Plenary

The next item is questions to the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution, and the first question is from Jack Sargeant.

Thank you for your question. The Welsh Government has committed to piloting a basic income scheme for care leavers in Wales. The pilot will help to inform any future decisions of the Welsh Government, including whether to bring legislation before the Senedd.

I appreciate that answer, Counsel General, and, of course, I very much welcome the commitment from the Welsh Government to commit to bringing forward a pilot on the universal basic income, an idea that was sparked in interest because of the debate I led successfully in the last Senedd. But it is important that we do get a successful trial here in Wales, because that could really add to the case that you talked about in your first answer there. And to be truly successful, we do need the Department for Work and Pensions to agree to work constructively with Welsh Ministers, as the competence for welfare does sit with them. Counsel General, have you advised Welsh Ministers of the importance of a constructive conversation with the DWP, and what action can be taken to secure this agreement?

Well, firstly, can I thank the Member for the work he's doing to keep this very important policy initiative on all our radars and in the attention of Welsh Government? And it is certainly met with, I think, a very positive response. You'll be aware, of course, the First Minister's—the statement that he made some while back when he said:

'As far as universal basic income is concerned, what the Government proposes is what we said in our manifesto and that is an experiment and a pilot. We don't have all the powers that would be necessary'—

which is the point I think that the Member's referring to—

'let alone all of the funding that would be necessary to include a universal basic income for the whole of Wales, but we do have the ability, I believe, to design a smart experiment that will allow us to test the claims that are made for universal basic income.'

I can tell you that there have been a variety of discussions with counterparts, that an approach has been made to the DWP. I don't know what the response is, but that will obviously be shared when we have more information on that. But you're absolutely right: in order to make progress in this matter, those who hold other levers of power in this area are the ones who really have to seriously engage with us as well.

There's a lot to welcome with a proposed basic income trial, and Jack Sargeant alluded to an issue that I've been aware of and have asked questions of the Minister for Social Justice in this Chamber on. The reality is that unless an agreement is struck with the DWP, this pilot has the potential to leave recipients of the basic income worse off, which is something that none of us in this Chamber want to see.

Of course, one thing that could allow us to sidestep the DWP issue is the devolution of the administration of welfare. Could the Counsel General provide an update to the Chamber on where the Government is on seeking the devolution of these powers? And, of course, having these powers in Wales won't just be advantageous when it comes to UBI, they will also allow us to craft a welfare system that is far more sympathetic and far more just than that which we currently live with.

I thank the Member for his question. I think he's wrong: I don't think it is about the devolution of powers; it's actually about the devolution of powers with the resources to go along with that, because we have had our fingers burnt many times, where things have been devolved to us, sometimes without our support, but we have not had the full devolution of the finances that are necessary for that.

But you're absolutely right that the interaction between the benefits system and the concept of a UBI go hand in hand. And what Welsh Government is committed to is actually a pilot to explore, and I think also to show, the opportunities that can actually be done. I think the First Minister has, on a number of occasions, said that the issue of the devolution of welfare benefits, or even some welfare benefits, is an area that he's interested in exploring, but has always given the caveat that you've got to have the resources to actually enable that to happen and those resources have got to be adequate as well.

Good afternoon, Counsel General, and thank you to Jack Sargeant for raising this issue and also for continuing to fly the flag for universal basic income, which I wholeheartedly support. Wales has a real opportunity here with the universal basic income to really transform lives. Not only can a universal basic income tackle the persistent and growing issue of poverty, but we can see from trials across the world that there have been positive implications for both mental health and well-being and individual freedom.

I really want to just move away from the issues around what powers are devolved and what are not, and just focus in on the timescales that the Welsh Government has for the universal basic income pilot. We've heard about this for a few months now, I'm just wondering if we could tie down some timescales. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Well, listen, thank you for your comments and I agree with all the various points you made, and, of course, one of the key challenges is what actually a universal basic income is and what we mean by it. And what it is as a policy is an opportunity, isn't it, to reappraise how the welfare state has operated, and operated very successfully until more recent decades. But it is a way of looking at opportunities to actually alleviate and to eliminate poverty within our society.

In terms of the deadline, I think other Ministers have the portfolio responsibilities in terms of taking that forward. I'm sure there will be statements in due course and your comments have actually been heard. I can assure you that the interest is not a temporary one for the Welsh Government; this is a serious manifesto commitment. It will be taken forward. I'm not in a position to give you a date, but I'm sure that you will have the opportunity to ask the relevant portfolio Ministers more specifically on this in due course.

I thank the Member for his second question. [Laughter.] Law firms and the bar in Wales offer a range of public law advice, and current initiatives being taken forward should support access to such advice. This includes looking at how the public sector commissions legal services, and of course the recent launch of the Law Council of Wales.

I thank the Counsel General for his second answer. [Laughter.] Counsel General, there is a growing body of Wales-specific law and much of which is designed to empower residents in Wales to hold public bodies to account. Now, the availability of public law advice in Wales has just not kept up with the pace. It is my understanding that there are no Welsh public law firms and this is a real barrier to the people of Wales and to the people of Wales in trying to access justice. Counsel General, with that in mind, what action can the Welsh Government take to address this issue and help residents access the justice they so desperately deserve?

Well, it is a very important question and it's one that I'm hoping will be very much addressed by the Law Council of Wales. And we also must recognise the economic importance, as well as the social importance, of the legal sector within Wales. And I've often seen, for example, judicial reviews on Welsh matters that are being pursued from English firms. And I do sometimes raise the question as to why it isn't that so much more of it is actually based, utilising the skills and abilities that do exist, within Wales.

I don't think it's true that we don't have any public law firms. We certainly have firms, a number of whom have considerable expertise in the area of public law, but the geographic spread and the availability and access are probably part of the issue that I think you are raising. We have taken a number of steps that should help to build the public law capacity of the legal sector in Wales, to improve access.

Following the report of the Commission on Justice in Wales, we did review the arrangements for the Welsh Government's panel of law firms and counsel who provide public law advice. The current panel of approved counsel, renewed in March 2021, comprises 47 per cent of counsel based in Wales, which certainly is an increase on the 2011 position of 30 per cent. We are discussing with the leader of the Wales and Chester circuit about setting up a working group to consider action to develop further the public law capacity and capability of the Welsh bar.

There have been other initiatives, but I think the point you make is one that is well recognised and does tie back to, I think, the need and the desire, which certainly I have, to see a growth of the legal profession and the legal service within Wales—economically, but also in terms of its importance socially as well.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. In your 30 September written statement—update on the development of the justice system and the legal sector in Wales—you said that, although the UK Government had rejected the Thomas commission report's central recommendation regarding the devolution of justice and policing,

'a large number of other recommendations...are achievable under the current devolution arrangements or involve some element of devolution without transferring responsibility for justice in its entirety.'

In this context, I note that, when I visited the north-west regional crime unit early last year—a collaboration between six neighbouring police forces, including north Wales—I was told that evidence given to the Thomas commission by the chief constables and police and crime commissioners in Wales was largely ignored in the commission's report.

But in your 30 September statement, you also said that you expected discussions between the two Governments on a range of topics to begin shortly, including disaggregated justice data for Wales; exploring the possibility of problem-solving courts in Wales; support for advice service providers; quality and location of court buildings; Welsh language provision in the justice system; and the organisation of the senior judiciary, including representation in the UK Supreme Court. What therefore is the state of play with these discussions?

Thank you for the question. And it is the case that, obviously, we continue to pursue the issues around the devolution of justice—I won't go into that in detail, we've rehearsed those many times. But there are also many other areas that were identified in the Thomas commission report, which have resulted, and are continuing to result, in engagement with the UK Government and with the Ministry of Justice on those areas where we can co-operate and where we can make a contribution to improve the arrangements that are already in hand.

I was due to meet with and discuss with the Lord Chancellor, with Robert Buckland. Unfortunately, the day before I was due to meet him, there was a UK Government reshuffle and he was replaced. I have written to Dominic Raab, his replacement, in order to ask for a meeting. That meeting, I think, is in the process of being arranged, but, in the interim, Lord Wolfson, who has a ministerial responsibility in this area also, I am due to be meeting, I think, imminently, to discuss these areas, to discuss ways we can work collectively better, to discuss some of the issues that you've raised. And they are issues around the operation of the family courts, drug and alcohol courts, and the pilots, women's issues, data, digitisation, and so on. So, that is ongoing work.

Thank you. Three years ago, I attended the event held in Wrexham by Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service in Wales to discuss the 'Strengthening probation, building confidence' paper, under which all offender management services in Wales sit within the National Probation Service from last year. The HM Prison and Probation Service in Wales would explore options for the commissioning of rehabilitative services, such as interventions and community payback; they would build upon the unique arrangements they already have in Wales through their established prisons and probation directorate, and on existing successful local partnerships, better reflecting the devolved responsibilities of the Welsh Government.

In your September statement this year, you said that you're

'working with Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service, the Home Office and the Police and Crime Commissioners on the Youth Justice and Female Offending Blueprints, including the establishment of a Residential Women's Centre in Wales'—

which the social justice Minister referred to earlier—

'and the development of a new delivery model for the Welsh secure estate for justice and looked after children.'

What therefore is the current state of play regarding this?

Thank you for that. And, obviously, the probation service has been through an incredibly difficult time, and again is an area where there is work that is under way in looking at the way in which it could be better co-ordinated with the various integrated services within Wales. And, obviously, this is an area that I think is primed for devolution. It fits very naturally within the host of devolved services that all interlink with the probation services.

But in terms of all the other areas, in terms of the residential women's centre, the Minister has already explained the progress that's been made there on the delivery models. Those discussions continue to be under way and that work is still in progress.

Okay. Thank you. My final question, a slight change of tack, but the latest Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales's annual report shows that of the 149 applications not still pending at the time of the publication, only 21 were dismissed, suggesting that the SEN system's operation was broken. Concluding my response to you in yesterday's debate on the president of the Welsh Tribunals' annual report, I stated that the report refers to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales, SENTW, referring to the clear need to ensure that the education of vulnerable children is not compromised, and to the transition from SENTW to the education tribunal. In this context, it is of extreme concern to the families I've represented that neither SENTW, nor it successor body, can take any further enforcement action when the relevant public bodies fail to carry out their orders.

This has been a recurrent theme in my casework past and present. The tribunal has confirmed that the new legislation does not change how compliance with tribunal orders are dealt with. Although the orders are legally binding, the tribunal still has no enforcement powers. However, as with any public administration, a judicial review could be brought against the local authority in the High Court, which is clearly beyond the means of the vast majority of affected families. What action, if any, do you therefore propose to address this?

Well, I thank you again for that comment, and of course the reference to the points that were raised by Sir Wyn Williams in his third report. And you do indeed make the case for the devolution of justice very, very strongly, and I endorse that.

I think the issues around the tribunals, the organisation of the tribunals, and the decisions of the tribunals are going to be a matter for what I think will be a tribunals Bill, where all these issues are going to have to be looked at, because what we are doing is actually creating a new, I suppose, structured part of the Welsh judicial system, which will incorporate the tribunals and we'll have to look at not only the operation of the tribunals themselves, their independence, but also the way in which the decisions that they carry out are actually either enforceable or operable.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Wales could be a thriving independent nation—the words of the right honourable Michael Gove. I look forward to seeing him in the next Yes Cymru rally. Now, in fairness to him, and I can be fair to Tories also, he did go on to say that people in Wales benefit from having two Governments, and that devolution is the best of both worlds for Wales. I, of course, don't agree with that, but for devolution to work, there needs to be mutual respect and co-operation between Governments. And, time and time again, we are seeing the obvious breakdown in the relationship between Welsh Government and UK Government. That is clear from several legislative consent motion memoranda. With a No. 10 spokesperson saying yesterday about Boris Johnson's premiership,

'There is a lot of concern inside the building...It's just not working',

and with Conservative MPs voting against and abstaining time and time again in votes in Westminster, it's about time, isn't it, that Boris Johnson puts away the bluster and starts to work constructively with the Governments of these islands. And it was disappointing yesterday to find out that Boris Johnson didn't attend the British-Irish summit once again. Do you have an update on inter-governmental discussions, especially with regard to the implementation of independent arbitration, which is sorely needed, to resolve inter-governmental disputes?

Well, thank you for that question. I suppose just one caveat to start with is that you have to take very cautiously and carefully the comments of Mr Michael Gove, because he also said in that same statement that Mark Drakeford was one of his best friends [Laughter.]—and that immediately caused some suspicion to me. When he says that the benefit of having two Governments—. I suppose, with my background, I heard that an awful lot from Vladimir Putin, about the relationship with the Ukraine—how much better they'd be off with two Governments, and, of course, there, there's a war under way and tanks on the border.

On the serious point, though, about the inter-governmental discussions, of course, there has been considerable progress in coming to reach what, I think, will be effectively a memorandum or a set of arrangements that will allow for a disputes process of ministerial meetings between the First Ministers and Prime Ministers on a regular basis and an inter-ministerial arrangement as well. The difficulty with all of these things, of course, is that they are very dependent on goodwill and trust, and that, sometimes, has been in short supply in recent months and years, and it doesn't have the same thing as a constitutional status, which is what is actually really required. But if it does work, it is certainly a step forward, it is a stepping stone. I've had discussions with my counterparts in the other nations of the UK, and we will do everything we can to make it work, because it is in the interest of the people of Wales, and more broadly, to make it work, but we will have to see how that develops.

Diolch. Later on today, there's a debate about the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and I'm pleased about this, because I'm a strong believer that Acts of Parliament need to be enforceable, not only aspirational. I'm aware of three occasions that this Act has been in front of the courts and has tried to be used in a judicial review, and in each case the public authority under challenge successfully argued that the well-being duty placed on bodies by the Act was too general and too aspirational to be enforceable. Three experts say this about the Act: Dr Sarah Nason from Bangor says it doesn't endow individuals with legally enforceable rights against public bodies; Lord Thomas said on Monday to the Senedd justice committee,

'one of the problems with the future generations Act is that it is not specific and tight enough. It doesn't hold politicians...their feet—to the wheel.'

And, then, the final expert is you, Counsel General. You said here in 2014 that the principles of the Bill are far too loose and far too woolly. The Commission on Justice in Wales recommended early engagement when drafting legislation with the judiciary. Now, that's a common practice across the world. Is that happening in Wales? And isn't it time to amend the Act in consultation with the judges to give it some teeth and to make it enforceable?

