-after children in Wales. The instrument strengthens assurance and accountability. It ensures that the legal requirement introduced through the Health and Social Care (Wales) Act 2025 for restricted children's services to operate on a not-for-profit basis is tested not only at registration with Care Inspectorate Wales but also on an ongoing basis through annual returns.

The principal amendment requires non-local authority providers of restricted children's services—children's care homes, secure accommodation and fostering services—to confirm annually that they remain compliant with the Act's not-for-profit requirement. This safeguard offers a continuing mechanism for providers to demonstrate that they meet the conditions of their registration, helping ensure that the policy intent of removing profit from children's care is realised in practice. The instrument also requires all social care providers to publish their annual returns on their own website within a set time frame. Annual returns contain important information about how services operate. Publishing them on the provider's website ensures people can easily access the information they need to make informed decisions about their care.

A minor consequential amendment updates the penalty notices framework. This amendment reflects the change made by the 2025 Act to the heading of section 48 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016.

Taken together, these amendments do not alter the purpose of annual returns but strengthen their role in promoting assurance and accountability. The instrument supports effective implementation of the profit removal provisions of the 2025 Act whilst remaining proportionate, pragmatic and informed by engagement with the sector. Dirprwy Lywydd, these targeted amendments reinforce key policies while retaining clarity, consistency and oversight, and I commend them to the Senedd. Diolch. 

And I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mike Hedges. 

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the draft regulations on 26 January. The committee's report contains one merits scrutiny point. It highlights that one of the enabling powers relied upon is not yet in force. The enabling power in question comes into force on 1 April 2026, which is the same date that these regulations come into force. The Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 provides that a power under provisions of subordinate instruments may be exercised before those provisions come into force. The committee did not request a response from the Welsh Government.

I will not be supporting these regulations today. The Minister has, obviously, had this debate previously about the removal of profit from care. I can understand why the Welsh Government wants to get there. But, unfortunately, I do not feel that there is the capacity in the system currently to do that, and it is about the quality of care provided, not where it is provided as well. So, we will not be supporting these regulations today, because I do not support the aims of the Bill in principle—Act in principle. 

The Minister to reply to the debate. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. And can I thank the Chair of the LJC and James Evans for his contribution? I respect James's view on the position of the Health and Social Care (Wales) Act 2025 as it relates to the elimination of profit from the care of looked-after children, but, of course, this was a key government for Wales commitment and it was a key part of the programme for government, and so we have pressed ahead with that, and it has the support of the majority of this Senedd.

As we close this debate, I think it's important to reflect on what these regulations represent and the wider reform of social care in Wales. At their core, these amendments ensure a key policy commitment, removing profit from the care of looked-after children and ensuring that it is delivered effectively. Such significant change requires proportionate, robust and transparent regulatory arrangements, which these regulations aim to provide.

Introducing an annual confirmation of not-for-profit status is a sensible, practical measure. It recognises that compliance should not only be confirmed before registration, but must be demonstrated over time. Using this established regulatory mechanism strengthens oversight without creating unnecessary duplication for providers. Also, requiring the publication of annual returns on the provider's website within a common time frame reinforces transparency, which is essential for public confidence. Direct accessibility to this information provides understanding of how services operate and supports people's informed decisions about their care.

Finally, the consequential amendment to penalty notices ensures coherence and accuracy across the legislation. Together, these provisions turn policy ambition into practical reality, providing clarity, assurance and transparency while keeping the focus firmly on individuals in need of care and support. I respectfully ask that you support them. Diolch yn fawr.

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

In accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the two motions under items 7 and 8, the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments and Transitory Provision) Regulations 2026, and the Online Safety Act 2023 (Exempt User-to-User and Search Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, will be grouped for debate but with separate votes. I haven't heard any objections.

Therefore, I call on the Minister for Further and Higher Education to move the motions—Vikki Howells. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motions.

From 1 April 2026, we will see the next phase of Medr's functions come into effect, as provided for in the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022. This marks a significant step forward, as Medr takes on full responsibility for securing, funding and inspecting further education and training, including school sixth forms, along with the responsibility for the formation of local curricula. To ensure our legislation is robust and up to date, the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments and Transitory Provision) Regulations 2026 will make the necessary amendments to existing primary and secondary legislation. This will align the wider legal framework with the changes brought in by the 2022 Act. These regulations will also make a transitory modification to reflect the funding functions of Medr under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, whilst the implementation of the 2022 Act is ongoing.

The second statutory instrument before you today, the Online Safety Act 2023 (Exempt User-to-User and Search Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, will amend the Online Safety Act 2023 as a consequence of the repeal of certain provisions within the Learning and Skills Act 2000. The 2023 Act introduced a new regulatory framework to tackle illegal and harmful online content, placing legal duties upon providers of user-to-user services and search engines. Importantly, it also established Ofcom as the regulator for online safety, responsible for overseeing this regime.

To ensure that organisations already subject to robust safeguarding requirements, such as those subject to inspection by Estyn, are not subject to duplicate regulation, certain education and childcare providers in Wales are exempt from Ofcom's regulatory oversight. The 2023 Act is being amended to update and extend these exemptions, reflecting changes brought about by the 2022 Act. Specifically, further education or training in Wales, when funded or secured by Medr, the Welsh Ministers or local authorities, will remain exempt from Ofcom's remit. This will keep safeguarding responsibilities firmly in place, with Estyn continuing its vital inspection role.

The amendments provided for by both of the statutory instruments before you are consequential and necessary to ensure the statute book continues to operate as intended. I would like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their scrutiny of these regulations. In my response to the committee's report on the consequential regulations, I committed to amend a footnote clarifying how a copy of a local Order amended by these regulations could be accessed. I can confirm that this amendment has been made. I ask Members to approve these regulations today.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. My contribution today will be in respect of the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments and Transitory Provision) Regulations 2026, which the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered last week, alongside the Welsh Government's response.

The report contains one technical reporting point and two merits scrutiny reporting points. The technical reporting point asks the Welsh Government to confirm that paragraph 32(2) of the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 will be commenced before these regulations come into force. Paragraph 32(2) must be commenced for regulation 6 to be effective. The Welsh Government has confirmed that paragraph 32(2) will be commenced at the same time as regulation 6 comes into force.

The committee's first scrutiny reporting point asks whether the Saint David's Catholic College Incorporation Order 2005, which is referred to in the regulation, is publicly accessible. It is not available on legislation.gov.uk, nor on commonly used subscription-based legal websites. The Welsh Government responded that local statutory instruments, such as the 2005 Order, are exempt from the general requirement that statutory instruments are printed and sold. However, the Order is publicly available through the Welsh Government’s online archive. Finally, the committee’s second merits scrutiny point highlights that no consultation has been carried out in relation to these regulations.

The Minister to reply to the debate.

I would like to thank Mike Hedges for participating in today's debate, and I call on Members to approve these regulations so we can continue to implement this Act and allow Medr to move forward with embedding these important reforms.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 7. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next proposal is to agree the motion under item 8. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Therefore, I defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 9 on our agenda is the Waste Separation Requirements (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. I call on the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to move the motion. Huw Irranca-Davies.

You have to pull it up, Huw. 

Okay. My apologies. I'm getting used to this new paraphernalia. 

Novel technologies for Ministers. 

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion. 

Today, we are discussing subordinate legislation to further strengthen and to put in place the next step in terms of Wales's successful reforms in workplace recycling. 

Firstly, I would like to take a moment to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for its work scrutinising this Welsh statutory instrument. The first phase of the workplace recycling reforms came into force in April 2024, through a suite of complementary instruments collectively known as the workplace recycling regulations. We are now all very familiar with them. The workplace recycling regulations ensure that all workplaces keep key recyclable material separate for collection for onward recycling, mirroring what households already do, actually, across most of Wales.

I'm very pleased to report, Dirprwy Lywydd, that in the first year of these regulations being in force, an additional 8,187 tonnes of recyclable material was collected from workplaces by local authorities. This is up 42 per cent on the previous year. And credit to the local authorities and all those who have contributed to that. At the same time, Dirprwy Lywydd, residual waste collected from workplaces dropped by 15.8 per cent. This means that thousands of tonnes of additional materials are now being recycled and returned to the economy, instead of being incinerated or even landfilled. 

Now, building on this overwhelming success, the regulations being debated today in this Senedd Chamber form phase 2 of the workplace recycling reforms, and they will amend the Waste Separation Requirements (Wales) Regulations 2023 to bring in a requirement for workplaces to present small waste electrical and electronic equipment—catchily entitled SWEEEs—separately for collection and onward recycling from 6 April this year. Currently, workplaces are only required to separate unsold small waste electricals.

