Plenary

The next item will be the business statement and announcement, and the Trefnydd will be answering questions again. I call on the Trefnydd to make that statement—Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. There is one change to this week's business. The Packaging Waste (Data Collection and Reporting) (Wales) Regulations 2023 have been withdrawn and the debate postponed. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out in the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Trefnydd, can I call for a statement on the local government funding formula? Residents in my constituency are very concerned that Conwy County Borough Council has suggested that council tax may have to rise by up to 12.45 per cent, which obviously is in excess of the already very high rate of inflation. That is a matter of great concern to many constituents who are finding it hard to make ends met due to cost-of-living pressures. But one thing we do know is that that funding formula has allowed some local authorities in Wales to stash up hundreds of millions of pounds of reserves, while others have very depleted reserves because they've been having to chop into them on an annual basis because the funding formula is fundamentally flawed and unfair. Can we have an update on what the Welsh Government is doing to address this issue? And will the Trefnydd seek to get the agreement of her Cabinet colleague the Minister for finance, and indeed the Minister with responsibility for local government, for an independent review—an independent review—of the funding formula to make sure that there's equitable access to funding for local government across the country?

The Member will be aware that the setting of council tax is a matter for each local authority, and whilst, of course, any increase of council tax is often very unwelcome to the majority of local tax payers, I think it is good to recognise it's a significant source of funding for local services. You say the funding formula is flawed—well, you'll appreciate that that funding formula is not imposed by Welsh Government; it's done in conjunction and in partnership between local government and Welsh Government. So, I don't agree with you it's flawed. It might not be the best, and there are always going to be people that do better than others. As far as I know—and I'm looking to the Minister for Finance and Local Government—I don't think there's been any call by local authorities to have a look at the funding formula, never mind an independent review.

Llyr Gruffydd. Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you, Llywydd. I only heard you the second time, I suspect. I want to ask the Trenfydd if we can have a statement on the level of support available through the Healthy Start scheme. The level of support was last increased in April 2021 to £4.25 a week, but it's been two years since then, and since then the cost of living has gone up, food inflation has been very significant, but the support has remained static. And there are implications for that when it comes to families accessing healthy, nutritious foods, which is the whole purpose of the scheme. So, I'm asking for a statement from the Deputy Minister for Mental Health and Well-being on the possibility of increasing the level of support, because the value and contribution of the scheme is undermined month by month as food costs increase while the level of support has remained static.

Thank you. I don't disagree with what you're saying about the support, but you will appreciate the significant demands on the health budget. Obviously, the supplementary budget is due to be published, and I'm unaware if this scheme is receiving any increase, but it may be worth waiting to see if that's the case before asking for a further statement.

Going back to the Silk report on the devolution of taxation, that recommended that aggregates levy should be devolved to Wales. It could not be devolved due to European Union intervention. In November 2022, Liz Saville Roberts asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had had discussions with the Welsh Government on devolving the aggregates levy to Wales. The Treasury response was that they

'are always happy to engage with the Welsh Government, should they wish to discuss this or any other issue further.'

I'm asking for a Welsh Government statement on progress towards devolving the aggregates levy.

I'm also asking for a statement on rare conditions. Whilst individually they are rare, hence their name, they affect a lot of people, with one in 17 people being affected during their lifetime. Many rare conditions are lifelong and complex. Often, rare diseases are chronic and life-threatening. As a result, people affected by rare conditions often need support and expertise from a wide range of healthcare professionals. This can mean having multiple appointments across different settings, and on different dates. I think a statement on that would be very helpful.

I agree with you and I will ask the Minister for Health and Social Services to issue a written statement. We do have Rare Disease Day coming up at the end of this month, so I will ask the Minister for Health and Social Services to issue a written statement to highlight our support for rare disease, and also the progress that we are making here in Wales.

In response to your first request, aggregates are a valuable Welsh natural resource, and we recognise that devolution of the aggregates levy could be beneficial to our fiscal and environmental aims. We do continue to be open to further conversations with the UK Government on the possible devolution of the levy, recognising that there are a number of key issues to consider, in particular, potential cross-border issues and block grant impacts that could arise. We're also really interested to learn from the Scottish Government's experience as they move forward in developing their approach to a Scottish aggregates levy. It would be good perhaps to apply the learning that they have had to further considerations, but any further engagement with the UK Government on a levy needs to really be set in the context of the wider devolution on tax devolution. That includes addressing our request to gain the power to introduce a vacant land tax in Wales.