Well, thank you. You raise a whole series of points that have always been part of the discussion about what was a very innovative piece of legislation. I think I was involved in the committee that actually scrutinised the legislation that went through. And it was very innovative, and I think it still is very innovative, and I think it is also very significant in terms of the culture change that it was partly about. You're right—there is this debate in terms of legislation, in terms of enforceability of specific powers, as opposed to the aspirational part of the legislation, which seeks to create frameworks for change and changes in culture. I think, with all legislation, once it has been in force for a while, it does need to be reviewed, it needs to be assessed, and that's not just true of this particular piece of legislation. The legislation is still internationally recognised as one of the most advanced, modern and progressive pieces of legislation, and other countries have sought to emulate it. But, I think, you're right, and we look forward to the report from the commissioner and the comments she will make, and those comments will be very seriously considered, and we'll consider them also within the context of other pieces of legislation, where it's not just enough to pass the legislation but you want to know what the outcome of that legislation is and that that legislation is effective. I confide that, over the course of the coming months and years, I'm sure I will have many of my former quotes that will be thrown back at me at one stage or another, so thank you for the advance notice. [Laughter.]

Counsel General, it's not difficult to see the lack of primary legislation this term in this place. After six months of the sixth Senedd, I'm aware of only one Government Bill that has been presented to the Senedd. Indeed, Peter Fox's Bill was opposed by Government partially because of a lack of time. In the fifth Senedd, only 32 Bills were passed in this place, as compared with 85 in the Scottish Parliament. Time and again, we hear the argument about a lack of capacity, a lack of expertise and a lack of time being used by the Welsh Government as a reason to use Westminster Bills rather than passing Welsh Bills. The lack-of-time argument was used in relation to Peter Fox's Bill. Of course, I have been sounding like a stuck record: using Westminster Bills brings complexity to the devolution settlement, ensures that Bills are not bilingual, makes accessibility more difficult, and means that no real scrutiny happens in this place. If capacity, expertise and time are a real problem, what steps are you taking in order to enable us to do our real work here as a Parliament and to pass Welsh Acts?

Can I thank him for the comments? They do raise very serious issues in terms of the legislation, the way in which legislation is dealt with and, I suppose, the course we've been on for, really, 10 years as we've learnt to become what I think is an effective legislature. There are many areas, of course, where we would like to legislate and we have to look at the priority in terms of the delivery of that legislation, and the way in which we bring forward Bills, whether we look at the Rolls-Royce type of Bill that covers just about anything and everything that will go into a particular subject matter, or whether we have a more prioritised and a more focused area in certain Acts of legislation. That is something that is actually under way at the moment in terms of looking at the way that legislation process takes place.

It is also fair to say, of course, and this is one of the anomalies within our current inter-governmental relations and so on, that the scale of the UK Government's legislative programme into areas, the issues that raises with regard to devolution integrity, the grey areas in disputes over that, the timing and the lack of advance information on legislation and so on create enormous demands in terms of those, because we have to treat those as pieces of legislation that Wales might benefit from or where we have to draw the devolution lines and so on. So, that is a significant issue, and I am certainly looking at those in terms of an overview of the impact, not just in terms of devolution integrity, but also in terms of the impact and the extent to which we are having to resort to another Government's agenda on many occasions. So, there are issues there that have to be taken. There are also still the significant Brexit and COVID issues that are there.

I did make the statement in respect of the first year of the legislative programme. I am working very hard at the moment and engaging with colleagues and officials and so on, looking at the years 2 and 3 programmes. I can assure you there's a considerable amount of primary legislation that is being looked at, particularly the manifesto commitments. There may be other commitments or aspects of them that will arise out of the recent co-operation agreement and so on, and I will happily engage with Members over that programme in due course when I'm in a position to make further announcements on it. But I can assure you there will be, certainly, a significant amount of primary legislation coming through.

Can I make one additional point, as well? It's in terms of, I suppose, partly a consequence of the last Senedd and the COVID and Brexit situation, and that is that it's not enough just to be passing the legislation; we also have to ensure that we have to, within as efficient a time as possible, be implementing the legislation as well, and each implementation piece is almost equivalent to a piece of primary legislation, as the Member will know, in its own right, and there are an enormous number of those, particularly within the education field, but within others as well.

I thank the Member for raising this issue, and for the question. I issued written statements on 29 July and 9 November about our programme of electoral reform. We will use the local government elections next May to test different ways of voting and ensure elections in Wales are as accessible as possible and that everyone who wants to vote can vote, and that their vote will be counted.

I thank the Counsel General for that answer. Counsel General, like many Members of the Senedd, I was very pleased to hear the Welsh Government announcement on flexible voting pilots, which will make it easier for people to vote, but, at the same time, I think we have a regrettable direction of travel from UK Government in terms of its voter ID proposals, which will reduce turnout and particularly disenfranchise members of more marginalised sections of our population.

The next set of elections for us here in Wales, as you mentioned, Counsel General, are the local elections next year. So, I just wondered, with the general background in terms of what Welsh Government is doing but also worries about UK Government proposals, how Welsh Government is considering ensuring that we do have as good a turnout as we might have in those local elections in Wales next year.

Thank you for those comments, and I think it's fair to say also that—I think the Member referred to the initiatives under way, the pilots—they've been received with incredible popularity. I think the comments are positive comments, with people saying, 'Yes, these are sensible ideas', and they are. They are only pilots—they're there to test the way, I think, for electoral legislation that we hope to bring to reform, to modernise and to bring our electoral system into the twenty-first century.

I think it is also fair to say, about the proposals by the UK Government, that it's not intended that they will apply to Welsh elections, and, in any event, the UK Government's legislation is unlikely to come into force before or even be completed by the time of the May 2022 council elections.

So, the local government elections in May do give us an opportunity to work at improving the accessibility, and, of course, there is work under way as part of those pilots. Some of the work also is in terms of registration and the support we've given financially to the issue of electoral registration, because it is important that we do everything we can to maximise electoral registration, because no democracy has validity if significant numbers of people either are not registered to participate or in fact do not participate. So, we have to see this as part of the democratic health of Wales and I hope, as a Government, that we are a Government that takes that health of democracy very, very seriously indeed.

You made reference also, I think, to what are the significant concerns about the impact that the voter ID issue might have, and, of course, there have been a number of reports and representations, particularly by the Electoral Reform Society, who've expressed very serious concerns about the impact it would have on minorities and have highlighted the point that it has no evidential base.

So, we're also looking at how we might actually improve the mechanics of the elections, the simplification of the forms, the postal ballot forms, online registration, and so on, to ensure that fewer mistakes are made when people vote and, when people do cast their ballot, that ballot has the opportunity of ensuring that it is actually accounted for. So, those things are being looked at as well, and I think, once the local government elections are out of the way, we will have learnt a lot more and that will hopefully contribute significantly to what would be a much broader and more radical reform of the electoral system.

Minister, it's always pleasing to hear Ministers talking about the importance of participating in elections, as I'm sure you agree with me that confidence and trust in any government starts with the vote, and engagement with the vote is the foundation, of course, of democracy. And despite May's Senedd elections being the highest electoral turnout that the Welsh Parliament has ever received, it was still just 46.6 per cent turnout, compared to 63.5 per cent in May's Holyrood elections in Scotland and 67.3 per cent in the UK general election in 2019. I'm sure, Minister, you'd share my concerns regarding the turnout for Senedd elections considering the importance and responsibility that our Parliament holds. So, with that in mind, Minister, what discussions are you having with counterparts in the UK Parliament and Scottish Parliament to understand why people turn out so much more for those elections than they do for elections here for the Senedd?

I thank the Member for the supplementary question, because it is a very important point, and I don't think there is any silver bullet with regard to turnouts. There clearly is an issue that many people feel disengaged from Government, from the law-making processes, or from the decisions that impact on their lives. I think that is why the work of the constitutional commission that we have set up, to be co-chaired by Professor Laura McAllister and Dr Rowan Williams, is actually so important, because it goes to the heart of our democracy.

You also raised a point that really confirms my own view in terms of some of the measures being taken by UK Government that would actually create unnecessary obstacles to people participating and voting in elections. I have many discussions with my counterparts across the four nations and with the UK Government; they have unfortunately been predominantly related to the issues around the Elections Bill, and I think that is disappointing, because the Elections Bill could have been something that actually sought to address those issues in another way. In actual fact, I think it probably does the exact opposite. What I would hope is that the direction that we will take with the electoral reform legislation that we will bring will also seek to improve and to maximise participation, to avoid unnecessary obstacles, and to be based on the principles of inclusivity as well as robustness in the confidence of the electoral system.

I thank the Member for this important question. Families can face a range of legal problems that may require support from different services provided by private professionals, state and third sector organisations. Too often, though, there are gaps in that support, not least because of the dramatic reduction in the availability of legal aid in the family courts.

Thank you. Counsel General, in September, you issued a written statement confirming that family justice would be a key area of focus for your tenure, and rightly sharing many concerns about the numbers of children in Wales sadly taken into care. Earlier this year, it was confirmed that there are now 7,170 children looked after away from home in Wales, which is 1.14 per cent of children. That sits above the current UK average, being 0.72 per cent of children. I am aware that the north Wales local family justice board is one of two pathfinder areas taking part in a pilot programme to test and evaluate a revised child arrangements programme. The aim of this work is to promote non-adversarial and problem-solving approaches to cases, and to help reduce backlogs. Can you confirm what discussions you have had to engage with this work and whether such pilot schemes will be replicated anywhere else in Wales to help address the crisis of looked-after children wherever they may be here?

Thank you, and thank you for those comments. The answer to that is 'yes'. There are a number of pilots that are in operation and problem-solving courts are a particular issue as well. As someone personally who's been very involved in the childcare area, I very much welcome those changes that have been taking place. I have visited myself some of the courts to look at these. I've also had discussions with a number of members of the judiciary about how that operates, and about the support that is ongoing. I liaise also very, very closely with my colleague the Minister for Social Justice, who also is carrying out considerable areas of work in this particular area. I think some of these pilots are really important. They are also one of the areas where we are working with UK Government and with the Ministry of Justice in terms of how to develop them and how to do the best we can to actually ensure that more and more children are actually kept with their mothers, and fewer are taken into care. You raise the anomalies that exist, and of course it's an issue that has been raised by Lord Thomas, who raised it recently, I think, in the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and also about the need to look, I think, overall within Wales at the data, the statistics that exist, to see why there are variations and what can be done to actually resolve those and deal with what is a very, very significant social issue. I think the remainder of the question really needs to be addressed to the appropriate portfolio Member.

I understand that you, Counsel General, will be taking part in a conference on justice and policing next week, which will be held jointly with Liz Savile Roberts. It will focus on the Commission on Justice in Wales report, which recommended the devolution of justice two years ago. Of course, the devolution of justice is now Welsh Government policy, and has formed part of the co-operation agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Government that was announced this week. But looking ahead to the conference, in that context I would like to ask about two issues related to support for families. First, I would like to ask for an update on the family drug and alcohol courts pilot. What progress has been made to date, please, and what will the next steps be? And finally, I'd like to ask for your views, Counsel General, on comments made by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee on Monday. He recommended establishing an all-Wales criminal justice board as well as an all-Wales family justice board. What would your comments be on that proposal, please? Thank you.

Firstly, I look forward very much to the online conference that you refer to, which is a cross-party event, and one that also involves Lord Thomas, but also involves the trade unions, those people who actually work within the justice sector. I think there'll be a lot to learn from that, but I've no doubt in my own mind, and again, reiterating the comments of Lord Thomas, that the devolution of justice is not a question of if, it's a question of when.

In terms of the comments, I listened very intently to the evidence from Lord Thomas to the Legislation, Constitution and Justice Committee, and to those particular recommendations or suggestions that he actually made. I suppose the best I can say is that I'm very interested in looking at how we can explore them and develop them further.

Our national strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management was published last October and it sets out the roles and responsibilities. These are not always entirely straightforward, hence why we have a measure in the strategy asking the flood and coastal erosion committee to work with the Welsh Government to explore ways to clarify the legislation.

Diolch, Gwnsler Cyffredinol. I would like to declare that I am a councillor on RCT council. As you will be aware, RCT council has published to date four section 19 reports into the flooding that occurred across the country borough as a result of storm Dennis in February 2020. One of the reports focused on the flooding in Pentre, which of course also suffered subsequent flooding. Can the Counsel General advise what the legal position would be if people were to seek compensation from Natural Resources Wales given that it is a Welsh Government sponsored body? Would any potential liability lie with Natural Resources Wales or Welsh Government as the funder of the body? You alluded to complications in terms of liability in relation to the strategy, so I think clarity on this would be helpful.

Can I just say that it's not appropriate for me to give advice as Counsel General as to what the legal rights are of individuals, et cetera? They should, of necessity, if they believe there are issues, raise those with their own legal advisers.

Good afternoon, Counsel General. We all know that climate change is driving ever more frequent extreme weather events, extreme weather events that cause great damage and destruction—extreme weather events such as storm Christoph, which wrought devastation across my constituency at the beginning of the year. These events are beyond the ability of local councils to prepare for, beyond them to protect against. Counsel General, do you agree therefore that councils shouldn't be left footing the bill for this clean-up, and if you do agree with me, will you urge your Cabinet colleagues to make immediate funding available to Denbighshire County Council to fund the rebuilding of the historic Llanerch bridge, which was destroyed in the storms of 2021? Thank you.

Can I thank the Member for the question? I know that additional funding has been made available to councils in respect of flood damage and infrastructure repair. But I do very much welcome the principle he raises, because this is exactly the principle we've raised with the UK Government in respect of coal tips. This is a climate damage matter. There is a moral, political and an ethical responsibility for the legacy of coal mining and the risks that now exist, and the potential cost that will exist to many of our councils in respect of the instability that is developing, as a result of climate change, of those coal tips. I'm grateful for those comments, because they are certainly comments that we can now also forward to the UK Government with regard to their failure to provide the funding that I believe we are entitled to.

Thank you for the question. The Building (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2019 were made by the then Minister for Housing and Regeneration as an immediate response to the Hackitt report, following the independent inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy. The Welsh Government is using both legislative and non-legislative levers to make further improvements in building safety.