Up to 75 per cent of the materials in old electricals can be recycled—up to 75 per cent. If electricals go to landfill or incineration instead of being recycled, then valuable and often finite resources, such as gold, copper, aluminium and steel are lost. [Interruption.] Indeed, I'll come to lithium as well. Furthermore, using recycled materials from waste electricals to create new products strengthens our supply chains, it reduces carbon emissions and reduces our reliance on the extraction of virgin materials and the associated environmental damage and biodiversity loss that this can cause.

In addition, many small electrical items indeed, as Mike Hedges said from a sedentary position, contain lithium-ion batteries. When placed in residual black-bag waste, these items are often subject to compaction, which is a known cause of waste fires. The regulatory impact assessment estimates that this policy could avoid between 2.6 and 15.9 fires per year, with potential savings of £2.1 million to £12.5 million annually.

Let me make it clear, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the consequences of such waste fires are stark. In 2021, a lithium-ion battery caused a major fire, which many of us will be familiar with, at a waste transfer station owned by a local authority in Wales. It resulted in a 3.5 per cent drop in the recycling rate of that local authority, additional net costs of £913,000 in 2021-22, and a rebuild of that facility projected at £15.5 million. So, when waste fires occur, the consequences can also extend far beyond a single site. They can affect entire communities by disrupting local services and wider environmental harm.

This improvement we are debating today is also expected to support increased jobs and investment. The modelling suggests that over 90 new jobs will be created over the first decade. This is in addition, by the way, to the predicted 784 new jobs created as a result of the phase 1 of the workplace recycling reforms that came into force in April 2024. Furthermore, it will deliver important environmental benefits, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 7,400 tonnes, increasing the recycling of small electricals by an estimated 38,000 tonnes over 10 years.

Keeping small electricals out of residual waste also reduces the risk of toxic substances leaching into the environment—something I know is of concern to many Members. Consistent workplace collections will also complement local authorities' efforts to increase recycling of household waste electricals.

This additional SWEEE requirement is the latest phase of the workplace recycling reforms, which are modelled to deliver a cumulative net benefit of £194.6 million net present value over 10 years from the combined package of measures. That is significant. So, with Wales already second in the world for recycling, by implementing the next phase of the workplace recycling reforms, we take another significant step. This will see even more high-quality material captured and recycled, so it can go back into the economy and be used by Welsh manufacturers, unlocking the benefits of the circular economy and the transition to net zero for Wales.

So, in bringing forward these reforms, Dirprwy Lywydd, we are delivering on our programme for government commitments. We're illustrating how essential action to decarbonise and respond to the climate and the nature emergency can also build a stronger, greener economy, based on the principles of sustainability and on the industries and the services of the future. I look forward to hearing others' comments.

There are no other speakers, therefore, Cabinet Secretary, do you wish to say anything else? 

No, thank you.

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

In accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the two motions under item 10, the Infrastructure Consent (Fees) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, and item 11, the Infrastructure Consent (Compensation for Changing or Revoking Infrastructure Consent Orders) (Wales) Regulations 2026, will be grouped for debate but with separate votes. I don't hear any objection.

Therefore, I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning to move the motions. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. I’m pleased to present the Infrastructure Consent (Fees) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the Infrastructure Consent (Compensation for Changing or Revoking Infrastructure Consent Orders) (Wales) Regulations 2026 for approval.

These regulations form a package of legislation completing the implementation of the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024, which introduced a new consenting process for significant infrastructure projects in Wales on 15 December last year. The new process has already gained favourable feedback from developers, and the Planning and Environment Decisions Wales team has already been responding to requests and providing valuable pre-application advice, which is really positive. Other regulations that are part of this package and are subject to the Senedd annulment procedure set out procedural matters for changing and revoking infrastructure consent Orders and for how errors in decision documents are corrected.

So, turning to the regulations that are the subject of today's debate. Infrastructure Consent (Fees) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 amend the current fees regulations for infrastructure consent Orders to provide the framework for the charging of fees associated with the proposed applications or applications for changing and revoking infrastructure consent Orders. The regulations ensure full cost recovery can be achieved for public authorities, with developers paying for the processing and determination of these applications.

The Infrastructure Consent (Compensation for Changing or Revoking Infrastructure Consent Orders) (Wales) Regulations 2026 specify how claims for compensation must be made, in addition to the minimum amount of compensation for depreciation. Claims for compensation that these regulations relate to can only be brought forward in circumstances where the Welsh Ministers change or revoke an infrastructure consent Order without an application being made. I ask Members to approve the regulations that are subject to this debate.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered both sets of draft regulations last week. The committee's report on the draft Infrastructure Consent (Fees) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 highlights that the regulations make provision for the charging of fees in connection with applications in relation to infrastructure consent Orders. These fees are payable to the Welsh Ministers.

The report notes that the fees are to be the amounts published on a website maintained by, or on behalf of, the Welsh Ministers, rather than being specified on the face of the regulations. This approach is permitted within the enabling power. However, it means that the specific amount can be changed by the Welsh Government without further Senedd scrutiny. The committee did not request a response from the Welsh Government.

The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee's report on the Infrastructure Consent (Compensation for Changing or Revoking Infrastructure Consent Orders) (Wales) Regulations 2026 contain one technical and one merits scrutiny reporting point. The technical reporting point notes that the terms 'land' and 'minerals' have not been defined in these regulations as they have been defined in the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024, and points out that definitions in a parent Act do not necessarily apply automatically to regulations made under that Act. In its response, the Welsh Government acknowledges the reporting point, but states that it believes the meaning of the terms to be sufficiently clear.

Finally, the committee's merits scrutiny point highlights that the regulations were not subject to formal consultation.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

I'm very grateful to the Chair for those comments and for the work of the LJC committee, which I was pleased to provide a response to. The package of regulations does complete now the implementation of the infrastructure consenting regime. It offers a modern, simplified and accelerated process for significant infrastructure projects in Wales. I'd ask the Senedd to approve both the Infrastructure Consent (Fees) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the Infrastructure Consent (Compensation for Changing or Revoking Infrastructure Consent Orders) (Wales) Regulations 2026, which support the post-consent matters for the new infrastructure consenting process.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 10. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next proposal is to agree the motion under item 11. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 12 is the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. I call on the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to move the motion—Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion.

Can I begin by thanking the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for the report? I do undertake to correct the technical error in the drafting on making, subject to the Siambr approving the regulations today, Mike.

The regulations before you were made under the Environment Act 1995. The Act empowers Welsh Ministers to prescribe in regulations a penalty range for stationary idling offences. A stationary idling offence is a failure to stop a vehicle engine when stationary for the prevention of exhaust emissions.

Stationary idling is a public health concern. It can contribute to local air pollution and can increase exposure to harmful emissions. This is most concerning where vulnerable groups are exposed, including children, the elderly, and those with certain health conditions. The potential impacts for these groups are particularly acute: restricted lung development and respiratory infections, asthma, reduced attention span and cognitive function, heart disease, diabetes, dementia—and the list goes on.

We need to look at every possible lever that we have to reduce idling and the health dangers associated with it. We need to ensure that local authorities are provided with all the tools they require to take action. The Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (Wales) Regulations 2003 empower local authorities to enforce stationary idling offences. However, the initial penalty amount of £20 was set more than 20 years ago, and it makes enforcement an expensive option for authorities. It is also, arguably, too low to present a strong deterrent to drivers. 

The proposed regulations will establish a new penalty range of between £75 and £150. Where the recipient of a fixed-penalty notice fails to respond, this will increase by 50 per cent. An offence is only committed, however, where a driver refuses to comply with a request to turn off their engine. Where enforcement is deemed necessary, I believe it important that local authorities focus on locations of the greatest concern for public exposure, for example near schools, nurseries and healthcare centres.

Local authorities will have discretionary powers to select and impose a penalty amount from within the stipulated range. Penalties may be tailored to local circumstances, allowing those local authorities to issue higher penalties reflecting the most concerning circumstances of public exposure. A restriction will be set on the use of any surplus income after costs. This must be directed to measures to further reduce vehicle emissions and to improve air quality more broadly, so it's very targeted.

I commend the motion to the Chamber.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the draft regulations last week and the Welsh Government's response yesterday. The committee's report contains one technical reporting point, which highlights an incorrect reference to a sub-paragraph in the regulations. The Welsh Government accept the reporting point and, as the Minister has just said, they will seek to correct the error prior to making the regulations.

The Welsh Conservatives will be voting against these regulations, because they represent yet another anti-motorist measure from this Labour Welsh Government. At a time when families are already facing rising costs, increasing fixed penalties for stationary idling from £20 to as much as £150 sends a very clear message that drivers are just an easy target for this Government. If this increase was in line with inflation, which seems much more sensible to me, that would've brought the penalty fee to £36. And that was a penalty fee that went through full scrutiny and consideration when this legislation was put together.

For many people across Wales, particularly in rural and semi-rural communities, driving is not a luxury; it's essential for getting to work, taking children to school, caring for relatives and simply going about daily life. Instead of backing motorists with practical workable alternatives, this Government too often opts for punitive measures that simply make driving more difficult and more expensive. These changes presented by the Deputy First Minister today give councils the power to impose significantly higher fines. Moving from £20 up to £150 could create inconsistency across Wales and raise legitimate concerns that this becomes more about revenue generation than environmental improvement.

Tackling air quality should be about education, infrastructure and realistic alternatives, not overly penalising people who rely on their vehicles, often because no viable public transport option exists. Time and again, we see policies that make driving more expensive, more restricted and more difficult. This is part of a wider pattern we see from this Government that feels disconnected from the realities faced by working people. For those reasons, and because we believe policies should support motorists rather than single them out, we are voting against these regulations. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

You obviously don't have any children in your constituency to protect. I've already tried the education process. Every time I see people idling, I will politely ask them to turn off and point out that it is against the law. In half the cases, they will politely do that, and in the other half of the cases, even when they're parked outside a primary school and their own children are imbibing these poisonous gases, they become abusive and refuse to do it. It's just an attitude of mind that somehow, because they're a motorist, they have the right to pollute everybody else and pay no regard whatsoever to the lungs of children or elderly people. So, £150 is the minimum, in my view, that should be paid where somebody refuses to turn off and is not understanding that this is a major public health issue.

We'll be voting against these regulations today, because we believe that the proposed increase in fines is excessive, unjustified and a part of a broader platform of policies from this Welsh Labour Government, normally supported by Plaid Cymru, that unjustly targets motorists. The penalty increase is unjustified; it's over a 200 per cent increase. I'm not against the prospect of fining people for idling, but you also have to understand that people may be idling in a car for a reason—for health reasons, some people may want to demist their windscreens. Some other people may be sat in their cars as delivery drivers; they don't just leave a vehicle running.

I'm afraid what we have seen yet again—and they don't like it—is an anti-motorist agenda pushed by people who tend to live in the inner cities, do not live outside of Cardiff or Swansea or other major cities, who do not like people driving cars. [Interruption.] I don't think you can make an intervention on these, Jenny—I would otherwise. This Government has been anti-motorist from the start. We will be voting against it, because I believe and we believe that these increases are unjustified and not needed at this time. Yet again, it's a fine on working people who pay their taxes, get up early and go to work.

Just for clarification, in these type of debates you could have taken an intervention.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply.

First of all, thank you all very much for participating in this afternoon's debate.

First of all, in terms of the LJC committee, we will correct that technical error subject to the regulations being passed this afternoon.

In terms of Sam, I've got to say I am really genuinely disappointed. I expected from the rant that we've had from the Reform ex-Conservative Member there that they would oppose this measure. I didn't expect it from the Conservatives, because I thought they were genuinely concerned about the health of children, the health of vulnerable populations, and yet they've posed this as an anti-motorist measure. It's not anti-motorist—it's pro-good health, it's pro-children, it's pro-vulnerable populations. Let me flip this on its head for you. If you vote against this this afternoon, the Conservatives are anti-children's health, anti-asthma sufferers, anti the health of vulnerable populations. That is what you are voting on. 

Let me make clear, Dirprwy Lywydd: evidence is crystal clear that traffic-related air pollution is linked to a number of health impacts. These include, by the way—[Interruption.] I will in a moment. These include reduced lung function and asthma, and hospital admissions for heart attacks. I will take an intervention.

Thank you very much. In regard to your last point, how will these measures—as you've just pointed out and spent some time outlining to this Chamber—impact people like me, who undergo biological immunotherapy for very serious respiratory diseases and those across Wales who suffer from industrial ill health, and that legacy continues to this day?

Rhianon, thank you so much for that intervention, because many people in the population whose lungs and lung function are impaired by poor-quality air will be advantaged if the will of the Senedd this afternoon is to pass these regulations. Because in a very carefully crafted, well-consulted piece of regulations, local authorities will be able to exercise their discretion to target those areas where there is most impact on air quality, such as schools and medical centres, those areas where they are tracking the poor-quality air.

Sam, I would say to you please think again. I don't expect Reform to think again, but the Conservatives, who over the years have shown some support for these measures, should really think again. Strip away the fact that we are coming up to an election at the moment and you want to do the anti-motorist agenda. Look at the health of young people. Look at the health of the population. Air pollution, Dirprwy Lywydd, harms every one of us, but it disproportionately affects those amongst us who are the most vulnerable. It is children. We have seen the impacts—the clinically measured impact on reduced lung growth, weakened immune systems, on reduced brain development. That is what we are talking about. 

Air pollution has also been shown clearly to contribute to decline in mental ability and dementia in older people, which I would have thought the Conservative Party would be concerned about. So, it is clear to me, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the case for taking action on idling for the benefit of public health is demonstrably strong. The regulations will help to ensure that local authorities have all the range of levers to tackle these problems, and I do expect local authorities will take enforcement action in a proportionate way. I wish the Members opposite in Reform and the Conservatives had actually read the detail of what we are proposing this afternoon. The enforcement should also form part of a broader campaign to tackle the risks to public health where this is most acute, including an awareness campaign. So, we propose here that guidance is also developed alongside this to support local authorities in enforcing idling offences under the proposed regulations.

However, this will be a matter for the next Government, of course. But it is vital, it is vital, Dirprwy Lywydd, that we take action to make drivers aware of the harms of stationary idling, first and foremost. Encouragement should be given to more responsible behaviour, but we do also need that lever of penalties to deal proportionately with persistent idling where other interventions have failed to tackle the problem in hotspot areas.

I have been generous, Cabinet Secretary. 

I'm sorry.

One final point: this is cost neutral. James, read it. It's cost neutral. 

I urge Members to approve these regulations.

Please support these regulations. 

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

Item 13 is a debate on the police settlement 2026-27. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Housing to move the motion—Jayne Bryant. 

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. Today I'm presenting to the Senedd for its approval details of the Welsh Government's contribution to the core revenue funding for Wales's four police and crime commissioners for 2026-27.

Core police funding in Wales is delivered through a three-way arrangement involving the Home Office, the Welsh Government and council tax. As policing policy and operational responsibilities are non-devolved, the overall funding element and envelope is determined by a decision made by the Home Office. We've maintained the established approach to calculating and distributing the Welsh Government's contribution, based on a principle of ensuring consistency and fairness across England and Wales. As set out in my announcement on 30 January, total and hypothecated revenue support for policing in Wales for 2026-27 amounts to £512.3 million, and the Welsh Government's contribution to this amount remains unchanged from last year at £113.5 million, and today it is this funding that I'm asking Members to approve.

As in previous years, the Home Office has overlaid its needs-based formula with a floor mechanism. This means for 2026-27, PCCs across England and Wales will receive an increase in funding of 4.022 per cent when compared with 2025-26, before an adjustment for special branch funding. The Home Office will provide a top-up grant to ensure all four Welsh police forces meet this floor level.

The motion for today's debate is to agree the local government finance report for PCCs, which has been laid before the Senedd. If approved, this will allow for the commissioners to confirm their budgets for the next financial year, and I ask Senedd Members to support this motion.

This settlement reflects, once again, the cost to Wales of the absence of devolution in the area of justice and policing—not a financial cost alone, although that is very real and increasing, but also a democratic cost, the cost of being subject to a constitutional system that doesn't recognise us or hear us, and doesn't in fact serve us, either. Consider the facts: every one of the four police forces in Wales have announced a significant increase in the council tax precept element for the next financial year of between 6.95 per cent and 7.47 per cent. This is not an accident, it is part of a structural pattern where an increasing percentage of the cost of policing is moved away from the central grant and falls to council tax payers in Wales. Every year, the burden gets heavier. Every year, our voice is diminished. And the voice is diminished for one simple reason: the Senedd in Wales has no control over policing policies that apply in our communities. We pay more, but we will not be heard.

No taxation without representation—that was the founding principle for modern democracies. But here in Wales, that principle is being entirely ignored year upon year. In the meantime, the Welsh Government is allocating over £113 million from its own budget to policing without any policy responsibility in formal terms—no control but an increasing cost burden. This is the worst of both worlds by definition.

And let's be clear about the background. This is not an abstract constitutional debate, it relates to people. The police workforce is battling under low morale and increased workload, as was clearly demonstrated by the recent outcomes of the morale and salary survey by the Police Federation, where over 60 per cent noted that the workload was excessive. Over a third of police officers in England and Wales now have less than five years of experience. It's a system under stress and Wales doesn't have the power to reform it. 

And there is a specifically Welsh aspect to this problem that cannot be ignored. At the moment, there isn't a Welsh option for the online assessment process for the College of Policing, the formal entry point to the profession. In a bilingual country, that is unacceptable and a sign of a deeper malaise—a system that was planned without a thought for Wales.