I'm grateful for that answer, Cwnsler Cyffredinol. You'll be aware that the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee in the last Senedd wrote to the housing Minister highlighting that the ban on combustible cladding materials did not extend to buildings below 18m. Was there a legal reason for doing that? They also raised concerns with regard to support for leaseholders. What recent advice has the Counsel General given with regard to fire safety, and isn't it about time for us to get rid of the archaic system of leasehold in Wales?

Thank you for the supplementary point. I'm aware, of course, that the Member has been very active on this particular issue. I suppose the starting point when we come to the root of the matter is that the developers are ultimately the people who should be shouldering the responsibility. As is often the case, it falls then to public bodies and state bodies to actually pick up the failures of the private sector in respect of those areas. We've consistently held the view that leaseholders did not create the issues that have been identified, and that developers should step up to their moral responsibilities and rectify these issues without charge to the leaseholders. The Minister for Climate Change has consistently made this clear to developers and to leaseholders.

There has been some funding that has been set up, and expressions of interest have opened for the Welsh building safety fund on 30 September for responsible persons of medium and high-rise residential buildings in Wales. This essential first phase will provide funding for fire safety surveys and the creation of building remediation passports. These will identify what measures and actions are required to make a multiresidential building as safe as it can be, and protect lives and property in the event of fire. And of course, the Member himself has been very vocal, quite rightly, in pointing out that it's not just a cladding issue—it's also the internal issues that are of considerable importance.

We intend to offer a package of support to leaseholders and residents that will allow them to feel safe in their homes, and allow them to make decisions about the future. So, building safety continues to be a priority for the Welsh Government, and once we have clarity on funding allocations, we will be in a better position to make decisions about the future funding to support building safety remediation.

In terms of the 18m issue, it's the first time I've been asked specifically why it's 18m. I will perhaps send a response to the Member specifically on that. I think I could probably hesitate to give a view as to why I think it is 18m, but I think it is important in these things just to be precise and accurate.FootnoteLink

Thank you, again, for raising a very important issue. The Welsh Government's position on the public order provisions contained in Part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is set out in the legislative consent memorandum laid before the Senedd on 28 May 2021.

Counsel General, I chair the cross-party group on race and equality and the group met yesterday to discuss Part 4 of the Bill, which, as you will know, will end up incriminating Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families in terms of their way of life. At that cross-party group meeting yesterday, which was attended by over 60 people, we heard from a range of representatives of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community, including Travelling Ahead, community voices and the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Social Work Association, all of whom voiced alarm and anger at this proposed legislation. It would make it even more difficult for Gypsy, Roma and Travellers to have a nomadic way of life, which is difficult enough at the moment, given the lack of official sites, both permanent and transitory.

So, in those circumstances, Counsel General, can you outline what the Welsh Government might be able to do to protect the rights of such communities, which are very much under threat from this current UK Government legislation?

Thank you for that supplementary question. Of course, this particular Bill—it's actually three pieces of legislation that have been put together, which is why it's so complex. And there is an irony that there are some items in it that are certainly worth considering, and there are obviously a lot of amendments that are going through at the moment. There's one in respect of serious violence that is being considered at this moment in time as well that may fall within that category. But of course, the Bill has within it a number of what we would call, I think, what are illiberal—contrary to civil liberties—provisions that are wholly unnecessary. The restrictions that it would place on public processions, public assemblies, on one-person protests—and we talked earlier, didn't we, about people participating in democracy and feeling a part of democracy—. This is just another piece of legislation that actually divides people away from the democratic processes.

And, of course, the one that the Member is particularly concerned about—and I can understand that; I know that it is a concern that is seriously shared by Jenny Rathbone and certainly by the Minister for Social Justice and I suspect many people around this area—is the criminalising powers in respect of what are called unauthorised encampments. This is not something we will want to give legislative consent to. We believe that it impacts massively into a devolved area; we have a different policy agenda in terms of the engagement with people and engagement with the Traveller and the Gypsy community and that is something that we want to continue. So, that is something that is of considerable concern. There are a lot of discussions on it at the moment, and I'm sure that the Minister will want to report in due course. And of course, there will be, I suspect, in due course, further supplementary legislative consent memoranda where this issue will arise and be debated in this Chamber again.

And finally, question 8, Jenny Rathbone.

Well, thank you for that. It's an important issue within our electoral reform agenda. Because of the pandemic, we didn't amend the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, as we had planned to do, to allow certain prisoners from Wales to vote in local government elections. We will be returning to this issue during the current Senedd.

I'm very pleased to hear that, Counsel General, because there is so much wrong with the criminal justice system, in particular the failure to have any impact on the rehabilitation of prisoners, because of the underfunding of the prison service and the completely inadequate way in which we treat prisoners. They are there to be punished, but they are also there to be rehabilitated. So, I think that it's really, really important that prisoners—or, at least, most prisoners—get the vote, in order to ensure that the inadequacy of the public service that we provide through our prisons, which is extremely expensive, is actually being properly aired and discussed and considered by anybody who is an elected Member.

Well, thank you for those supplementary comments and the question. It's fair to say that the Welsh Government agrees with the 2005 Hirst judgment in the European Court of Human Rights, which found that the UK was in breach of the European convention on human rights, because the vast majority of convicted prisoners serving a prison sentence are disenfranchised for UK elections.

Now, we believe that it is right to reform the law in this area. We consulted on this issue in 2017. The majority of respondents agreed that we should give at least some prisoners the vote. As the Member will be aware, during the last Senedd, the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee recommended that prisoners and young people in custody serving sentences of less than four years should be enfranchised for devolved Welsh elections.

The specific question of extending the franchise to young people in custody aged 16 and 17 wasn't included in the 2017 consultation. So, before we could consider that extension, we would have to consult again. But, we will also give further consideration to whether prisoners should be able to vote in the next Senedd elections. We will consult on this, and I can assure you that these are issues that we will be considering with regard to the electoral reform agenda that the Welsh Government has.

Thank you, Counsel General.

The next item is questions to the Senedd Commission. The questions will be answered by the Llywydd. Question 1—John Griffiths.

Events are held on the Senedd estate for a variety of reasons. They help Members to engage with the public and give us all a chance to listen and discuss the challenges and opportunities facing Wales. The rules governing the use of the estate for events make it clear that they must not be used for party political reasons, nor for commercial gain, and they must not contain material that could cause offence. It is the responsibility of the Members who sponsor those events to ensure that those policies are adhered to.

Diolch, Llywydd. Llywydd, last week, the Senedd estate was used for an event with Japan Tobacco International on the subject of tackling illicit tobacco sales. There is a great deal of concern about this event. Ash Wales, for example, is very concerned. There is a World Health Organization framework convention on tobacco control, which outlines how there must be a distance between the political process, public health policies and commercial interests in the tobacco industry.

I think, Llywydd, that over the last couple of years, it has become increasingly clear that the tobacco industry does seek to influence the decisions of Governments and legislatures and politicians and the public health agenda, through events and through such contact. Given the terrible toll that tobacco continues to take on the health and well-being of people in Wales and all over the world, I think that it's right that we carefully consider the World Health Organization policies, and whether the use of the Senedd estate may be in the opposite direction, really, to the direction of travel that the World Health Organization would like to see.

These matters do evolve and change, Llywydd. I attended an event myself two years ago with the same company on the Senedd estate. But, a lot of research has been done since—for example, by the University of Bath—and I think that it's becoming increasingly clear as to how the tobacco industry tends to operate to try and further its commercial interests. I wonder, Llywydd, if you might give some thought to these matters. I'm sure that you keep under constant review how the Senedd estate should be used and not used. I wonder if there might be a further consideration of particular events, such as the one last week.

Well, as I said in my original answer, we do have activities that are currently not permitted to take place on the Senedd estate, and they are business and commercial purposes, party political activities and any event that displays materials that can cause offence. I'm aware of the event last week and some press coverage around it, and the views that you've expressed. We understood that the objective of the event was to educate Members on the illegal trade of tobacco in Wales, and therefore it did not, as such, breach the criteria.

But you've raised the point about needing to keep the use of our estate and what we consider to be the appropriate use of our estate under review. And, as a Commission, I'm sure that we are willing to do that at all times. It may not be around individual issues of this kind, or, indeed, individual companies, but should there be principles that any Member feels should be considered by the Commission in how it revises any codes that we have for the use of the estate, then I'd be more than willing to take those issues of principle to the Commission.

The Commission uses a local business in Barry, which specialises in electrical waste. The data on the equipment is wiped to our required standards before the equipment is sent for re-use or recycling, as appropriate. We are currently in the process of facilitating a mass donation of refreshed Members' IT equipment, and that equipment was refurbished, following the election earlier this year, and this package of equipment will go to worthy causes the length and breadth of Wales.

Well, thank you very much. It's good to know that this redundant equipment from our point of view will indeed be applied to worthy causes across the length and breadth of Wales. Has the Commission considered any of it going to developing countries with which we have a close relationship, through the Wales and Africa programme? Because most of these countries have next to no IT equipment, and in order to engage with the wider world, and certainly to take part in meetings, you do need a laptop to be able to do it effectively.

This may well have been considered in the past; I don't know the exact answer to the question you've made. The policy at the moment, and what we are undertaking at the moment is to look to reuse and recycle the equipment, using a variety of companies in Wales who can put that to appropriate use. Whether any of that then ends up in developing countries, I don't know the answer to that; I'm sure we could do a little bit of searching to find that out. I'll ask the question back to officials as to what activities we've undertaken to see whether there is the ability to look to directly link with charities and other organisations that work in developing countries, in order to see whether there's the potential of reusing our redundant IT kit in a developing country context. So, I'll certainly look into that for you.

Frankly, I'm disappointed at how much ICT equipment, which I think is relatively young, is actually being removed and new equipment is being purchased. It's incredibly expensive continually upgrading and buying. Can I ask that you will review your ICT replacement programme? And can I also ask that you will ask Members if they're happy with the equipment they've got before taking it off them?

Well, I think Members will be aware that, following the election and following the five-year cycle of ICT provision, that IT equipment was refreshed for Members, new equipment has been purchased for Members, and they've been able to select what equipment they want to use. I think the important point to make here is that we need to ensure that our equipment is fit for purpose at all times—fit for purpose in the context of IT now means that we have to be cyber secure, and to be cyber secure, you do need to have the most recent of equipment and more recent of hardware and software. That's the professional advice given to us by ICT experts and cyber experts, and I don't think that we would want to compromise our Senedd ICT security in order to enable one Member, two Members, to keep an old laptop that they may have become emotionally attached to. I think we need to ensure at all times that we are cyber secure. We need to continue our business; that's important for the people of Wales.

Thank you, Llywydd.

No topical questions were accepted today.

Therefore, we'll move on to the next item, which is the 90-second statements. First of all, Luke Fletcher.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. On 15 November, I had the pleasure of attending the annual general meeting of Baobab Bach, a community interest company that has been set up in Bridgend county with a goal of providing high-quality food to anyone who wants it—no means testing, no questions, no stigma. For £5, you can come into the community pantry and take as much as you need. Baobab Bach run a network of community pantries, currently numbering at 11 across the county, with the ambition to establish more, all staffed by volunteers. From Pencoed to Nant-y-moel to Porthcawl, these community pantries have provided a lifeline to our communities. Since October 2020, collectively, the community pantries have distributed 6,469 bags of food, the equivalent of 1.45 tonnes a week. And where do they source this food? From the supermarkets: M&S, Tesco, the Co-op. They take the food that is close to end of life, helping us all save on food waste; not just good for the pocket, but good for the planet too. I'm looking forward to seeing where Baobab Bach goes next, and to all the team, John and Alison and those committed volunteers, good luck, and thank you.

James Evans. James needs to be unmuted. Can someone unmute James Evans?

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. Next week, the Royal Welsh Show winter fair will be taking place in Llanelwedd after a two-year absence. Established in 1990, the winter fair is now one of the most popular attractions on the British agricultural show calendar as one of the finest prime-stock shows in Europe, showing the very best of Welsh and British agriculture. The event also showcases the very best of food and drink, allowing people to sample and enjoy the finest Welsh produce. Having been cancelled since 2019 due to the coronavirus pandemic, it's great that the society will be welcoming back exhibitors and visitors back to the Royal Welsh showground. I'm sure the whole Chamber and Members online will join me in wishing the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society all the very best for a very successful winter fair. Diolch, Deputy Llywydd.

Thank you. We will now suspend proceedings to allow changeovers in the Siambr. If you are leaving the Siambr, please do so promptly. The bell will be rung two minutes before proceedings restart, and any Members who are arriving after a changeover should wait until then before entering the Siambr.

Welcome back. We'll move on to the debate on a Member's legislative proposal—a cladding safety Bill. And I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the motion.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to start this debate by quoting Non and Gwenallt Rees, who don't live very far from this place:

'Why are we as owners of flats responsible for facing huge costs of solving the problem of cladding created by others?'

And I believe that all of us can agree with that statement. It's not up to them to pay for the mistakes of others.

Through no fault of their own, hundreds, if not thousands, like Gwenallt and Non Rees, are facing huge insurance costs, service charges and bills to deal with the cladding scandal. Many have the mental strain of worrying that they might live in an unsafe building and cannot move. I have met many of these residents in my six months here in the Senedd, and the strain is obvious on the faces of so many. One told me that he lies in bed at night not only worrying about crippling financial costs, but also being terrified for the safety of his loved ones.

So, thank you from the bottom of my heart to those Members, across parties, who have co-submitted this debate with me, namely Peter Fox and Mike Hedges, and to the Members who have supported this debate, namely Mabon ap Gwynfor and Jane Dodds. This demonstrates clearly that there is obvious cross-party support here in the Senedd to support Gwenallt and Non and the thousands of others who are in the same situation. I would also like to thank two others: thank you to David Melding and to Leanne Wood, two others who raised this issue regularly in the fifth Senedd. And I'm very pleased that the co-operation agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government includes building safety. There are vital principles in this agreement. I am pleased that significant reform of the building safety system is part of the agreement. As the agreement states, the current system has enabled, time after time, a culture of cutting corners at the cost of public safety.

I am also very pleased to hear about the introduction of the second part of the Welsh building safety fund, and I look forward to reading the details soon. So, when, Minister, will residents hear more about the details of this second stage? And when will the funding for the first tranche be released? And will that funding include investigation costs that have already been paid?

The agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Government is a positive step forward, but we need urgent solutions to this. Over four years of mental anguish, of a lack of sleep, of financial pressures, have left their mark on residents. This has to come to an end. I was talking to one person today with his wife suffering from cancer; they shouldn't be having to worry about this too.

I'd like to work with the Welsh Government in future to seek powers to introduce a windfall tax on major developers. That funding in future would be able to pay for poor building outcomes, for builders cutting corners, rather than leaving it up to residents to fight a long and costly battle on their own.

The cladding scandal is a perfect example of where the devolution settlement is failing the people of Wales at the moment. The residents feel as if they're part of a ping-pong game between Westminster and the Welsh Government. They feel that they are not being listened to. We want assurances that the money announced by Robert Jenrick, when he was housing Minister earlier this year, the £3.5 billion, will be seen as UK spend, and therefore we, in Wales, will get a share. Has the Welsh Minister received an answer to that yet? But, if it does come down to the Welsh Government, in the additional £2.3 billion in block grant, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, with consequential does the Minister think it will be enough to resolve the cladding scandal here in Wales?

I sincerely hope that we go down the Australian model—the Australian approach—whereby Government firstly reimburses leaseholders for their costs and subsequently claims these costs back from employees. Obviously Government has the power, has the influence, which leaseholders don't.

Finally, this whole scandal has shone a light on the whole issue of the rights of leaseholders. Isn't it about time that we bring to an end this relic of the past, this archaic system, as they have done in Scotland, Ireland and across the common world? I look forward to a Welsh Bill that finally brings this cladding scandal in Wales to an end. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I first thank Rhys ab Owen for tabling this important debate and for inviting me to support his legislative proposal? I am very pleased to see cross-party support for the motion before us today, and I think this underlines the seriousness with which all of us across this Chamber are approaching this issue.

My contribution to the debate is focused on issues that are facing a number of my constituents that have been raised with me. In saying this, I would like to reflect on all of the work that has been carried out by my colleague Janet Finch-Saunders, who leads on building safety for the Welsh Conservative group. As I've mentioned, Deputy Llywydd, a number of constituents who own properties in the Celestia development in Cardiff Bay have contacted my office about their concerns about the scale of the cladding issues facing residents. In fact, as I understand it, some residents have recently been asked to pay a service charge of up to £20,000 next year to begin repair works on the development. This level of subsidy will be required for a number of years to meet the ongoing work that will be needed to ensure the safety of the building. I'm sure that Members from across the Chamber will agree with me that this is grossly unfair. Residents, many of whom simply cannot afford to pay anywhere near that level of service charge, should not have to foot the bill for something that is not their fault. Meanwhile, another constituent has said that they are unable to sell their property due to these issues, and this has had a significant impact on their retirement plans. Their money is tied up in what they call 'worthless homes'.

Now, I understand that this is a complex issue that requires close working between Welsh and UK Governments, therefore, I think Members would appreciate an update on any recent discussions that the Minister may have had with her counterparts from across the UK on this issue. Residents have said to me that the establishment of Welsh building fund is urgently needed, so that developments like Celestia can begin work to address their fire and construction defects. Minister, would you be able to confirm whether it is your intention to provide financial support directly to residents to support them to meet ongoing costs and when this will be made available?

Ultimately, however, action is needed to prevent these issues from happening again. We really need to see new legislation to not only tighten up the rules around the use of cladding, but to also ensure that the developers retain legal responsibility for addressing defects that are as a result of the design and construction of a building.

In closing, I would like to reflect on the words of a constituent who has given me permission to quote their feelings on this matter. They say,

I'm not going to repeat anything said by either Rhys or Peter, but the tragedy of Grenfell Tower saw 72 people lose their lives. It was reported earlier this year that surveys on high-rise buildings across the UK, following the fire, have shown that combustible cladding and fire safety defects are causing issues in other high-rise buildings—lots of other high-rise buildings. The Welsh Government estimated a third of high-rise buildings across the country may need remediation work, with defects ranging from minor to significant. There are currently 148 high-rise residential buildings across Wales.

The public inquiry that followed the incident at Grenfell Tower has revealed that one of the main reasons the fire spread was the type of cladding that was used on the exterior of the building. In my constituency, I'm told that residents of South Quay in SA1 will see their service charges increase more than £450,000 between them to pay for cladding and insurance work. However, the cost to rectify all issues across the site in the years to come has been estimated at over £3 million.

I agree with what the Minister has previously said, that developers who have made millions and millions of pounds out of these buildings ought to pay. Unfortunately, some of them were built by the defunct Carillion, others may have been built by other companies or single-purpose vehicles that now no longer exist.

In two places in my constituency, both the Copper Quarter and SA1 developments, there is a serious concern regarding the issue of cladding. People owning properties are concerned about their safety and the catastrophic drop in value of their properties, many of which have been bought on a mortgage and are becoming very difficult, if not impossible, to sell. To many of the people affected, the cladding issue is the biggest issue in their lives.

It's not purely a Welsh issue, and Members will be aware of the complex challenges facing multi-occupied buildings across the United Kingdom. This is a problem throughout the whole of Great Britain, and the funding will have to come from the Westminster Government. For too long, residents of affected buildings have been denied the right of confidence in the safety of their homes and the ability to move on, to sell their homes, move somewhere else; something all the rest of us take for granted, that if we've got a house or building, we sell it, we can then buy something; we can either trade up or trade down. These people can't; they are stuck, and they are really upset, and I can understand why they're upset. And people talk about mental health a lot in here. Can you think of anything to affect your mental health worse than having a position where you've got a huge debt, which you are paying, but you can do nothing with? You can't solve the problem of the debt, you've got substantial negative equity and you cannot see a way out of it, but you've got additional bills likely to come. I've had grown men and women crying to me on the telephone regarding the effect this is having on them. This is a real issue affecting real people. Something has to be done. We need funding from Westminster and a charge on building companies to deal with this serious problem, and we just have to deal with it, otherwise a lot of people are going to be in a very bad state.

Thank you very much, Rhys, if I may thank him, Deputy Presiding Officer, for bringing this debate forward today. And thank you also to Mike Hedges and Peter Fox for supporting this debate.

Here, we have quite simply an issue of fundamental justice. Who should pay for the work of assessing and remedying these large buildings that are a threat to the health and safety of the people living there? Is it the residents, the tenants of owners, who should pay through an increase in their rents? Is it the leaseholders who bought the flats without knowing of the problems because those problems weren't yet known? Is it the owners of the buildings? What about us, the taxpayers, through the Government? Or is it those who initially constructed these buildings that should pay for this? Four years after the Grenfell tragedy, we are still grappling with this question.

Now, unfortunately, the greed and selfishness of some means that they aren't willing to accept blame or responsibility for the significant problems that are a threat to people's health and lives. Today, hundreds if not thousands of people are suffering serious anxiety as they're concerned about the safety of their homes, or concerned as to how they can pay for the remedial actions when they have no blame in this situation.

In addition to this, the Government has no clear data as to how many buildings exactly need work, never mind how many people are affected by this. But in terms of the details of any legislation to tackle the issue of the safety of cladding, it's worth noting that there are no statutory measures to assess external walls and cladding or a document to confirm the fire safety of a building as far as cladding is concerned. That doesn't exist at the moment. These are fundamental failings that the Government could tackle without having to rely on Westminster. It's regrettable that four years have passed since the Grenfell tragedy and that the Government hasn't brought a Bill before the Senedd as of yet, and that the Government is now reliant on Conservatives in Westminster to push it into action. Wales has the right to see its own legislation with the voice of Welsh stakeholders at the heart of the formulation of that legislation. That's why I support this proposal put forward by Rhys ab Owen today. Thank you.

Thank you to Rhys and others who support this.

And let's start with the individuals, because that is what it's all about. As Rhys, Mike and Peter have talked about, this is about people, people like the leaseholders in South Quay in Swansea, who are facing service charge increases of up to £4,000 a year; people like the leaseholders in Cardiff, facing costs of up to £8,000 a year, with that figure sadly set to rise; people who feel that they are waiting for action as costs rise, feeling that their lives are on hold. Now, imagine the mental health and stress that must mean for those people. It is beyond, certainly, my imagination.

Very briefly, I just want to say that I get that the Welsh Government say that this is something that is not the responsibility of the public purse and that it is down to developers, but that is absolutely no help to those people that we're aware of—those people in those flats who are just hanging by a thread. I would urge the Welsh Government to consider the model that has been outlined by my colleague Rhys that is in Australia at the moment, because this is about not just Wales, not just the UK, but other countries. We can learn, we can look at what works there. Let us make sure that we think about those people and those individuals. Let us adopt the Australia model—give the money, recoup the costs later—because that's what we should be doing. We need to protect those people and their mental health. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Over four years and five months have passed since the catastrophe at Grenfell Tower, where 72 people sadly and devastatingly died. Now, there are residents across Wales living in fear in flats to this day. So, how can it be the case that, four years on from the tragedy, whilst announcing that the Welsh Government will fund fire-safety surveys for multi-occupied buildings over 11m, the Minister for Climate Change could state that

'What we do not yet know is exactly how many buildings are affected and to what extent'?

I think that is a scandal. On the twenty-ninth, the Minister reiterated, and I quote,

'we do not yet know exactly how many buildings are affected by fire safety defects and to what extent.'

You just keep pushing it into the long grass. In my view, it's exactly what you have said, Jane, and others have articulately mentioned here today. This situation isn't going to go away with rhetoric from the Welsh Government Minister, and I am really quite upset to think that this could even be used politically by saying, 'We're waiting for the UK Government.' Such information that is required now to put an effective strategy in place is required. So, I would be pleased if the Minister would actually take this matter very, very seriously indeed and update us on what progress is being made in securing the figures and detail as to the extent of defects.

This, to me, is almost like another rehearsal of conversations we've held in this Senedd during the last term when I spoke up on issues such as this. You know, for all the new Members that are here, it is actually quite sad to be reiterating the need for us to be doing this. For one block, the total cost of repair work, including the replacement of cladding, has been estimated at £60,000 per flat. I've spoken to people living in these properties, and they say they go to bed fearful for their own lives and they cannot sleep, which again endorses what you've said, Jane, about mental health issues. We know there is cross-party consensus on the need to ensure that the financial burden does not fall on the residents. Avoiding such an outcome is a complex matter, but I am aware the Minister has had a round-table meeting with developers just last month, so details on this outcome would be helpful, Minister.

This legislative proposal would be a key opportunity through which we could legislate to ensure that this burden, to make sure safe cladding is available on buildings, falls with the developer rather than the leaseholder. It could also be a means through which to further explore the proposal of a buy-out scheme to support leaseholders who are impacted by building safety and would prefer to sell their property. However, I do hope that Rhys, Mike, Peter and Jane will also agree that legislation needs to go even further and address safety issues such as maintaining compartmentation. The building safety White Paper started this process, but, despite the consultation closing on 12 April of this year, the Welsh Government website is reporting just today that

The Member needs to conclude now.

You do have my support, but I wonder whether the proposal for the cladding safety Bill could be incorporated into ongoing work on building safety. Diolch.

I call on the Minister for Climate Change, Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The remediation of unsafe high-rise residential buildings is absolutely a priority for the Welsh Government, and combustible cladding is one part of that. [Inaudible.]

Minister, we've lost your sound. We've got it back. Do you want to—? We heard the first sentence, but that was about it.

Okay. I don't know what's happening there. Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay. So, I started by saying that the remediation of unsafe, high-rise residential buildings is a priority for the Welsh Government, and combustible cladding is one part of that. We've consistently—[Inaudible.]—and it's right—. Has it gone again?

There's something. We got it consistently and then we lost you again. I think your microphone up above your head isn't helping.

It's not above my head, it's right here. Anyway, I'll take my headphones off and see if I can make any difference with that. Is that better or is that worse?

That's better.

Okay, I'll try it like that. There's a building site just outside my room here, so I just hope there aren't too many noises off.

So, I was just saying that we've consistently held the view that leaseholders did not create the issues that have been identified, and it's right that those responsible should pay to rectify them. In October 2020 I wrote an open letter to developers to that effect, and in October of this year I met with a number of developers, alongside local councils, to discuss their plans for remediating buildings with safety defects. We are very pleased that a number of Welsh developers have since set aside funds to replace cladding and address other fire safety work on properties in Wales. It's reassuring to see that, in some cases, the commitment does extend beyond just the cladding where necessary to make those buildings safe, and that they are also taking responsibility for buildings under 18m. However, it is a matter of regret that some of the large developers responsible for these buildings have not come to that process and have not yet responded to that, so I will be getting in touch with them again to try and force them to the table, though we have no powers at the moment to be able to make them do so.

We also put the Building (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2019 in place, and they came into force in January 2020. That bans combustible materials from the exterior of high-rise residential buildings, hospitals and care homes. We've made significant progress in relation to non-compliant ACM, as it's called—aluminium composite material cladding—as was found on the Grenfell Tower. We've already seen all unsafe ACM removed from the majority of high-rise buildings in Wales, and the last remaining buildings have work under way on them right now.

But we know that cladding is by no means the only building safety issue. The Welsh Government has always been clear that our approach needs to be absolutely holistic, dealing with a multitude of issues like firebreaks, compartmentation, fire escape routes, and so on. We know that the effects are having a significant impact on leaseholders and residents. I myself have met with a very large number of them over the course of many months, and we know that this is having an effect financially and from a well-being perspective, as all the Members who've contributed today have said.

We're committed to supporting residents and leaseholders and we're working hard to develop those options. Our expressions of interest opened for the Welsh building safety fund on 30 September. We've had well over 100 responses to that so far. They will identify the measures and actions required to make the multiresidential buildings as safe as can be, and protect lives and property. We haven't restricted that to buildings over 18m; we've taken that down below that in order to make sure we catch all of the people who are affected, and we intend to offer a package of support to leaseholders and residents that will allow them to feel safe in their homes and make decisions about the future.