Now, with the publication of the UK Government White Paper on police reform, there was an opportunity, a real opportunity, to put this right, to design a policing system that actually meets the needs of our populations, our communities and our language. But when the Home Secretary was asked directly in the House of Commons whether she would consider devolving policing to Wales, the blunt response was 'no'. No debate, no explanation, no respect—prejudicing the consultation process before it had even started.

And that is no accident either. The Labour Government in Westminster isn't rejecting the proposal on the basis of evidence, because they don't have evidence. They are not offering a counter-argument that is coherent, because they don't have such an argument. What they have is the practice of treating Wales differently to the other devolved nations, the habit of taking our financial contribution without providing any powers in return and the habit of saying 'no' and expecting us to accept that in a servile manner.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we can't support a settlement that confirms an undemocratic system, but we will not be voting against either, because we do recognise that the funding of the settlement is crucial to our police forces—forces who are doing their very best under very difficult circumstances. We will therefore be abstaining. But I make this point clearly: an abstention doesn't mean that we accept the situation. It means that we put on record that this system is not adequate and that Wales will not suffer it forever.

While the Welsh Conservative group will be supporting the police settlement 2026-27, I do want to highlight a couple of concerns. Once again, the people of Wales are expected to contribute two to three times the rate of inflation more in police precept on their council tax bill this year, as Adam pointed out earlier, and what will they get in return? We no longer have police and communities together meeting in the majority of communities, so the link between the local communities and police is broken. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I had the pleasure of meeting the chief constable and PCC of Gwent Police last week, and they outlined the excellent work they were doing on neighbourhood policing and tackling domestic violence. However, they both accepted that they need to better communicate their work to their local population. I would therefore ask the Cabinet Secretary to ensure that Police and Communities Together meetings are restored and call upon chief constables and PCCs to better communicate the work they're undertaking, thanks to the funding provided by the Welsh public. Diolch yn fawr.

At one level, this is simply a technical debate on a rather technical matter. At another level, I think it's probably the least satisfactory debate that we have in this place, in our annual calendar. We're asked by the Government—and the Government, I accept, have no choice in this matter—to accept the proposals on the police settlement, but we're unable to debate that settlement, we're unable to ask questions of the Cabinet Secretary, we're unable, even, to influence what is on the order paper. We have no ability at all to have the debate that we need to have about the future of policing in Wales. I know that there are many Members here representing our capital who believe that South Wales Police should have additional funding because of the responsibilities of policing a capital city. I know that there'll be others here who have brought many issues to this Chamber about the challenges of rural policing. I was speaking to Gwent Police over the last week about anti-social behaviour in Ebbw Vale and our needs for a higher establishment of police officers in Blaenau Gwent.

But none of these matters are a part of our debate today. We're asked to vote in favour of a motion that is a 'take it or leave it' motion. That is simply unacceptable. And what we find when we read this document is, of course, that policing in Wales is now largely funded from Wales. The days when there was a Home Office grant, which provided the lion's share of policing in Wales, are in the past. We fund the police and yet we're unable to determine the direction of the police, we're unable to have a debate about the sort of shape of policing that we want to have in Wales, and that is unacceptable. I was very pleased to hear the Deputy First Minister make the case for the devolution of policing so strongly yesterday in committee. He was right yesterday, and the First Minister was right when she argued this case previously, and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice was right when she argued the case over a number of years. But the fact is that we haven't seen any movement on the devolution of policing. And whilst we do hear occasionally from UK Ministers that they're prepared to discuss their decisions with this Parliament, what I think this Parliament requires are the powers to actually determine the decisions that have to be taken to ensure that we have a strong and effective police force for the whole of this country.

So, Cabinet Secretary, I will clearly vote for this motion this afternoon, but I have to say that I hope that future Members sitting in this Chamber will be able to have a far more satisfactory debate about the future of policing and how we fund policing in the future.

Since the announcement by the Home Secretary on 26 January with regard to reforms to policing, there's barely been a Plenary day when policing hasn't been mentioned, and that shows the strength of feeling of this place when it comes to policing.

This is why, as Alun Davies has already mentioned, this settlement is so disappointing, and the lack of scrutiny with regard to the settlement is so disappointing. It's acknowledged, of course, that the pot of money is not endless, but it's not fair that Welsh policing has to seek out its funding in a way that English counterparts, English forces, don't have to do, as was explained when the Welsh chief constables gave evidence to the parliamentary Home Affairs Committee. This settlement, let us be clear, is a real-terms funding cut. It is largely flat cash and does not take into account inflation, pay awards or rising and changing demands. Forces have to absorb cost pressures through savings, reduced capacity or higher council tax. All of these options impact our communities, whether they be job losses, delayed police responses or an increased council tax bill. This impacts our constituents.

The settlement is made using an historic formula and data in communities where the population has changed dramatically. You only need to look out of the windows of this building to see how much Cardiff Bay has developed over the years. But the revenue support grant is calculated using an old formula: a-b(cxd). You will realise how ridiculous that formula is when you learn that 'a' is the standard spending assessment, which is based on data available to the Secretary of State for communities and local government on 1 October 2012, data that is 14 years old. Now, value 'b', so 'b' in the funding formula, completely excludes children and young people, only counting residents over 18 years of age. That makes no sense whatsoever. I can only conclude that the formula is not fit for purpose and so ask why are we still using this formula.

Furthermore, the year-by-year settlement does not allow forces to plan. What other business would operate like this? Our police forces go from one year to the next. The model perpetuates growing local tax and finances by assuming that PCCs will plug gaps through higher council tax and reserves. This disadvantages poorer areas, financially penalises more affluent areas, while accelerating the depletion of council tax reserves and not addressing capital and infrastructure pressures.

Yet, underwriting all of this, there are even some more fundamental issues. Policing is still the service of last resort, the catch-all when public services have reached their capacity, stepping in to support those in mental health crisis or when an ambulance isn't available to attend. Yet it has no additional support for this extended and crucial role.

The much talked about apprenticeship levy has found a workaround to ensure that forces now receive most of the apprenticeship funding via the settlement from the UK Government, rather than draw it down as English forces do. But, without insight into the data, it is hard to understand if this is actually happening, whether this is going on. Will you provide, therefore, Cabinet Secretary, a breakdown on how much compensation each force in Wales is receiving separately in lieu of the apprenticeship levy paid for 2026-27?

Wales has an opportunity to do better—and I hope we will—to understand the funding that policing needs based on current data, not on historic data. Cabinet Secretary, whilst we have only a few weeks left of this Senedd term, will you and your officials commit to ensuring that up-to-date data is available to all to ensure that Welsh policing gets funding that truly reflects Welsh communities? Diolch yn fawr.

And I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd, and I'd just like to thank all Members for their interest and their contributions today. I do recognise this is against the backdrop of competing demand and increasing costs. The settlement will require the four police forces in Wales to make tough decisions about services, efficiencies and council tax precepts.

In Wales, unlike in England, we have maintained the discretion for police and crime commissioners to determine their own council tax increases, and setting the precept remains a core responsibility of PCCs, which does demonstrate accountability to their local electorate. All our police and crime commissioners have been consulting with their local communities on the level of local funding for 2026-27, and I know that they're acutely aware of the costs-of-living pressures that many households continue to face.

We all recognise the important work, and we have heard from everyone this afternoon of that work, that the police do for communities across Wales. They're a key part of our integrated public services, working with our health boards, local councils and other partners as part of a joined-up approach to community safety in Wales. And we will continue, and absolutely continue, to make clear our support for policing to be devolved so that we can deliver against the needs and the priorities and values of Wales.

Just a point on the funding reform. I know that a reformed policing system will need funding that is fit for purpose, fair and which maximises the value the public gets from the police. So, changes to police governance, force mergers and the creation of a national police service require a new way of allocating funding between forces aligned with these new structures. So, the Home Office will review the formula once the implementation of police reform is under way so that the new formula reflects the new police force structures. And in the interim, the Home Office will work in partnership with policing to explore how the police funding settlement can be better aligned with the Government's policing priorities in the short term. But I do, Deputy Llywydd, commend this settlement to the Senedd.

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

Item 14 is a motion to vary the order of consideration of Stage 3 amendments to the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to move the motion. 

Move formally.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore—[Interruption.] 

You're not objecting to item 14. You've got—[Inaudible.] 

Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We'll have a look at that in a minute.

Item 15 is a motion to vary the order of consideration of Stage 3 amendments to the Development of Tourism and Regulation of Visitor Accommodation (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Move.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Before I move on, Janet, are you logged in?

I'm trying.

I'll ask if any Member wishes me to ring the bell whilst I'm waiting. [Interruption.] We're about to go to the voting. If you're not logged in, I'll wait until you're logged in, Janet.

I'm in there now.

Thank you. To be clear—

—unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will move immediately to voting time.