I call on Rhys ab Owen to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Gweinidog. I'm glad to hear about the building safety Bill that will be brought forward in this Senedd. Hopefully, that can be done sooner rather than later. I'm also glad to hear about surveyors being on site in January, but I am very disappointed with two things—one being the large developers not willing even to entertain discussions with you, Minister. That is hugely disappointing, and I hope Welsh Government and local authorities bear that in mind when it comes to procurement policy, because if they're not willing even to discuss, there should be penalties for that because they're not the type of developers we should be working with.

The second huge disappointment that's obvious from your answers is yet again the inter-governmental breakdown of relationships between Welsh Government and UK Government, and I look here to my colleagues here and colleagues on the Labour benches. This needs to be sorted out, because only one group are missing out, are suffering because of this, and these are the leaseholders themselves. We need to sort this out. Work together, for God's sake.

Peter Fox, thank you for your support. Thank you for raising this issue previous to this in the Senedd. I know the residents are very happy, and I agree developers should not get away. You mentioned meeting people from Celestia; I met them again today. They had a kettle with them. I thought, 'Why on earth have they got a kettle with them?' It's because they are of the clear view that a person purchasing a kettle has more consumer rights, has more protection, than a leaseholder. Well, that is absolutely shocking.

As Mike Hedges said, people's lives are on hold. Young families, growing families can't move. Pensioners who are on the eighth floor can't move. It is not good enough.

Mabon ap Gwynfor asked, 'Who is responsible?', and he said that it's the greed of some causing difficulties and anguish to others. And I hope we will have this Welsh legislation that the Minister has mentioned as soon as possible.

Jane Dodds also mentioned people's lives being on hold, and reminded us again that people are at the centre of this.

I agree with Janet Finch-Saunders—we need to know the number. And I agree that fire safety is far more than just cladding, as the Minister also mentioned.

I hope—I see that time is up, but I very much hope that Members will support this motion. Thank you very much.

The proposal is to note the proposal. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item is item 7, the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee and the Equality and Social Justice Committee debate on the well-being of future generations Act 2015: scrutiny of implementation. I call on the Chair of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee to move the motion—Mark Isherwood.

Well, I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak in this joint committee debate as Chair of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee. Joint committee debates are uncommon and this debate highlights the importance of the Senedd taking a collaborative, non-partisan approach to scrutinising the well-being of future generations Act 2015. This aspirational flagship legislation cuts across all we do here in Wales to ensure that our public services deliver efficiently and sustainably for our future generations.

Several months ago, my predecessor stood in this Siambr and spoke about the findings of the then Public Accounts Committee's report on 'Delivering for Future Generations: The story so far'. The report found that inconsistent leadership and slow culture change were failing the aspirations of the Act, since it became law six years ago. It was the first time that a Senedd committee had conducted comprehensive scrutiny of implementation of the Act, with 97 organisations contributing to the inquiry. It was complex work that focused on looking at the bigger picture and what barriers to implementation were common to most, if not all, public services. It took a broad view on the fundamental problems lying behind everyone's efforts to implement the Act. Our predecessor committee's report made 14 recommendations mainly aimed at the Welsh Government.

On 5 October 2021, the Minister for Social Justice made a plenary statement on the well-being of future generations national implementation. The statement was broad, and while it made reference to the previous Public Accounts Committee report, it was not a response to the recommendations contained in it. At that time, the Welsh Government had still not published its responses to all three reports that had looked at the implementation of the Act, including the first statutory reports by the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales and the Auditor General for Wales, published in May 2020.

Responding to the Minister's statement, I expressed concern that it was not possible to have an adequate debate without all of the relevant responses being available, adding that a worrying precedent was being set in the way the Welsh Government responded to these reports and that this unusual approach must not happen again. I raised concerns about the Welsh Government's response of accepting in principle the majority of the recommendations in the committee's report, despite assertions we received previously that this practice would cease. It is the collective view of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee that the use of 'accept in principle' must not be used in response to committee reports again and recommendations must be either accepted or rejected. When further work is required to implement a recommendation, or if a deadline for implementation cannot be met, this should be set out clearly in the detail of the response.

Since the Minister's statement, the Welsh Government has now published its responses to all three reports looking at the Act, and today, we have the opportunity to debate these fully. However, this has only been brought about by the proactive and pragmatic joint approach taken by myself and the Chair of the Equality and Social Justice Committee in requesting this joint debate. I hope that this signifies and sends out a clear message about the seriousness with which Senedd committees approach their scrutiny and discharge our duties of holding the Welsh Government to account.

Time and again, we've heard that not enough has been done to achieve this and bring about the shift to sustainable development across public services that the Act seeks to deliver. We can all appreciate that raising awareness and understanding and changing culture take time. However, the Act was passed nearly six years ago.

Although public bodies have had adequate time and the opportunity to take those vital steps towards embedding sustainable development in all public services, we are simply not seeing words translate into tangible action. It is still not clear what difference the Act has made to the way that public bodies operate. More work is needed to support public bodies charged with implementing the Act, to understand not only the seven well-being goals, but also the five ways of working set out in the Act.

In his statutory report, the auditor general states that public bodies must improve how they apply each of the five ways of working if they are going to effect genuine cultural change—the very essence of the Act. From his earlier 2018 report, the auditor general asked public bodies how their process for setting well-being objectives had differed from how they had set corporate objectives previously. Most said that it had been different, but often failed to give a detailed explanation of how, or give examples of how they had used all of the five ways of working.

Yet, a further three years on, we are still asking the same question. Without this shift in cultural change, we cannot overcome the barriers to implementing this Act. The five ways of working must take centre stage as we look to make real gains in sustainable development, including involvement and collaboration. As Building Communities Trust states, we must highlight the key role that communities and their organisations play in delivering the future generations Act's ambitions of improved well-being citizen involvement and collaboration.

The auditor general is responsible for assessing the extent to which public bodies have adopted the sustainable development principle when setting and working towards their well-being objectives. In practice, this means that he is responsible for assessing whether bodies are adopting the five ways of working.

In response to the recommendations made to the auditor general in our predecessor committee's report, we welcome the updated guidance that he has issued to auditors, which raises expectations of audited bodies in adopting the sustainable development principle. We also welcome his statement that public bodies should ensure that the Act's principles are enshrined in their COVID recovery plans.

Recommendation 2 of our predecessor committee’s report called on the Welsh Government to review funding available to public services boards, or PSBs. In its response, the Welsh Government says that it considers

I call on the Chair of the Equality and Social Justice Committee, Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you. I'd like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to Nick Ramsay, who chaired the Public Accounts Committee, and this report he headed, and he said in his foreword that, ultimately, making the well-being of future generations Act work

'depends on everyone and every public body.'

Though, of course, it sits more heavily on some than others. It is our core duty as a Senedd to hold the Welsh Government and the other 43 bodies named in the Act to account, and it can be quite challenging to keep the five ways of working in mind as strategies for delivering all the seven well-being goals: prosperous, resilient, globally responsible, healthier, more equal and more cohesive communities, which have a vibrant culture, including a thriving Welsh language.

This morning on the radio, I was presciently reminded that

'The way a culture treats women in birth is a good indicator of how well women and their contributions to society are valued and honored.'

And the quote, from Ina May Gaskin, operating in the most overmedicalised and wealthiest country in the world, where women's role in reproducing the human race is deemed so unimportant that it provides them with little to no financial or legal rights in law.

But this institution, and the Welsh Government, is not responsible, for example, for the constant erosion of child benefit by the UK Government at the other end of the M4. However, we obviously have a huge responsibility for ensuring any child born today has the best possible chance of being prosperous, resilient, healthy and globally responsible, as an active member of a cohesive, more equal, vibrant and at least bilingual country and citizen of the world. Given the unprecedented challenges occasioned by the pandemic, the economic upheavals of adjusting to a dysfunctional globalised economy that is no longer fit for purpose in the context of the climate emergency, if the well-being of future generations Act didn't exist, we would have to invent it. So, 'da iawn' and thank you so much, Carl Sargeant, and all the other people who were involved in creating this Act. It really does provide us with a crucial framework for providing our way through the complexities of the decisions we need to make with really very limited resources. We have no choice but to ask, 'What can we do differently in order to achieve the change I hope we can make on behalf of the people who elected us to do this job?'

In line with recommendation 13 and 14, the Business Committee has assigned to the Equality and Social Justice Committee the lead cross-cutting role of scrutinising this revolutionary Act, but that does not absolve members of other committees. We all have to take the Act just as seriously as the 44 public bodies we must scrutinise. Every committee must see it as their responsibility to incorporate the principles and aims of the Act in their day-to-day work.

I welcome this report, which represents a constructive and positive approach to making the well-being of future generations Act work better for the people of Wales. And like my colleague, who just spoke earlier about the people who took their time and effort—previous Members who participated in making the report—I appreciate their hard work and dedication, and also that of the clerks as well. Now, being a new member on the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee myself, I know that it really does take a village—also every single Member and not only that but all of the administrative team as well—to create a report like this as well.

This report specifically looks at the barriers to the implementation of the Act, as such, in both a timely and also a relevant manner. It is the first time a comprehensive review of the work carried out under the Act by the various bodies responsible for its implementation has indeed been carried out. But it does raise a number of issues. It is clear that there's a lack of public awareness about the Act and the shift that has taken place towards sustainable development in the governance and delivery of public services here in Wales. The report concludes that public bodies have not done enough to build awareness and understanding amongst their service users. They have not done enough to change the culture of their own organisations to align with the principles of the Act and are yet to take full advantage of the expertise and capacity within the third and private sectors to support their work under the Act.

We cannot look at the issue of implementation without examining the adequacy of funding. The Auditor General for Wales highlighted three main issues that present key barriers for organisations and the majority of witnesses mentioned at least one of them in their evidence. There is the short-term nature of some funding flows, which hamper the ability of public bodies to plan effectively for the long term; a lack of flexibility in how some parts of grant funding can be spent, and the fact that public bodies are only made aware of the availability of funding later on in the financial year. A significant proportion of the funding that public bodies receive from the Welsh Government is determined and awarded annually and it has been a long complaint that these short-term funding cycles are indeed a barrier for implementation. The report is sympathetic to the calls from public bodies for longer term funding cycles and makes the point that legislation that requires public bodies to plan for future generations is more difficult to implement properly if budgets are guaranteed for as little as one year at a time.

Central to ensuring that sustainable development is at the front and centre of public services is the future generations commissioner. Feedback from public bodies and from wider stakeholders was that the commissioner's public profile was positive and that her office is doing an excellent job in promoting and raising awareness of the Act, which is all great to hear. However, some concerns were raised by public bodies about the lack of sufficient practical support that they received, the length of reports produced and the need to refocus the work of the commissioner's office to support them more effectively in their work. The report recommends that the future generations commissioner and Welsh public bodies work closely together to develop constructive relationships to maximise the impact of their collaboration.

The well-being of future generations Act that passed through this Senedd has been hailed by many as world-leading legislation. I thank the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee for the opportunity to debate whether the reality of this legislation lives up to its reputation.

Although born from innovation and good faith, as the Act has unfolded over the past few years, it's clear it does not accomplish what it intended. Firstly, it's aspirational without being enforceable. Attempts to rely on the Act have been used in the judicial system on several occasions now, and have been thrown out of court every time for lack of enforceability. Its first attempted use was to challenge a school closure, but the case was dismissed in 2019 by High Court judge Mrs Justice Lambert, who said the Act could not trigger a judicial review. The QC bringing the case, Rhodri Williams, said:

'unless individuals can rely on these rights—if they feel they haven't been upheld—to challenge the decisions of public bodies, the act is virtually useless',

despite it being filled with 'fantastic-sounding phrases'.

And doesn't it epitomise the problem? This Act isn't meant to be for the people and for it to empower communities to access the future they wish to see. This Act should have been a gift to communities across Wales, but instead it is toothless. It's clear that its mechanisms and influence need to be strengthened.

Another problem is that the Act isn't used or utilised correctly. The Wales Audit Office, who reviewed the impact of the Act in 2018, found that public bodies must show that they are applying the Act more systematically, prompting the future generations commissioner to call on public bodies to be more ambitious, adventurous and resourceful if the Act is to fulfil its potential. With a lack of capacity and resources to understand and analyse the implications of the Act, I fear public bodies view the Act as a tick-box exercise. One example is the sale of Trecadwgan farm in Pembrokeshire. The farm was put up for public auction in 2018 when the council's tenancy came to an end. Afraid that this would lead to a holiday cottage development, a group of local people planned to purchase the property as a community. Funds were raised and a business plan drawn up for an organic farm that would provide to its community healthy food, education and training in agricultural methods and a social and cultural hub. This would have met the well-being of future generations Act on its goals and principles. But, inevitably, without the council's buy-in to the well-being objectives, the property was sold to the highest bidder from outside Wales. The county council's reasoning for this was that by maximising profit from the sale to spend elsewhere, it was obtaining the best value for its constituents. The local people were powerless to challenge the decision and stuck with nothing but wasted potential and a result that did nothing to serve the local community.

As this is my first debate, since being elected, on the well-being of future generations Act, I'd like to start by thanking the many people who made this happen, especially many of those people behind the scenes, whose names we'll never probably know publicly, but who really did put their blood, sweat and tears into this trailblazing legislation. And I don't use that phrase lightly, because I really do believe the well-being of future generations Act is very much a labour of love and hope and determination to make a fairer, greener and happier Wales. And the beauty of the Act is that it forces us to look at our own point in history, this time right here and right now, not only as individuals, but as a species on this planet that we share with many others for a fraction of a time, because we have not always been the only humans here, but we are the only ones left.

And I think, as was starkly highlighted by many at COP26, including Greta Thunberg and David Attenborough, it is painfully obvious that some of our weaknesses as a species include being creatures of habit, resistant to change and relying on natural resources as if there is an endless supply. Our lives are busy and stressful, our population growing, and the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest in our society continues to grow. I believe the well-being of future generations Act is unique in forcing us to face these tendencies and issues together and think of the future, for not just ourselves, but others. It encapsulates the values of socialism: caring about strangers, people you'll never meet, people who aren't even born yet. As Jenny Rathbone just said, if it didn't exist, we would be trying to make it happen.

And you can very much see that reflected in the future generations commissioner's the 'Art of the Possible' programme of work partnership approach, shining a light on the great work that is improving well-being across Wales, encouraging people to set out a positive vision of the possible, of what Wales could look like if our public bodies respond to the opportunities that the legislation provides to make better decisions for future generations.

Furthermore, I think it is commendable to see that, with such a huge brief, with big goals and high expectations, the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales's office is forging a path that incorporates the 17 sustainable development goals and aims to create an equal, prosperous, resilient and healthy Wales. This has been particularly relevant in the wake of COVID-19, and I'm pleased to see that our Welsh Government is considering the well-being of future generations Act in its recovery strategy to build a stronger, greener, fairer Wales, particularly in relation to the commissioner's 'A Fit for the Future Programme for Government', which includes specific ideas for investing in the decarbonisation of homes, the new nation transport strategy and the continuing development of skills policy.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I'd like to start by thanking the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee and the Equality and Social Justice Committee for their joint work in bringing forward this debate. The essential role that this Senedd, the Welsh Parliament, has in the well-being of future generations framework is one of the key features of the Welsh approach to sustainable development, and I do welcome the focus of the debate being on scrutiny of implementation. If we look across the world, parliaments are playing a key role in scrutinising action on the sustainable development agenda, but of course, we have a unique opportunity to debate this in light of our well-being of future generations legislation, which reached its five-year milestone last year. And the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales herself has reminded us that Wales is the only country to legislate in this way, using a long-term approach to look at root causes of problems in a law that's admired globally.

So, the Act, we believe—and I think it's been expressed today in this Chamber—is permeating and driving continuous improvement in how Government and public bodies work, so that future generations can expect a better quality of life on a healthy planet. The debate gives me the opportunity to show how the key duties in the Act have been implemented and recognise the efforts by all in making it work. So, public bodies have set their well-being objectives, published well-being statements about their contribution to the goals, and they are reporting each year on what they're doing. Public services boards have been established and assessments of local well-being have been completed; local well-being plans are in place and progress on them is being reported annually.

But I would like to respond to and thank Jenny Rathbone, the Chair of the Equality and Social Justice Committee, for her particular point and question about public services boards, because they are an essential part of localising Wales's well-being goals and they bring key partners together in partnership, and they do steer places on a more sustainable path and they are approaching their work differently, as you say, Jenny. They're becoming more targeted in focusing their efforts, they're identifying areas where collective action can have the biggest impact. And there is excellent work being done by PSBs in response to the recovery, such as Monmouthshire—and I'm sure Peter Fox is aware of that, as the former leader; the PSBs' collaborative project on active citizenship; and also the Cwm Taf work on adverse childhood experiences as well. So, PSBs have an important role and they've been galvanised, in fact, in terms of responding to the recovery of communities following COVID-19. This isn't additional work for PSBs; it's actually a continuation of their core work in improving the well-being of their areas.

I do recognise what the Chair, Mark Isherwood, has said in terms of the five ways—that we need that cultural shift. When people grasp the five ways of working, it actually helps them with their planning and decision making. We are, rightly, today debating the extent to which the sustainable development principle is being applied, whether objectives are being delivered, and what the Act asks. That's what the Act is asking of us, and what the auditor and commissioner are reporting on. But we know this isn't straightforward in terms of the path to well-being goals. They are drivers, and there are drivers that are out of our control, and we need to be resilient to them. But also we need innovation and different choices to be considered in terms of making progress.

The strength of the Act is its focus on ways of working that enable much more sustainable choices to be identified. There will be the views, of course, including those on the commission, on whether decisions by public bodies or Government should be different. Of course, there are improvements to be made. I recognise obviously from Peredur Griffiths's contribution that there have been questions about, 'Is it strong enough? Do we need post-legislative reviews of it?' Obviously, we want to keep that position under review, but we don't want to divert efforts at this stage from the progress that's been made with the well-being of future generations legislation. We think that we are on a path to progress, which is very important, but as I said, we keep the position under review. But we are committed to a review of the public bodies subject to the Act, and I think that's going to be important, and that will allow us to review this part of the legislation and address the recommendations from the former Public Accounts Committee.

So, just in terms of my concluding remarks, we need to improve awareness of the legislation. We have our stakeholder forum, which is now being set up, the national stakeholder forum, and they'll be discussing this later this week. I'm looking forward to hearing their views. But what is emerging in our favour is that there are organisations and groups who don't have to comply at this stage, but are volunteering to comply. Transport for Wales is developing a sustainable development plan shaped by the future generations approach, detailing how they're looking to the future, joining up railroad and active travel. The Football Association of Wales earlier this month committed to creating a sustainability strategy fully aligned with our well-being of future generations legislation. Community groups like Bronllys Well-being Park in Brecon are shaping their vision for their local park in terms of a well-being of current and future generations approach. That's crucial.

So, I think we are in a position where we are promoting the importance of legislation for the future. I'm so grateful to Sarah Murphy for her contribution today, because I think it does inspire people when they say, 'We are looking to the well-being of future generations.' The UK Parliament, Lord John Bird and Simon Fell MP co-sponsoring a well-being of future generations Bill through the UK Parliament, modelled on our legislation. Scotland, they're committed to future generations legislation. And further afield we have the United Nations making substantial commitments to bring in a future generations approach into the UN system, committing to a special envoy for future generations, future reports and events.

I call on Jenny Rathbone to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much. Natasha Asghar, I think, made some very succinct points that were really helpful, which the Minister has picked up. I don't think the public is ever going to be particularly aware of the Act. People are not going to read the Act, but they do need to know about the principles underpinning all the public bodies who are named in the Act. I don't think that we can be blaming the Act for public bodies who haven't sufficiently engaged with the citizens that are affected by a particular measure. I think it's good to hear that the Minister has given some reassurances about increased flexibilities on how funding can be spent, and to give public bodies longer term funding so that they can meet that objective, rather than always having to have yearly cycles.

Shorter reports, absolutely. I think that point's been made. This tome, it has got lots of stuff in it, but few people will have read it from cover to cover. But I think the future generations commissioner has heard us on that, and she produced a really, really succinct report very recently on how we approach retrofitting, which is a really challenging subject. It's full of facts and figures, and it's only about 16 pages long. So, well done. It's going to be a really useful tool for working out how we approach that really important matter.

Peredur, obviously glass half full as far as you're concerned. You think that the Act should have been the gift that communities need to ensure that they feel more consulted and more involved in decisions that affect their lives. Obviously, involving citizens cannot be a tick-box exercise, but I do think that the Act does actually give them more clout than you give it credit for. It was never intended to be a mechanism by which we would hold up change, because no change is absolutely not an option. It is about ensuring, though, that we've got the right change and that all the stakeholders are involved in having their say on that change, and ensuring that public bodies who are tasked with that particular thing are actually making the right decisions within the framework of the Act. I hesitate to disagree with the venerable judge that the Act is not fit for purpose, but the Act cannot rectify the shortcomings of public bodies. It's public bodies themselves who have to address that.

We need to have a can-do attitude to this, and I'd like to quote the chief executive of Natural Resources Wales, who told the committee it's no use moaning about funding,

'moaning about funding is not going to help anybody. We're in a really difficult situation and we have to make the best of what we've got.'

Absolutely. We all need to do that. And so, we really do need to, I think, use the tools that the Act provides us to find the path forward in the difficult situation we all face. It was great to hear Sarah Murphy having the approach to the Act that I hope will be very, very useful in the way that the Equality and Social Justice Committee does its work.

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.

The next item today is the Welsh Conservatives debate on the regulation of animal rescue and rehoming centres. I call on Samuel Kurtz to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion in the name of Darren Millar and it gives me great pleasure to do so, as Wales is a nation of animal lovers.

Due to the pandemic, many of us have spent more time at home than usual. For me, I had man's best friend in my lockdown bubble—my trusted yet yappy Jack Russell Terrier, Cadi. The challenges of the last 18 months were made easier by having those walks along the coast with Cadi, and I know countless other people and families welcomed new furry additions into their homes throughout the pandemic. Just as we see every Christmas, there was a sharp surge in the number of households that purchased a lockdown puppy or quarantine cat. It is estimated by the Pet Food Manufacturers Association that a total of 3.2 million households in the UK have acquired a pet since the start of the pandemic.

However, as the novelty of owning a canine companion or feline friend wore off, a worrying number of owners realised the commitment that comes with providing a pet with their forever home. And so, it fell on Wales's animal rescue and rehoming centres to provide a haven to those pets whose owners couldn't or wouldn't look after them any longer. Whilst many owners were sensible in contacting their local rehoming centres, there were some truly horrific instances whereby owners were dumping their once-beloved pets on the sides of quiet country lanes, in the hope that their misjudged lockdown purchases could be easily forgotten and erased.

Unfortunately, this was not an uncommon occurrence. Up and down Wales, there are rescue centres and sanctuaries that have now reached a crisis point. RSPCA Cymru highlight that the 998 cases of pet abandonment that have occurred in the first 10 months of this year have already surpassed the total amount for the whole of 2020. This demonstrates the increasing pressures on centres that are struggling to meet the demand. Not only does today's motion highlight the important work of these centres, but it also calls on the Welsh Government to strengthen existing animal welfare regulations to address these situations. It also recognises the growing pressures placed on the animal sanctuaries and rehoming centres across Wales and seeks to safeguard the welfare of those animals in their care.

I would certainly like to take this opportunity to broadly welcome the Minister's latest animal welfare plan for Wales 2021-26. However, and as this motion explains, we share the sector's view that this plan does not go far enough in its attempts to safeguard the welfare of animals in Wales. In the 15 years that this place has had the relevant powers, successive Welsh Labour Governments have failed to deliver on a clear strategy that addresses the root causes of today's animal welfare problems. This motion seeks to reinforce the animal welfare sector's calls to regulate Wales's currently unknown number of animal rescue and rehoming centres and sanctuaries, but it places a specific focus on those that operate online. However, we also seek to implement a strict timeline in which this can be achieved.

I have selected the amendment to the motion. I call on the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, Lesley Griffiths, to move formally the amendment tabled in her name.

Formally.

I wanted to say a short word in this debate this afternoon. If I look back over the years that I've served in this place, concerns about some animal shelters and rescue establishments are one thing that I saw in Mid and West Wales, and I see today in Blaenau Gwent. I see people who are genuinely distressed by the things that they have witnessed. I see people who have done their best to support rescue centres but feel that they have been taken advantage of, and centres that simply are cruel. And we need to do something about it.

We have a responsibility, I believe, to act on this matter. Wednesday afternoons are well known in this place for talking. I think that we have talked enough. I was disappointed to see the Government amendment to this motion, which deleted the commitment to legislate and to bring in regulations by 2023. I'm looking to the Minister for a very clear and convincing explanation of why that is. Those of us who campaigned on Lucy's law in the last Senedd were exceptionally frustrated and disappointed with the time that it took the Government to act on this matter, and we do not want to enter this new Senedd with more frustration about the Government's inability to act on these matters. So, I think that we will be looking for very clear explanations for that.

I have seen too much suffering in these establishments to remain silent and to remain unmoved by these matters. So, I hope that we will be able to ensure that we have the law in place—and the law in the right place—to ensure that we do have the regulatory regime that meets the highest possible welfare standards at all times in the future. But, more than that, I believe that we do need then to have the regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure that the law can be properly delivered.

One of the things that I've witnessed in Blaenau Gwent is a local authority that is simply unable to provide the regulation that is needed. Members across the Chamber will know that I believe that the Senedd as a whole lets down people in Wales every time it allows small authorities like Blaenau Gwent to get away with not serving the people of the borough. In these matters, I have seen for long enough the borough being unable—simply without the resource—to deliver effective regulation of these establishments.

So, I hope, Minister, that we will be able to be reassured that we have in place the law. And then I hope that we will be able to be reassured that we will have in place the means of delivering the law. At the moment, I don't believe that, in many parts of Wales, we have either in place. So, certainly looking ahead, across the future in this Senedd, I will want to see not just a regulatory regime, but I will want to see the resources that deliver that regulation wherever it is needed. Thank you.

It's a pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon. As a nation of pet lovers, we should have the most stringent animal welfare standards in the world. Sadly, the reality is far from it. As with many things, the Welsh Government has good intentions. Its animal welfare plan, while widely welcomed, even on this side of the Chamber, lacks any sense of urgency. It's a step in the right direction but a step behind other UK nations. As the Companion Animal Welfare Group Wales highlight, delays in implementing standards for rescue and rehoming centres risk the loopholes that exist in current legislation being exploited, to the detriment of companion animals. We need tough welfare measures to ensure companion animals are protected.

Whilst the vast majority of companion animals are well looked after, there are still those who mistreat animals, sometimes through malice, but often simply because they are unable to cope, which is why we have nearly 100 animal sanctuaries in Wales in the first place. Neglect can often happen because pet owners were simply unprepared for pet ownership. The pandemic, together with its work-from-home restrictions saw an explosion in companion animal ownership. Dog ownership saw a massive increase. People seeking companionship brought a new dog or cat into their lives, but as the economy started to open back up, so did the return to the office. Animals went from having their owners around 24/7 to being abandoned for half the day. Many new owners couldn't cope, and we saw a massive uptake in demand for rehoming services—rehoming services that are largely unregulated and unmonitored.

While the vast majority of these animal sanctuaries provide a vital service and maintain high welfare standards, sadly not all do. Sanctuaries and rescues are not subject to regulation, which essentially means that anyone can set one up, regardless as to whether they have the skills or resources needed to care for animals. Even well-run sanctuaries can fail. In my hometown of Prestatyn, a rescue centre that had been operating for decades—the Abandoned Animals Association—recently went out of business, leading to many animals needing to be urgently rehomed, yet there is nothing stopping me setting up a sanctuary tomorrow, if I wanted to. However, a worse proposition than me running a cat or dog home is allowing an unlicensed cat or dog breeder to operate a rescue centre in order to hide their real modus operandi.

To bypass the laws prohibiting third-party sales of kittens and puppies, we are behind the rest of the UK in taking steps to close this loophole, just as we are behind when it comes to microchipping kittens. If the Welsh Government has more than good intentions, it must take action to protect the welfare of companion animals in Wales. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but heaven is built on good works. Companion animals need us to act on their behalf, and I urge Members to support our motion this afternoon. Thank you very much.

I'm very grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important issue today, namely animal welfare. It's an issue that I'm sure each and every one of us believes is important, because our constituents are of course very concerned about this issue. Indeed, data from 2019 suggests that a quarter of the Welsh population owns a cat and one in three is a dog owner—the feline friends and the canine companions, as Sam Kurtz referred to earlier.