The first vote will be on item 4, the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Regulations 2026, and I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no abstentions, and 12 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on item 6, the Annual Returns (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2026. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions and three against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

We will now move to the vote under item 8, the Online Safety Act 2023 (Exempt User-to-User and Search Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 47, two abstentions and none against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is under item 9, the Waste Separation Requirements (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions and three against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on item 12, the road traffic regulations. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no abstentions and 12 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The final vote for the time being is on item 13, the police settlement 2026-27. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, 12 abstentions and none against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

We will now take a short break before we move to our Stage 3 proceedings. The bell will be rung five minutes before we reconvene. I would encourage Members to return to the Chamber promptly, please.

We're now ready to begin our Stage 3 proceedings on the Building Safety (Wales) Bill. First, in accordance with the guidance on virtual and hybrid proceedings, I've agreed to an exceptional request from a Member to participate in today's Stage 3 proceedings remotely.

The first group of amendments relates to amendments to key terms. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 10, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment. Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd, and, before I talk to the amendments in this group, I'd like to place on record my thanks to everyone who's helped shape this important Bill. Partners outside the Senedd have given their time and expertise, generously, to support our broad policy aims, but also to challenge us to make this legislation the best it can be.

Through the work of committees in tabling amendments and by lending and leading their voice to stakeholders, Senedd colleagues have also played a key role in developing this Bill. I particularly welcome the detailed contributions from Siân Gwenllian, Joel James, Lee Waters and Rhys ab Owen. Each has shown a strong commitment to improving building safety in Wales through the establishment of an effective and practicable regime. I welcome the amendments tabled by Rhys, Siân and Joel at Stage 3, and the opportunity they provide for important discussion today. I know that there's broad agreement on the principles of this legislation, and I believe that we're aligned in our commitment to ensure that this Bill successfully completes the final stages of scrutiny. We must do that to ensure people in Wales are safe in their homes.

So, let me move now to the amendments in group 1. The first amendment in this group is amendment 10, which is a minor technical amendment to section 4, to clarify the circumstances in which a part of a structure is a non-residential part.

Amendment 11 is in response to recommendation 5 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee in relation to setting out on the face of the Bill what will constitute a storey. It amends section 6 so that it defines when a mezzanine floor is to be regarded as a storey in respect of regulated buildings. 'Storey' is not defined generally in section 6, so it will have its everyday meaning. However, mezzanine floors are slightly different, and I think clarity on when mezzanine floors are to be regarded as a storey is sensible. Essentially, the amendment provides that a mezzanine floor is to be regarded as a storey if its internal floor area is at least half of the internal floor area of the largest storey in the building that is not below ground level. It subsequently goes on to set out what is meant by 'ground level'. This approach is broadly in line with that taken for the definition of 'higher risk buildings' during the design and construction phase in the Building Safety (Description of Higher-Risk Building) (Design and Construction Phase) (Wales) Regulations 2023. This will help to meet the policy aim that, in the vast majority of cases, a higher risk building during the design and construction phase of its life cycle will be a category 1 regulated building during the occupation phase.

Amendments 12 and 13 are related to amendment 11. Amendment 12 removes the power to make regulations to define 'storey' from section 6, and amendment 13 amends section 17 to provide that the power in section 17 can be used to amend the meaning of 'storey' now included in section 6. This is to ensure it can be amended if it should become necessary to do so. Any regulations made under this power would be subject to the enhanced approval procedure in section 75. Together, amendments 11, 12 and 13 mean that 'storey' will be given its everyday meaning, that provision is made for when a mezzanine floor is to be treated as a storey, and enable amendments to be made in the future should the need arise. I therefore ask Members to support each amendment in this group.

I have no speakers for this group. I assume the Cabinet Secretary doesn't want to respond to herself.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 10 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 11, Cabinet Secretary. 

Is it being moved formally?

Move.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 11 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 12. Is it moved?

Move.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 12 is agreed.

Amendment 13, Cabinet Secretary. 

Move.

Is there any objection to amendment 13? There is not. Amendment 13 is agreed also.

We'll move now to group 2. The second group of amendments relates to the duty to inform or consult county councils and county borough councils in Wales. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 14. The Cabinet Secretary to move the lead amendment—Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. At Stage 2, a significant amendment was made to the definition of a building safety authority set out in section 113. All of the amendments in this group, group 2, link to that Stage 2 amendment. They are largely technical and consequential in nature and have been brought forward to ensure that the whole Bill takes proper account of the change already made to section 113.

Amendments 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 33 amend sections 17, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 116, so that before making regulations the Welsh Ministers will be required to consult all county and county borough councils, not only the ones that are building safety authorities. Amendment 31 has the same effect, but in relation to consultation on guidance under section 111.

Amendments 27, 28 and 29 amend sections 94 and 96 so that when compliance or prohibition notices are issued by enforcing authorities in relation to a building, the county council or county borough council in Wales in whose area any part of the building is situated is notified. Amendment 39 amends Schedule 2 so that there are similar notification requirements in relation to special measures orders.

Finally, amendment 36 amends section 120 so that all county council or county borough councils, not just those that are building safety authorities, have a power to share relevant information with building safety authorities. This amendment is linked to amendment 35, which will be discussed later under group 5.

I would urge Members to support all of these amendments so that the changes already made to section 113 at Stage 2 are properly reflected throughout the Bill.

There are no other speakers on this group. This is not going to continue. The Cabinet Secretary doesn't want to say anything further. 

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 14 is agreed.

We'll move now to group 3. The third group relates to remediation. The lead amendment is amendment 54. I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the amendment.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Leasehold reform is well overdue. It's something my father campaigned for in Cardiff back in the 1960s and 1970s, and today, tonight, in this Senedd, we see another example of how crucial leasehold reform is. Over eight and a half years after the horrific Grenfell Tower fire in London, which killed 72 people, we still have residents here in Wales living in buildings with unresolved safety issues. So much time has passed whilst we have residents living with waking watches, unable to sell, and being stopped from living, in fear of their lives. This is a major failure.

Some criticise the Welsh Government and the Senedd for looking no further than the M4 and being obsessed with the Cardiff Bay bubble. Building safety disproves this completely. There are people, families, children living in blocks with building safety defects literally next door to this building. Even some elected Members I know live in blocks with building safety defects, yet we have failed to deliver remediation within a timely manner.

Building safety victims were the first people I met when I was elected in 2021. Little did I think that it would take all of the Senedd term to deliver what they asked me in my first meeting with them. Since then, I've had the privilege of co-operating closely with residents and the Welsh Cladiators. I've visited their homes, I've spent hours upon hours in meetings with them. We have faced major opposition to include remediation of current buildings in this Bill. Building safety victims are very grateful to the Llywydd and her office for the determination she made that remediation was in scope of this Bill, back in December. It never made any sense to me that building safety legislation excluded remediation of current buildings. Since Stage 2, I'm very grateful for the extensive engagement I've had with the Cabinet Secretary.

We have reached a point where we have developed the amendments tabled in my name together, so to deliver a major step forward for all building safety victims in Wales. Should the Senedd support my amendments tonight, within nine months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, residents will be able to apply to a residential property tribunal for remediation orders and remediation contribution orders. That is what sections 116 to 124 delivered for victims in England back in 2022. And we know from our neighbours across the border that such orders will make a massive difference. For example, one case brought forward in England has seen a tribunal making a remediation contribution order to the sum of over £13 million.

A clear message is being sent to developers in England, and landlords in England, that proactive identification and remediation of building safety defects is essential, with works being carried out promptly. Those prioritising financial considerations over safety concerns face substantial liability through remediation contribution orders in the tribunals. Thanks to the amazing effort of building safety victims in Wales, developers and landlords are set to receive that very strong message here in Wales too. Of course, it would have been preferable for those legal levers to have been made available in Wales back in 2022, the same time as England, but we are where we are.

It's also true that the regulations required to enable remediation orders and remediation contribution orders will need to be laid as soon as possible. But I thank the Cabinet Secretary for agreeing to my request that there is a deadline, and that has been further amended from 12 months to nine months. I can assure victims, I can assure the Welsh Cladiators and all Members present, that access to tribunals, which will be very cheap and very effective, access to justice for victims, and building safety, are matters I will continue to campaign for. I ask Members here to please support my amendments. Diolch yn fawr.

Good afternoon. I would like to begin by declaring my support and that of Plaid Cymru to the core principles of this Bill, which will strengthen the system and ensure safety. The legislation before us today goes further than the situation in England; it includes new controls on building safety that encompass assessing and managing safety issues where a residence is in possession. This would apply to all residential buildings including at least two units, whilst in England only high-risk buildings of at least 18m height or seven floors are encompassed by the regulations.

Turning to the amendment in this group, group 3 on remediation, I too am very pleased to see these amendments coming before us, and I support them, of course. The purpose of Government amendment 30 is to place a duty on Welsh Ministers to draw up and publish an annual report on progress of remediation works in Wales—in other words, the work that is set out in the Government's contracts with developers, or work that has been funded by the Welsh building safety fund.

I'm very pleased to have been able to collaborate on this amendment, together with the other amendments on remediation that we've just heard about from Rhys ab Owen. If all of these are passed, residents who live in buildings that have been identified as needing repair will have more power to hold developers to account, and will have better protection regarding costs.

It is almost nine years since the horrific Grenfell tragedy when 72 people lost their lives. Cladding on the surface of that building helped the fire to spread. This has been described as one of the greatest disasters of modern times. And yet, there are far too many people still living in fear that a similar tragedy will happen again in the building that they live in today. So, there is a great deal of work still left to do.

Out of 473 tall buildings in Wales, 48 per cent—almost half of those buildings—are either still waiting to be inspected, or are waiting for work to start—almost half of all of those tall buildings that have been identified here in Wales. The Local Government and Housing Committee heard powerful evidence from residents who continue to live in fear following the Grenfell tragedy. The stories behind these statistics are very much alive in my mind, and I have local constituents in Arfon who are still waiting for work to start on the building where they live. It's a completely unacceptable situation. Some developers are still far too slow to acknowledge their responsibility, and the Government is not being robust enough in demanding that the work is done.

At last, the Government has yielded to the need to include remediation in the legislation that is before us today. This is an argument that I and others have made from the very beginning. But time and time again, the message from the Government, until very recently, was that remediation was not within the scope of this legislation. The Government's message was that the intention of the legislation was to create a new regime for the future—and that is to be welcomed, of course—but there is also a need to make urgent progress on remediating those buildings where people continue to live in fear, nine years down the line.

Therefore, during Stage 2 at the end of January, I introduced robust amendments on remediation and the cost of remediation. Those amendments that I tabled were about the need to set a time limit on remediation work and sanctions for not completing the work on time. There were amendments to impose a duty on Ministers to draw up and publish a maintenance plan with a list and description of the work, along with a timetable. There were amendments making provision that some remediation costs would not fall to residents, and provision for refunding costs, and so on. During Stage 2, I also supported Rhys ab Owen's amendments on remediation.

I am very pleased to say that that constructive collaboration that has taken place over the past month has led to positive results, and to the amendments that you see here. A great deal of work has been done between Stage 2 and Stage 3. The Government has worked with us, and that has led to a situation where remediation is now addressed in this Bill.

The disappointing thing is that this addition has come so late in the day. It will be at least another nine months before some of the amendments on remediation can be implemented, such as the right to go to tribunal, for example. Another nine months. If remediation had been in scope from the outset, and if it had been included in the draft Bill, that further delay would not have to happen. I understand the frustration of the residents on that particular matter, but as Rhys ab Owen has said, we are where we are.

The work of introducing the new regulations around remediation needs to happen immediately, and it's certainly essential that we don't allow the fact that there will be an election soon to allow the whole process to be dragged out still further. I certainly will continue to hold the current Cabinet Secretary to account on this, and I'll also be encouraging the next Government to get on with the work straight away. Thank you.

I commend the work of those who've been involved in these amendments, because it is absolutely essential that people have remediation if they buy a property in good faith without realising defects that are hidden because they haven't been properly inspected before they were sealed. So, I think this is incredibly important—that people don't just become victims completely innocently, and that they can get remediation of the defects that were simply not inspected properly at that time. So, I congratulate you on your hard work, and we'll obviously support these amendments.

I wish to speak to the amendments in this grouping, and I want to begin by welcoming the Government's decision to accept them. It is the right decision, and I pay tribute to those people working cross-party to reach this point, but I want to pay particular tribute to the Welsh Cladiators group, who have been tireless in their advocacy and their persistency.

We've been clear from the beginning that remediation had to remain central to this Bill, that its credibility would rest not on the strength of its future framework, but on whether it delivered meaningful progress for those already living in unsafe buildings. However, as has been said, it is worth being honest about what it has taken to get us here. These amendments replicate protections that have existed in England since 2022, four years ago. Prior attempts to incorporate protections similar to those in England were voted against or deliberately excluded from the legislative programme.

The question that residents have every right to ask is why it took nearly five years to access proven laws that could have helped long-suffering Welsh leaseholders so much sooner. A range of people, as we know, have been affected, but let's talk about those pensioners affected, people who have saved, who have planned, who did everything right, now facing bills they simply cannot pay. Let's talk about young families trapped in flats that are unsafe or unmortgageable, unable to sell and unable to move on with their lives. Let's talk about people stuck in one-bedroomed flats, their lives on hold through no fault of their own.

Many of these buildings were unsafe from the outset. They should never have been signed off in the condition in which they were built. They represent systemic failures in building control, in oversight and developer accountability. As I shared in December in Swansea, Altamar leaseholders were so frustrated with Bellway Homes that they have hired solicitors and are contemplating legal action under the Defective Premises Act 1972, because that is the only route left when Government fails.

The Welsh Government's own remediation dashboard tells us the scale of what remains to be done. I welcome the commitment that construction work will have started at every developer-contracted building by the end of 2026, but that commitment is not legally binding. It is dependent on developer goodwill, and we have all seen where developer goodwill has got us.

Amendments 58 and 59 on remediation orders and remediation contribution orders mean that residents will be able to apply to a residential property tribunal for relief, and we have seen what those powers can achieve in England. English tribunal decisions have sent a clear message to developers: prioritise financial considerations over safety and face substantial financial liability. Wales must now send the same message as well. So, I would welcome assurances from the Cabinet Secretary that these powers will be used promptly. Nine months to draft the regulations is welcome, but it must be the start of enforcement, not yet another staging post before anything actually changes for our residents.

On leaseholder protections, amendment 60, on remediation costs under qualifying leases, and amendment 61, defining qualifying leases—these are vital. The provisions preventing remediation costs from being passed on through service charges are essential. The Welsh Government has said that remediation will not cost leaseholders, but it already is. It is costing them their mental health and their emotional well-being. As we've heard, waking watches alone cost thousands of pounds every month. 

I want to end by reminding everyone, as we've heard, of the 72 people who lost their lives at Grenfell Tower eight years ago. Last week, we heard of the UK Government's commitment to fund and maintain a permanent Grenfell memorial. The slow pace of progress in the years since has been deeply painful for bereaved families and survivors, something the housing Secretary has acknowledged. The protections for leaseholders in these amendments, preventing remediation costs from being passed on through service charges, are therefore vital. The definition of 'qualifying leases' must be drawn broadly. Regulations must be designed with leaseholders' interests front of mind, not landlords'. We cannot be back here in another eight years. We cannot allow another round of excuses. I support these amendments and I urge the Government to implement them with the urgency that residents have been waiting far, far too long to see. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The Cabinet Secretary now.

Diolch, Llywydd. Let me start by thanking Rhys for tabling amendments 54 to 63 and for his openness in working with myself and my officials to create a suite of remediation-focused provisions that are appropriate in the context of this Bill.

Similar amendments were brought forward by both Rhys and Siân Gwenllian at Stage 2. I was unable to support those amendments because there were elements to them that either didn't quite work or may have had unintended consequences. However, I did make it clear at the time that I agreed in principle with what the amendments sought to achieve and did give a commitment to work with others to ensure that suitable amendments with the same underlying intentions could be brought forward at Stage 3.

The amendments that Rhys has tabled and which Siân is supporting represent the outcome of a collaborative approach to legislation making and the fulfilment of that earlier commitment. Rhys has already described what these amendments do. They focus on three areas: enabling the residential property tribunal to make remediation orders, enabling it to make remediation contribution orders and protecting leaseholders against service charges relating to remediation costs. As such, they are broadly equivalent to the provisions that already apply in England under section 116 to 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022.

Up to this point, it has not been necessary to put in place such provisions in Wales. We have successfully pursued a policy of ensuring that cost of remediation of in-built fire safety defects has been borne either by developers who have signed a deed of bilateral contract with Welsh Ministers or by the Welsh Government through the Welsh building safety fund. In this context, and looking across the border into England, it's not clear how much additionality these provisions will offer in practice in Wales. However, in response to the ongoing calls from leaseholders and others, as well as the emergence of structural safety issues and the fact that the long-term future of the Welsh building safety fund cannot be guaranteed, I believe it is right to futureproof protections for leaseholders by placing them on a statutory footing. I'm pleased that this Bill has afforded us the opportunity to do just that, and I'm content that Rhys’s amendments achieve it in an appropriate way. I am therefore supportive of amendments 54 to 63.

I understand and appreciate the desire to see these provisions in operation as soon as possible, and in that context the nine-month deadline for laying regulations set out in amendments 58 and 59 will no doubt be seen as excessive by some. However, the process of developing the draft regulations, assessing their likely impact, liaising with relevant UK Government departments and, above all, the need to ensure that appropriate consultation takes place will necessarily take quite some time to complete. So, in those circumstances, nine months will likely prove to be a challenging timescale to meet.  