However, one could argue that many of the laws relating to the trading of companion animals are very dated now. Selling pets online, for example, is something that couldn't have been imagined by those who drafted the companion animal legislation back in 1951, 70 years ago. The world has changed so much since that legislation was passed.

Plaid Cymru has called consistently on the Government to work with stakeholders to build on the high level of animal welfare that is already in place in Wales, and for that reason, Plaid Cymru will support the Conservative motion today, as it does reflect those principles in full and calls for further action from the Welsh Government that will have a positive impact on animal welfare.

The pandemic, of course, has had a huge impact on the capacity and funding of a number of animal welfare organisations the length and breadth of the country. For example, the Dogs Trust in Bridgend saw a reduction of 44 per cent in rehoming rates for dogs, whilst the demand for rehoming had increased by 73 per cent between April 2020 and March 2021—that's a very significant increase indeed.

Likewise, there was a significant impact on the dogs' school education programme because of the pandemic. The number of owners that participated in training programmes in 2020 was reduced by 73 per cent as compared to the previous year. The sector, therefore, needs our support to help them to reach out to communities across Wales to safeguard animal welfare. And although I welcome the Welsh Government animal welfare plan, the sector has concerns in terms of rescuing animals from harm and the rehoming centres, specifically in terms of the timelines outlined and the lack of urgency.

Dirprwy Lywydd, any delay in regulating rescue and homing activity compromises the welfare of dogs and cats, risks the loopholes in current dog breeding legislation continuing and undermines the effectiveness of pet vending laws, prohibiting third party sales and puts Wales behind other UK nations, as we've already heard. Some in the sector are concerned that this issue is being pushed into the long grass, when urgency is needed to protect the welfare of companion animals in Wales. And I'm also concerned, as mentioned by Alun Davies previously, that local authorities, who are often also on the front line when it comes to monitoring and enforcing animal welfare matters, may not have the human or financial capacity to help execute their duties effectively. So, while the guidance surrounding Wales's new pet selling licensing scheme is welcome, there's been little indication as to how local authorities will be supported financially. As their portfolio of animal welfare-related responsibilities will likely continue to increase following the publication of the animal welfare plan for Wales, and with legislation like the UK Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill on the horizon, we must ensure, therefore, that local authorities are equipped with adequate funding and resources.

To close, I look forward to hearing other contributions across the Siambr during this debate, and hope the Government's response will outline how they intend to tackle the postcode lottery of animal welfare services across Wales, which is becoming increasingly evident. Diolch yn fawr.

I'd like to thank my colleague Sam Kurtz for bringing this debate to the Chamber; it's very important for all the hard work he does for animals outside of this Chamber as well.

Now, for years, I've always wanted to have a pet cat or dog. I remember at the age of nine going on a religious pilgrimage with my mother, who said to me in the most holy place considered to many on earth, 'Natasha, during this pilgrimage, whatever you ask God for, you will get it.' I stood there, all of nine years old, looked up at the sky and said, 'God, I want a cat.' Spoiler alert: I did not get the cat. But there have been at least 10 opportunities following where I could have had one.

The reason why I never actually got a cat or dog was simply because I was told by my parents, 'Natasha, a pet is for life, it's not just going to be for your birthday or for Christmas.' Growing up, like many of you who have children or those Members who are perhaps not in the Chamber with us today, like you, my parents both worked full time, and they were very much of the belief that if we were not at home, and I was at school at the time, it would cause distress to the animal being left at home alone for many hours in the day, and that was not something that any of us could have lived with. I'm currently trying very hard right now to convince my mother that we need a dog, and have almost succeeded, so I'll keep you posted as to whether that happens or not.

For years, I've held tremendous respect for the charities and sanctuaries all across Wales and all across the United Kingdom, and I truly, from every ounce of my soul, commend all of the staff who work tirelessly to protect animals of all shapes and sizes and from all backgrounds.

Last Thursday, I had the greatest pleasure of visiting RSPCA's Newport animal centre. I saw some animals who had really suffered a lot due to negligence and sheer violence at the hands of humans, and my heart truly bled for them. They may not have been able to speak up for themselves, but it's key that every single one of us as politicians speak up for them, not just members of the public, but for animals as well.

Like its other centres, the Newport animal centre complies with rigorous welfare standards, and the RSPCA has long called for a wider regulatory framework for animal welfare in Wales. This includes the licensing of sanctuaries, rehoming centres and also other establishments. We are holding this debate today to regulate these establishments to offer legal protection to the animals inside Wales's estimated 90 sanctuaries.

Unlike other establishments, such as riding schools, dog breeders and cat boarders, sanctuaries and rescues are not currently subject to regulations. Essentially, as my colleague Gareth Davies said, this means that anyone can set one up, regardless of whether they have the skills or resources needed to care for animals, which is really worrying for someone like myself.

May I thank Sam Kurtz for bringing forward this debate to the Siambr today? Thank you very much, Sam.

If I can start from a personal perspective, I've spoken about my own eight-year-old rescue dog Arthur, who was a racing greyhound. Arthur came to us when he was six, he was in a pretty bad state. That was down to the fact that he had been a racing greyhound, where they are very cruelly treated, and also in relation to the rescue home, where they were doing their best in order to look after him. Many, I know, across this Chamber, want to see greyhound racing banned, and that's for another day, but we can't actually take that step until we know that those dogs and others will be properly cared for. So, I was very surprised to hear that there is no legislation currently in place in Wales and that we are really behind other nations in the UK on this issue.

I will be supporting the legislative whatever-it-is—debate by the Conservatives today, and I won't be supporting the amendments, because I feel it's so important that we have a timeline in there. I do, of course, welcome the new animal welfare plan, but I echo the concerns of animal welfare organisations who are really concerned about those tangible deadlines. Knowing what I know now about the conditions and illnesses that racing greyhounds suffer, stronger regulation and support for those rescue and rehoming centres are absolutely essential. They don't just benefit the animals, but they are of benefit to those organisations and staff who are trying to do the right thing.

Let me tell you another story, the owner of the Whispering Willows equine rescue centre in south-west Wales inherited some money and set up a horse rescue centre. She said she wanted to follow her dream of looking after horses, and she took in 137 of them. When she was asked about her expertise in keeping horses, she described herself as no expert, but with some general knowledge. She said she ran the rescue centre through some donations, but mostly her own money. In 2021, several of those horses sadly had to be euthanised because of illness and malnourishment. That is what we need to stop. Training, support and standards are incredibly important for the animals and the staff and for our local authorities to have that strength to be able to ensure that our centres are not overwhelmed by either the number of animals or their health and care needs and that staff receive the recognition and support that they need needs to deliver the best care possible. So, diolch yn fawr iawn eto ichi, Sam. Thank you for bringing this debate forward. Can I urge the Government once again to think again about agreeing to some firm timescales for the introduction of these regulations? And I speak today on behalf of Arthur. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

We've heard about Cadi, we've heard about Arthur; I want to tell you about a member of my family: Blue, the rescue whippet from North Clwyd Animal Rescue. We picked him up 11 years ago; he was a thin and scrawny thing, nine months old, and when we got him home, he stretched his little legs out on the carpet in the lounge, two legs forward, two legs back, like a draught excluder, and we fell in love with him, as many people do when they pick up their pets.

Blue is one of 1,900 animals that the North Clwyd Animal Rescue centre rehome each and every year. It was founded in 1978 by a lady called Anne Owen, and she started off with a thin lurcher; a thin, scrawny dog, and it now rehomes that many animals. I think they do a tremendous job, and there are many excellent examples of animal rescue centres, of course, across the whole of Wales. Another in my constituency is the RSPCA's animal centre in Bryn-y-Maen just outside Colwyn Bay. I can remember very well seeing a hedgehog, a baby hedgehog, in distress on the roundabout near my office in work; it was panting away in the heat of the day, clearly going to walk into the road and be a familiar flat sight in the way that many hedgehogs unfortunately are, but I scooped it up in my flat cap, stuck it on my lap, and off I drove to the Bryn-y-Maen Animal Centre and they gave me advice and he was eventually released in the wild. He was 9g when he arrived in the centre; he had some medical treatment and was released just a few weeks later; it was enormous when it reached 1kg in weight, so goodness knows what they were feeding it; probably the same stuff that I'm eating for most of the time.

Then of course, there's the work of the Welsh Mountain Zoo in Colwyn Bay, which very often takes in animals and rescues them, particularly exotic animals that nobody else has experience of being able to care for. We've had all sorts of animals traipsing their way across Colwyn Bay over the years, including parrots, tortoises, lizards, all sorts that have been taken in by the zoo and they do a wonderful job. They also, of course, rescue wild animals as well; they have a grey seal rescue centre there, so they, too, do a good job.

But the thing about the RSPCA, the North Clwyd Animal Rescue centre and the Welsh Mountain Zoo is they all abide by the very highest standards of animal welfare. People can go there with confidence, knowing that if they take a stray animal in or an animal that's in distress, it will be cared for well; it will be gotten back on its feet—if it's got feet—and then, rehomed into an appropriate environment. And of course, they vet everybody that comes in that asks to rehome an animal, and that's the sort of quality we should aspire to in every single part of the country. It's a travesty that there is no registration system for animal rescue centres in Wales, that we don't know where these rescue centres are, and that puts animals at risk, and none of us want that to be the case.

Animal welfare establishments in Wales are providing a critical and necessary service, as we can see by just how busy they are. However, their credibility has been damaged by some awful establishments. I'd like to bring some examples to light of just why we need to regulate animal welfare establishments.

Since 2016, I've been watching the actions against a local charity in my region, Capricorn Animal Rescue, which was exposed in a BBC Wales undercover programme that my colleague Huw Irranca-Davies was part of. The volunteers had been fighting for more than three years prior to this programme airing, yet it was only struck off the charity register in September of this year—eight years—and still there is no formal action from the Charity Commission against those responsible, nor a report from an inquiry that opened in 2017. The frustrations of the volunteers fighting here were solely looking at the Charity Commission as the only viable authority.

The key issue for these volunteers also was that there was no one body responsible for stepping in and it was them that faced the brunt of the mental health burden and fiscal cost of fighting something that was so obviously wrong. On their behalf, I have to publicly thank our local voluntary council, who helped these volunteers in every way they could, and provided the only element of direct support available.

Again, within my region of north Wales, in 2019 another organisation, from south Wales, Whispering Willows horse sanctuary, caused issues locally. Some simple investigations by local constituents exposed some very serious concerns with the foundation of that organisation, and in early 2021 the founder pleaded guilty to Animal Welfare Act offences and was banned for 10 years. Only last week were 34 dogs and two ferrets removed from a farm in Snowdonia connected to a local hunt. Every issue like this puts massive strain on other animal welfare organisations when they're closed, having to support taking in additional animals that were not part of their planned need.

The Welsh Government animal welfare plan goes much further. However, a start is to regulate all organisations that are responsible for animals in our society. It's concerning that anyone can start an animal welfare establishment, regardless of qualifications or experience. We must make sure that we are all doing all we can to provide adequate resources and, importantly, powers to action animal welfare establishment regulation and to properly investigate issues when they're exposed by members of the public or volunteers. Local authorities will need massive amounts of support and education on major areas that are not their expertise. The issues outside of current licensed business and the complications that come with charity legislation, and the well-known difficulties with founder's syndrome, are a mountain to face without a thorough understanding. We must listen to the experiences of those who have exposed welfare issues and create the regulations to require multiple organisations to work together to actively stop abuses. Yet there must be a requirement to have a sole body responsible for stepping in, and this must no longer be on the heads of volunteers. Diolch.

I call on the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I very much welcome this debate on animal rescue and rehoming centres. It's always good to hear about Members' animal family members, and I think I'd probably better mention my family has two dogs, Minnie and Bronnie; the latter is a rescue dog, and, as we said, they're much-loved members of our families.

The five-year animal welfare plan for Wales that I launched earlier this month is ambitious and it's innovative, and it sets out how we will build on the progress we have made in relation to animal welfare since powers were devolved to Wales back in 2006. Following the election, it was something I passionately wanted to do, to have everything in one place, and to bring a range of actions together, along with our programme for government commitments, and to show that these were the things that we would be doing over the five-year term of this Government. My ambition, I think like every Member in this Chamber, is for all animals in Wales to have a good quality life, and, in pursuit of this, our plan includes the realisation of the four programme for government commitments regarding kept animal welfare, and also outlines how we will integrate a range of ongoing animal welfare policy work during this Government's term.

The way that we treat animals I think is a really important reflection of the values of our society. Animal ownership is a privilege—it's not a right—and responsible ownership is an expectation, not an aspiration. Anyone who owns or is responsible for an animal has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure its welfare needs are met. Responsible ownership begins from the moment a person first considers getting an animal. It's vital to carefully consider that commitment. With companion animals, in particular, there's always the risk of being driven by emotional and impulse purchasing.

Each year, we run a campaign in the run-up to Christmas to remind people of the requirements of responsible ownership, #PawsPreventProtect, and this encourages people to research thoroughly the costs and the commitments involved, the suitability of the pet to their home environment, and to assure they acquire their pets from a legal and reliable source. So, again, I urge every Member in the Senedd to support and promote this campaign in the run-up to Christmas. We are mindful also of the growth in online sales, and how the prospect of a quick unregulated sale also attracts unscrupulous breeders to websites. For this reason, we support the work of the Pet Advertising Advisory Group in ensuring the advertising of pet animals for sale is done legally and ethically.

Partnership working is absolutely key to the success of everything in the animal welfare plan for Wales. In addition to the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, we are proud of our longstanding relationship with two key groups that bring together third sector organisations—the Animal Welfare Network for Wales and the Companion Animal Welfare Group Wales, which Members have referred to. Members of these groups have been drawn from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, and recently attended the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee and gave evidence on animal welfare issues. There were some glowing words on how the Welsh Government already interacts with them but, of course, there's more we can do. This is why our animal welfare plan highlights the role of stakeholder working groups, because we know we cannot do this on our own.

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

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Isn't it marvellous to think that, in many of the contributions today, everybody's told us about their family members? So, I'm going to mention Alfie Finch-Saunders, who we have had since five years old, and it's really quite sad, because, when our family took him on, he'd been kept in a barn in the dark and he still has a dint in his nose now from where the cage he was in was too short. But when my husband phones me when I'm over here, the first thing I say is, 'How is Alfie?' [Laughter.] So, it's really good that we've got like-minded people here.

So, I'd like to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to everybody who's spoken here today, including the Minister, and Sam Kurtz for opening the debate so well. As we've heard many times this afternoon, currently, there is no legislation in place in Wales, so anyone can set up their own rehoming organisation or sanctuary. And I have to say, most of these are set up with very good intentions. Now, whilst many animal welfare establishments in Wales achieve extremely high standards of welfare, some recent tragic case studies—and they've been mentioned here today—can attest to the fact that there are organisations and individuals operating as rescues who can sometimes become overwhelmed with animals and struggle to meet the welfare needs of the animals in their care.

As well as ensuring that our selfless animal protection organisations have the support they need, regulating rescues would also make it easier to distinguish between genuine rescue and rehoming centres and back-street breeders and third-party sellers who try to bypass recent laws prohibiting third-party sales of puppies and kittens by pretending to be a rescue sanctuary. In highlighting the scale of the problem, only last month, and following a seven-month investigation by National Trading Standards and Trading Standards Wales, nearly 200 dogs were rescued from a suspected illegal puppy farm in Carmarthenshire. As Members have rightly pointed out, such as Alun Davies and his concerns about standards in some rescue centres, there's been enough talk now, and I agree with him in calling for more action from the Minister.

Gareth Davies pointed out the very obvious and proactive approach that's already been taken elsewhere in the UK, and that anyone can set up a sanctuary without any regulations. Indeed, the Scottish Government has already passed regulations, which came into force on 3 September 2021. Elsewhere, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be consulting on proposals to regulate the sector in England by late 2021-22. This is why I share in the disappointment registered by both the Blue Cross and the Companion Animal Welfare Group Wales that the timelines laid out in the Welsh Government's animal welfare plan show a real lack of urgency, which could lead to exploitation by unscrupulous breeders and leave Wales lagging behind other nations. Despite more than two decades of devolution, the Welsh Government's slow pace of action in this area has now led to Wales being unsympathetically dubbed as the puppy farming capital of the UK. That is not a moniker that we want to stick, and inaction leaves our charitable sector to pick up the pieces. It is precisely for this reason that the likes of Dogs Trust want to work with the Welsh Government towards regulation of rehoming organisations and sanctuaries, ensuring full traceability of all puppies bred and sold. I know the Minister knows I've gone on and on about this, but I hate it when I see on Facebook people breeding dogs for profit and then trying to sell them on Facebook at very young ages. So, I hope that today's support for this Welsh Conservative motion will urge the Minister to review the timetable for regulations and work with stakeholders to confront this scourge.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? Does any Member object? [Objection.]

Okay, on the second time of asking.

Therefore, there is an objection. We will defer voting until voting time.

So, we will take a short break now to prepare for voting time.

That brings us to voting time, and the first votes are on the Welsh Conservatives debate on the regulation of animal welfare and rehoming centres. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, no abstentions, 26 against. And, therefore, the motion is agreed.

That concludes voting time for today.

We will, therefore, now move on to the short debate. Today's short debate is to be presented by Jayne Bryant. We will move immediately to that short debate and Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. I've agreed to give James Evans and Peredur Owen Griffiths each a minute in this debate.

2021 marks 50 years since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was passed in the UK Parliament. While that policy was designed to prevent drug use and reduce harm, we have witnessed instead an exceptional rise in illegal drug use, addiction, and drug-related deaths across the UK. Simultaneously, drugs are getting stronger, criminal gangs are growing in power, and the violence linked to drugs is increasing. Perhaps most worrying, thousands of children and young people are being exploited across county lines and borders in every corner of the country.

Today's situation represents a very serious failing in the drug laws, but in-depth and serious discussion on reform remains miles away. This urgently needs to change. We here must open a discussion about what's gone wrong and how we might do things differently: differently, by changing how we think about drugs and in what terms we discuss them; differently, by considering the conditions that are specific to Wales, and what influence we as a Senedd have; differently, by looking outward, learning from our friends and neighbours, taking inspiration from what the international community is doing to combat a serious problem.

In a period where the phrase 'listen to the science' has taken on a greater resonance than at any point in history, perhaps it's appropriate to look again at what scientific research is heading. For example, some cutting-edge contemporary research is being conducted on the use of psychedelics in medicine. Particularly encouraging is work being undertaken on their use in treating long-standing mental health conditions and post-traumatic stress disorder. Others focus their research on more well-known substances, such as medicinal cannabis.

Cannabis had become illegal 100 years ago, although it remained in use as a prescription drug in Britain until 1973. Evidence suggests that those suffering from the hardest-to-treat forms of epilepsy can see the number and intensity of seizures they suffer decrease substantially if treated with products derived from the core cannabinoid CBD. UK law changed in 2018 to allow medicinal cannabis use under particular, limited circumstances. This represented a welcome step forward, but, since the change, only a small number of prescriptions have been granted, and many families remain in limbo. The choice they've been left with is heartbreaking: either spend thousands to obtain illicit prescriptions or go without, leaving loved ones at risk of suffering the worst effects of their condition. This is not a situation any one of us would wish upon ourselves or our own families and friends.

The pandemic has taught us that scientists are among the very best of us. Without their ability to solve problems in an innovative, rapid way, we would be without our fantastic vaccination effort, and much else besides. We would do well to take this attitude and apply it to other fields. Because in this field—drugs policy—the UK is frustratingly, increasingly out of step with countries that we relate to. There is real-world evidence that other policies work, yet we continue to bury our heads in the sand.

In Europe, Portugal has set a positive example for what can be done when drug policies prioritise health over the criminalisation. At the turn of the century, Portugal was facing a crisis, including high levels of HIV infection among drug users. In 2001, Portugal decriminalised personal possession of all drugs as part of a wider reorientation of policy to a health-led approach. Possessing drugs for personal use is treated as an administrative offence, meaning it's no longer punishable by imprisonment and doesn't result in a criminal record and associated stigma. Many impacts of the reforms were felt immediately. New HIV infections, drug deaths and the prison population all fell sharply within the first decade. The second decade, admittedly, saw slower improvements. However, Portugal is in a much better position than it was in 2001, and recorded drug use and drug deaths as a proportion of the general population are both well below the European average, and the proportion of their prison population sentenced for drug offences has fallen from 40 per cent to 15 per cent.

The Kaleidoscope project, based in my constituency, has been operating in the UK since 1968. They're a charity methadone drug clinic that provides help and support clinics for alcohol abuse, drug abuse and drug addiction. When speaking with the director, Martin Blakebrough, on this subject, he had this to say: 'In Wales, as in the rest of the UK, we have a policy of incarcerating people with drug issues rather than offering them sustainable treatment. A prison place is much more expensive than a residential rehabilitation space. We need a policy that supports and does not punish people wherever possible. The majority of drug users with significant addiction issues have been victims of an adverse childhood experience, with a recent study showing that 84 per cent of drug users have been affected by an ACE. And yet the lack of help has led to their problems. The war on drugs has not been a war on the substance, as much as taking it out against individuals.'

In addition, Richard Lewis, recently appointed as chief constable of Dyfed-Powys Police, has also been arguing that the UK's current approach is failing. Last year, sadly, over 4,500 people died in England and Wales due to drug-related deaths. To these statistics, chief constable Lewis says:

'The vast majority of those deaths would have been entirely preventable. In 21 years of police service I have slowly, perhaps too slowly, come to the conclusion that framing this crisis as a criminal justice problem has not simply been unhelpful, but counterproductive. This nationwide epidemic is a public health crisis.'

Like Portugal and charities such as Kaleidoscope, chief constable Lewis advocates state intervention in the lives of addicts that looks to treat them not as criminals, but as patients. One way of helping is for drug treatment services, such as heroin-assisted treatment centres, to be given investment and wider coverage. Chief constable Lewis is not a lone voice in the police force when it comes to rethinking our drug policy. And the fact that his comments have not been seen as extraordinary highlights this.

Over the years, there has been a slowly changing mindset in the police. Many forces have openly indicated their unwillingness to target recreational cannabis growers and users, as they have bigger issues to deal with. This is despite the law being clear that cannabis remains illegal as a category B substance, which runs a sentence for possession of up to five years in prison, with an unlimited fine. Cannabis is the most prevalent illegal substance in the UK, and this will be a shock to no-one. Most people will have smelled its distinctive smell across the country's streets and parks. Every time you do, you know it's been bought or grown illegally. It doesn't have to be this way.

The title of this important debate is 'drug policy', and I think the time is right now that we take a detailed look at drug policy in Wales. Let me be clear: I would like to see a country where drug use is eradicated, but, sadly, I don't think that's going to be achievable. Some people take drugs for a number of reasons: experimental, recreational, and for some people, to improve their quality of life. I have seen first-hand how cannabis oil has helped someone living with MS live a pain-free life. The current criminal justice system treats all people who use drugs as criminals, but in reality, some people use them to remove the pain of a serious trauma in their life, to give them that slight moment of relief from their suffering. Not all drug users are criminals but individuals who need help and support to deal with the root cause of their pain. Last year, 2,883 people died of drug-related use. How many more deaths will it take before both Governments, both here and in Westminster, do something to tackle this problem? Diolch, Llywydd.

I thank Jayne for granting me some time in this short debate this evening. I want to echo the points that she so eloquently made this evening, because I fundamentally believe it's time for a national conversation on substance misuse. As I said during my short debate earlier this term, the status quo just isn't working. It's failing families, it's failing communities and it's causing irreparable harm. I'm pleased that we're having this kind of conversation here in the Senedd. I long for the days when we can make decisions on justice policy under this roof. Until that day comes, I want us to carry on influencing Westminster as much as we can to arrive at a justice system that has more compassion and less draconian punishments. To that end, I am pleased that Jayne has agreed to join the cross-party group, and I will be launching that in the new year. I look forward to us working together more on this by hearing the experiences of people on the ground who deal with the consequences of the status quo daily. I know we can get better at understanding what needs to change and why change is needed. Diolch yn fawr.

I now call on the Deputy Minister for Mental Health and Well-being to reply to the debate—Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'd like to thank Jayne Bryant for tabling this debate today and for the points she had made, and also to thank James Evans and Peredur Owen Griffiths for their contributions. Whilst Wales does not have the powers on many aspects of drug legislation and the classification of drugs, tackling the harms associated with substance misuse is a key priority for me, and an area of work that is very important within my portfolio. With both mental health and offender health also sitting with me, I will be seeking to make a difference across these areas that all too frequently come together, alongside substance misuse, to have adverse impacts on the most vulnerable in our society. In my role as Deputy Minister for Mental Health and Well-being, I have met a number of people and organisations involved in the substance misuse field, and have been really impressed at the level of work and commitment there is in this area and the passion many have to see reform.

Substance misuse is a major health issue that affects individuals, families and communities. In Wales, our drugs policy is routed in a harm-reduction approach, which recognises substance misuse as a health and social care issue, as opposed to one that is solely related to criminal justice. In this respect, our approach differs considerably from the approach in England, and indeed it is the approach taken by all the devolved administrations. Our substance misuse delivery plan 2019-22 was revised in response to COVID-19 to reflect the work that has been and continues to be undertaken as a result of the pandemic. The revised plan was published in January 2021. The overall aim of the delivery plan continues to be to ensure that people in Wales are aware of the dangers and the impact of substance misuse, and to know where they can seek information, help and support. Our area planning boards and other partners continue to work to deliver the actions within the plan.

The Welsh Government has a strong record of commitment to this area, and we invest almost £55 million in our substance misuse agenda every year. Over £25 million of this is allocated to our substance misuse area planning boards, and almost £21 million is ring-fenced to health boards in Wales. In 2020-21, we also made a further £4.8 million available to support our response to COVID-19. Over £3 million of this supported the rapid implementation of long-lasting injectable buprenorphine for at-risk ex-heroin users. Wales is now at the forefront of implementing this new treatment across the UK, if not the world. We have not only protected the substance misuse budget, but we have also taken the opportunity to increase resources in Wales, unlike the experience of substance misuse services elsewhere in the UK.

In October, I attended a second UK drugs ministerial meeting, alongside my counterparts in the devolved administrations. The meeting was hosted by the Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP, Minister of State in the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, and the purpose of the meeting was to hear from a number of expert speakers and provide an opportunity to share good practice, challenges and lessons learned across each of the administrations. The meeting also provided me with the opportunity to show the commitment of the Welsh Government to the substance misuse agenda, including our strong emphasis on harm reduction and the work being taken forward through our delivery plan. At the meeting, I welcomed the UK Government's renewed commitment to this agenda and the development of a new UK drug strategy. However, given that criminal justice is not devolved, I stressed the importance of the need to be fully involved in any changes impacting in Wales, and this is something my officials are in contact with the Home Office about.

Based on our harm-reduction approach here in Wales, we do not believe that further criminalisation of vulnerable individuals would be effective. We await the publication of this strategy, but I do believe, at this point, that the UK Government do not intend to change from their current position of this being led through a criminal justice response.

We have fully engaged with colleagues from the devolved administrations and the UK Government, which provides the opportunity for joint working and learning where we have common goals in reducing substance misuse harm. In Swansea bay, we have worked with local partners and the Home Office, developing project ADDER alongside areas in England. Project ADDER—addiction, diversion, disruption, enforcement and recovery—is a Home Office project designed to support a whole-system approach to substance misuse, bringing together both treatment and policing, with support for interventions both at local level and targeted national work on supply. Project ADDER involves co-ordinated law enforcement activities, alongside expanded diversionary activity and treatment and recovery provision, and is focused on areas of high levels of drug-related deaths.

We see this as an opportunity to develop new ways of working, including working with the criminal justice partners on responding to substance misuse through treatment and breaking the cycle for some of the most vulnerable of going in and out of prison. The approach set out in project ADDER fits well with the Welsh Government's work through the area planning boards, in particular, Swansea bay APB, where there has been a high number of drug-related deaths in recent years. However, I have expressed my disappointment to the UK Government that Swansea bay has not benefited from the additional HM Treasury funding for health that the project ADDER areas in England have received.

Thank you very much to the Deputy Minister, and that brings us to the end of today's proceedings. Thank you very much, everyone.