Moving on to Government amendment 30, which places a duty on the Welsh Ministers to lay a remediation progress report on the building safety programme before the Senedd every year. The report will summarise the Welsh Ministers' assessment of progress made in relation to works required by the developer contracts, as well as works grant-funded by the Welsh building safety fund. I'm pleased to table this amendment, which aims to ensure that the pace of the programme remains a priority and to reassure leaseholders that there is transparency in the remediation programme. I’d like to thank Siân for her work on this issue and for helping to ensure that the transparency of the programme is addressed in this Bill. I recognise that campaigners would have liked to have seen this amendment go further. I am grateful for the representations that have been made on this issue, both to me and to many colleagues in this Chamber. I fully appreciate the desire to see further legislation on building safety, and I do hope that the next Government will consider bringing forward a Bill in this area.  

Rhys ab Owen to reply.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I support entirely the amendment in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. It is going to be invaluable to the process of scrutiny, and to see any progress that has been made or hasn't been made when it comes to remediation.

Siân has given those top-line figures. If we disaggregate those figures, there are still 76 buildings still waiting for inspection, 129 buildings still waiting for work to be completed, and 149 buildings waiting for work to begin—all of this almost nine years since Grenfell. So, that's how important it is for us to support the Government amendment on this matter. Laying the progress report before the Welsh Parliament will help keep the Senedd's focus on the crisis, and that the people who live so close to them feel that they are not being ignored by us, and will encourage as many Members as possible to contribute to calls to prioritise the creation of safe homes here in Wales. You won't be at all surprised, therefore, that I support, 100 per cent, your amendment, Cabinet Secretary.  I thank you too for your positive collaboration, even when I was stuck in Africa—we still kept the conversation going and we reached this agreement, which is going to make a clear difference in people's lives. I also thank Siân Gwenllian for her formal support for amendments 56 to 61.

We are about to reach a threshold here in Wales where residents won't have to raise thousands upon thousands of pounds to take developers to the courts. They won't have to risk tens of thousands of pounds just to access justice—justice, as Jenny Rathbone has reminded us, for a situation that was of no fault of their own. People believed that they had bought a home in a safe building where they could enjoy their lives. We will work now to ensure that these regulations are introduced before that nine-month period, that those nine months are a deadline. We will work to ensure that this is introduced before the end of that deadline. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. The amendment is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, is amendment 15 moved?

It is. Is there any objection to amendment 15? There is not. Amendment 15 is agreed.

We will now move to our fourth group of amendments, which relates to the timing of fire risk assessments. The lead amendment is amendment 47, and I call on Joel James to move the lead amendment—Joel James.

Thank you, Llywydd. Thank you again for allowing me to address the Chamber virtually. I'm just sorry I can't be there in person. Speaking to my amendments and my concerns, which are shared by a number of stakeholders, they relate to a potential issue with the workforce capacity required to meet the statutory obligations set out in this Bill, specifically, the requirement that the first fire risk assessment for a regulated building must be completed no later than six months after either the day on which the building becomes occupied or the day on which this section comes into force. If this requirement cannot be met through no fault of the accountable person, there is a real risk of unintended consequences. Legal action could be taken that may disproportionately affect owners and tenants of properties.

Moreover, there are serious implications for insurance liability. If the building has not met the conditions outlined in the Bill, it may no longer be insured, placing residents and owners in a potentially precarious position. Evidence suggests that this issue is likely to be most acute within category 3 buildings, of which there are an estimated 51,000 in Wales. Without appropriate flexibility, the statutory deadline could create a situation that is both unmanageable and unfair, particularly given current workforce limitations.

These amendments therefore propose to grant the Welsh Government powers to vary the period for making the first fire risk assessment for a regulated building, such flexibility to ensure that the law remains practicable, proportionate and enforceable while continuing to uphold safety standards. I believe that these are vital amendments that balance the need for rigorous fire safety with the realities of workforce capacity and operational feasibility. For those reasons, I urge all Members to support them. Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary, Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm happy to support Joel James's amendments 47 to 51. These are consistent with the commitment I made at Stage 2 to reconsider the timings of fire risk assessments for lower risk regulated buildings. They provide Welsh Ministers with a regulation-making power to vary the deadline for the fire risk assessments, for example, by reference to different types of regulated buildings. This would confer flexibility to deal with the issues that partners like Community Housing Cymru have raised. Therefore, I urge the Senedd to support these amendments.

Joel James, do you wish to respond?

Thank you, Llywydd. No, I'm just really grateful for the Government's support of these amendments. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 47 is agreed.

Amendment 16. Is it formally moved?

It is. Any objection to amendment 16? No. Therefore, amendment 16 is agreed.

We will now move to our fifth group of amendments. These relate to minor and technical amendments. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 17. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Llywydd. Amendments 32, 35 and 41 all relate to the amendment made to section 113 at Stage 2, which changed the meaning of 'building safety authority'. Amendment 32 further amends section 113 so that the references to the area of a fire and rescue authority in that section are to be interpreted in accordance with Part 1 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. Amendment 41 inserts into Schedule 3 an amendment to the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, which will allow the current effect of section 113 to be retained should changes be made to the areas of fire and rescue authorities by Orders made under the 2004 Act. Amendment 35 amends section 120, which is about the sharing of information between authorities, so that it reflects the change made at Stage 2 to the meaning of 'building safety authority'. A related amendment, amendment 36, was discussed as part of group 2.

Amendment 34 makes a technical amendment to section 117, so that the meaning of 'fire and rescue authority' is more accurately defined by reference to the relevant Part of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. This is not consequential to the proposed amendment to section 113, but does have a similar purpose.

Amendments 40 and 42 to 46 amend Schedule 3 to the Bill. The provisions make consequential amendments to the other current legislation concerned with fire safety. Amendment 40 replaces the provision inserted by paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to clarify the continued disapplication of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and regulations made under it in respect of general fire safety. This is to ensure that those provisions continue not to apply to regulated buildings or relevant houses in multiple occupation under the Bill if those provisions were or could have been made under the fire safety Order.

Amendment 43 amends the fire safety Order to add article 31, regarding the service of prohibition notices, to the articles partially disapplied by article 7A(1) of the Order.

Amendment 45 replaces article 7A(3) to (5) of the fire safety Order, setting out where the Order will continue to apply. The Order will continue to apply to premises that are workplaces to the extent that work is being carried out in the premises, and to parts of regulated buildings for which there is no accountable person. This is important. As I've said throughout the passage of the Bill, the fire safety Order was designed for workplaces, which makes it hard to apply to residential buildings, but it contains important work-related provisions, so will continue to apply in the circumstances that I've outlined. So, for example, persons carrying out work in communal areas, or their employers, will still be required under the fire safety Order to assess and manage fire safety risks arising from their work.

Amendments 42 and 44 are consequential on amendment 45, and amendment 46 is consequential on amendment 40. Amendments 8, 9, 17 and 37 are all technical amendments consequential to amendments agreed at Stage 2. So, I urge colleagues to support all the amendments in this group.

I have no other speakers. The Cabinet Secretary doesn't wish to reply. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 17 is agreed.

I now propose that amendments 18, 19 and 20 are disposed of en bloc. If no Member objects, I'll ask the Cabinet Secretary to move the amendments. 

They are moved. The question is that amendments 18, 19 and 20 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. They are therefore agreed.

That brings us to group 6, which relates to residents' engagement strategies. The lead amendment is amendment 4. And I call on Joel James to move the lead amendment. Joel James.

Thank you, Llywydd, and, as this is the last opportunity for me to speak, I would just like to reiterate my thanks to the Cabinet Secretary and my Welsh Parliament colleagues for the constructive way we have approached this legislation, especially given the importance of it. I would also like to thank those who've engaged with me during all the stages and those who have helped with drafting my amendments.

With that in mind, these amendments are brought forward in response to a pressing concern. The current statutory requirement to prepare and implement a residents' engagement strategy, intended to ensure meaningful participation in key building safety decisions, is limited solely to category 1 buildings. But research with leaseholders across England living in buildings affected by cladding and other fire safety defects paints a worrying picture. Time and again, residents report difficulties accessing information about fire risks, both proactively and upon request. Communication from those responsible for building safety is often limited, leaving residents feeling excluded from decisions that directly affect their safety. Crucially, these challenges are not confined to the tallest buildings; evidence shows that similar issues arise in buildings over 18m and in those between 11m and 18m. This raises an important question: why should resident engagement be a statutory duty in a building of seven storeys, but not one of six? The distinction appears arbitrary, yet the consequences for many residents will be real.

This is why I argue that principal accountable persons for category 2 buildings must be required to prepare a residents' engagement strategy. Such a measure would close existing gaps in communication, ensuring that residents are informed, consulted and able to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their safety. It would also address shortcomings in the private sector, where a culture of resident engagement is often less established compared with the social housing sector, for example. By strengthening resident engagement for category 2 buildings, this amendment seeks to achieve three critical outcomes: greater transparency, improved trust between residents and building managers, and enhanced overall building safety. Resident engagement is not a bureaucratic formality, it is a safeguard. It is a vital mechanism through which safety, accountability and confidence in our building regulations can be upheld. For those reasons, I urge all Members here to support them. Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you, Joel, for tabling amendments 1, 4 and 5. Joel tabled similar amendments at Stage 2, to extend the requirement for a residents' engagement strategy to category 2 buildings. I was unable to support that amendment as drafted because it didn't make the necessary consequential amendments to enable the provisions to work effectively. I also had concerns about extending this requirement to category 2 buildings without comprehensive consultation on the cost implications for both residents and landlords. However, as I said to the committee at Stage 2, resident voice is a core pillar of the Bill and I have no objection to the principle of extending the requirement to category 2, providing full consultation with residents and landlords on the cost implications can be done before any regulations are made.

Amendment 4 achieves this. It inserts a new chapter into Part 1 of the Bill, which provides a regulation‑making power enabling the Welsh Ministers to make similar or corresponding provisions to those applying in relation to category 1 buildings so that residents' engagement strategies may be extended to occupied category 2 buildings in the future, following appropriate consultation.

Amendments 1 and 5 are consequential to amendment 4. Amendment 1 reflects the insertion of a new chapter into Part 1 of the Bill, and amendment 5 provides that regulations made under the new section are subject to the Senedd approval procedure.

I believe this approach strikes the right balance. It ensures that any extension of duties is informed by proper engagement with stakeholders, including representative bodies, landlords and residents of category 2 buildings, which is something that would not have been available under the amendment proposed at Stage 2. So, it is for these reasons that I'm happy to support amendments 1, 4 and 5.

Joel James, do you wish to respond?

Thank you, Llywydd, only just to thank the Cabinet Secretary again for her support on the amendments. I'm really grateful for it. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 4 is agreed.

We'll move now to our seventh group of amendments, which relate to the duty of an accountable person to give information and documents to other persons. The lead and only amendment is amendment 52. I call on Siân Gwenllian to move the amendment.

Thank you, Llywydd. Amendment 52 requires the Welsh Ministers to make regulations to require a person accountable for a regulated building to provide relevant information to a range of other persons regarding the management of safety within the regulated building. The Bill as tabled allowed the Welsh Ministers to make such regulations but did not compel them to do so. Amendment 52, therefore, does place a duty on Welsh Ministers to make such regulations and, therefore, reflects exactly what I was seeking to do with my Stage 2 amendment.

It's crucial that we keep the welfare of leaseholders and residents at the heart of what we are seeking to do with this Bill. In that spirit, it's important that tenants and leaseholders have the necessary information about safety and the safety of their families and of their homes. It's essential that those who are affected by this Bill know what is happening in their homes, for the sake of their mental well-being and to ensure that the process of improving building safety works to its full potential. Without ensuring that everyone receives the necessary information, their safety, and therefore the purpose of the Bill itself, is undermined.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm happy to support Siân Gwenllian's amendment. I share Siân's ambition to provide residents and other relevant persons with improved rights to access essential building safety information. As I explained to the committee at Stage 2, it has always been our intention to use regulations to set out what information must be made available on request, and what information must be given to residents. And I have no objection to the principle of changing what is currently a power to make regulations about what information accountable persons must give to other persons into a duty. So, I'm therefore happy to support amendment 52, which places a duty on Welsh Ministers so that they must make regulations about the sharing of information and documents by accountable persons, rather than the previous discretion to do so.

Siân Gwenllian, do you wish to reply? No. The question is therefore that amendment 52 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, and the amendment is therefore agreed.

We'll move now to our eighth group of amendments. These relate to leases and occupation contracts. The lead amendment is amendment 21, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move the amendment. Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. This group of amendments provides greater clarity in relation to leases and occupation contracts. Firstly, amendments 21, 22 and 23 clarify the point at which a tenant will have breached an implied term. The Bill is founded on the principle that building safety is a shared responsibility, with residents, landlords and accountable persons all playing their part. The resident duties are intended to promote safe behaviour and secure compliance. It's about working with residents to ensure that they understand the role they have to play in keeping their building safe.

Section 69 inserts section 30IA into the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and that implies terms into certain leases. In practical terms, this means that certain building safety obligations automatically form part of the lease, and a failure to comply could amount to a contractual breach, with potential consequences including steps to secure possession through the courts.

However, further consideration of how these implied terms interact with the Bill's wider enforcement framework has highlighted a need for greater clarity for residents. The current drafting could be read as creating a breach at the point of initial non-compliance with a resident's duty, and this is not the policy intention. The potential risk of losing one's home should always be a last resort, available only after reasonable steps to secure compliance have been exhausted and remain unsuccessful.

Amendment 21 amends section 69 to state that a breach arises only where a resident fails to comply with certain types of formal enforcement action, namely a contravention order, access order, repairs access order or compliance notice. In other words, it's not the initial failure to comply with a duty that may lead to a breach of lease proceedings, but non-compliance with a formal order or notice. This removes the possibility of landlords attempting to circumnavigate the compliance procedures in the Bill by applying directly for a contractual breach at the first opportunity they can.

This distinction is important. It ensures that residents are given the opportunity to remedy matters before any contractual breach arises, and it prevents landlords from bypassing the intended compliance-led process. This amendment does not alter the steps that residents will have to take, but it does remove any ambiguity on when a tenant's breach of contract has occurred. Amendments 22 and 23 make the necessary consequential changes to give full effect to the intention of amendment 21.

Turning to amendments 24, 25, 26 and 38, I have listened to representations made by stakeholders and during scrutiny that clarity is needed in relation to how the new duties interact with occupation contracts under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. The implied terms under section 30IA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 apply to occupation contracts. However, during Stage 2, concerns were raised about whether this would amount to a variation of contract for the purposes of the 2016 Act. A non-Government amendment sought to specify that it would not. While well intentioned, I think that approach risked creating further ambiguity about how the implied terms work with occupation contracts.

It's important to remember that the 2016 Act heralded a new approach to renting homes in Wales. It introduced a fundamental restructuring of housing law. As part of this, it was the policy intention that all contractual rights and obligations should be transparent and contained within the written statement, thus moving to a fully documented contractual model. Therefore, if a notice of variation in contract were not required as a result of the new terms inserted by the Bill, it would not be consistent with the principle that occupation contracts are intended to provide a complete and comprehensive record of the agreement. Nor would it provide contract holders with all the information they need about their rights and obligations, and it's vital that occupation contract holders are notified of any changes to the occupation contract.

Given the potential for uncertainty, amendment 24 is designed to ensure we remove any doubt. It confers a regulation-making power enabling Welsh Ministers to incorporate the duties in the Bill as fundamental terms of occupation contracts, while also disapplying the implied terms in section 30IA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to occupation contracts. This ensures that duties can be fully integrated into the renting homes framework in a clear and transparent way. This approach does not change the substance of residents’ duties under the Bill. It ensures occupation contracts remain a complete and accurate record of rights and obligations, reinforces the importance of building safety, and provides clarity to landlords that a written statement of a variation in contract will be required. The regulations will be developed in full consultation with stakeholders, and will also be subject to enhanced Senedd scrutiny.

Amendments 25, 26 and 38 are consequential to amendment 24, and provide that regulations will be subject to an enhanced approval procedure before being made. Together, these amendments provide clarity for landlords and tenants on how the implied and fundamental terms are intended to operate. I therefore ask Members to support all the amendments in this group.

I have no other speakers under this item, so I assume that the Cabinet Secretary doesn't want to reply. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, amendment 21 is agreed.

Amendment 22, is it moved?

Move.

It is. Is there any objection? There is not. Amendment 22 is agreed.

Amendment 23. Is there any objection? No, it's—.

Move.

It is moved. Is there any objection? No, there isn't. It's therefore agreed.

Amendment 24, is it moved?

Move.

It is. Any objection? No. Amendment 24 is agreed.

Amendment 25, is it moved?

Move.

It is. Any objection? No. It's therefore agreed.

Amendment 26, is it moved?

Move.

It is. Any objection? No. Amendment 26 is agreed.

Joel James, amendment 1.

Is it being moved?

Yes, please. Yes.

Thanks. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 1 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 8.

Move.

It's moved. Any objection? No. It's therefore agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 9, is it moved?

Move.

It is. Any objection? No. It's therefore agreed.

Gwelliant 27.

Move.

It is moved. Any objection to amendment 27? No. It's therefore agreed.

Amendment 28.