Business Minister, I'd like to request a statement from the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language on the replacement of BTECs and what our Welsh equivalent of T-levels will actually look like. This month, the Department for Education in England announced a new £12 million T-level employer placement scheme to boost the uptake from businesses to take on student placements and access to providers for multiple grants, yet we still have no idea what T-level equivalents will look like in Wales. Once again, we see colleges and sixth forms in a state of panic due to the Minister's lacklustre approach to this, and many now feel that it's simply too late to make the changes implemented well or done properly, putting Wales at a big disadvantage. A statement updating the Senedd, learners and our educators is urgently needed. Thank you, business Minister.

I don't think the way that you set that out is correct—we've already extended BTEC eligibility, for instance—but I know the Minister for Education and Welsh Language is continuing to have discussions with Qualifications Wales and will provide a statement in due course.

And finally, Cefin Campbell.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. As you know, this is a very busy time for farmers, of course, because the lambing season has just started, and the weather is improving, people are tempted to go out for a walk with their dogs in rural areas of Wales, and this, of course, is a cause of great concern to farmers because of the attacks by dogs on farm animals. Recent research by NFU Mutual notes that the cost of damage to animals and those killed by dogs was around £400,000 last year, which is an increase of almost 15 per cent on the previous year. And the same research shows that two out of three people who take their dogs for a walk are willing to let their dogs run wild when they are out in rural areas. So, can I ask how the Welsh Government intends to respond to these figures, these increases that I've outlined, and will you make a statement on that? And how do you intend to encourage people to be more responsible when they take their dogs for a walk in rural areas?

Thank you. You're quite right; we see far too many dog attacks, particularly on sheep and lambs, and I think it's very important. As you say, we're just—. Well, some areas have already started lambing; others are to follow. But I was really pleased to see the wildlife and rural crime commissioner's campaign, 'ewes a lead'—'use' spelt 'ewes'—which I thought was very clever. But I think it's really good to have these campaigns, and certainly as a Government we're doing all we can to promote that campaign, because responsible dog ownership is very important, and you'll be aware of all the different schemes. But it was really good to see that campaign, particularly this time of year, ahead of, as you say, people starting to go out, perhaps, more into the countryside as springtime approaches.

I thank the Trefnydd.

The next item, therefore, will be the statement by the Deputy Minister for Climate Change on the roads review and national transport delivery plan. I call on the Deputy Minister to make his statement—Lee Waters.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Today we are publishing the final report of the independent roads review panel. This is a landmark report of international significance, and I'd like to thank Dr Lynn Sloman and her fellow panellists. Their report is detailed, authoritative and compelling, and the Welsh Government accepts its core principles and the new approach it sets out.

When we published the Wales transport strategy two years ago, we committed to start upon a llwybr newydd, a new path. The publication of this roads review, along with the national transport delivery plan and our new roads policy statement, represents a major step forward on that journey. Let me be very clear at the outset: we will still invest in roads. In fact, we are building new roads as I speak, but we are raising the bar for where new roads are the right response to transport problems. We're also investing in real alternatives. Today's national transport delivery plan sets out a five-year programme of investment in rail, bus, walking and cycling projects. Modern successful economies have modern successful public transport systems. Ours has withered on the vine of privatisation, and that must change. Of course, doing that in an age of austerity is very challenging. Not only are we not getting our share of High Speed rail investment, but the UK Government is pushing many bus services over a cliff edge, as well as slashing our capital investment budgets. Even if we'd wanted to keep progressing all the road schemes in the pipeline, we just do not have the money to do so. Our capital budget will be 8 per cent lower next year in real terms as a result of the last UK Government budget. So, when the Conservatives criticise us, they should remember the financial reality of their making: the roads programme is simply unaffordable. With fewer resources it becomes even more important to prioritise, and the roads review helps us to do that.

Road schemes take many years from the first plan on the page to the first shovel in the ground. This means most of the schemes currently in development in Wales were conceived before we declared a climate and nature emergency and before we set stretching policy commitments in the Wales transport strategy, the programme for government and Net Zero Wales. The roads review looked at each of the 55 schemes in development and tested them against our current policies. The panel sets out their detailed view on each one in their report, along with a set of purposes and conditions for future road investment.

The report says that we need to do more to look after the roads we already have, and pay more attention to supporting the movement of freight. I’ve today published a written statement on a review of our approach to road maintenance, and we will also be publishing a freight plan later in the year. We need roads, but we need to remember that roads are not just for cars. The panel said we need to give greater priority to buses and active travel networks in road schemes.

The report also says that, where there are road safety concerns, we should be looking first to reduce speeds in collision blackspots. And when we do take forward a new scheme, we should opt for the one with the lowest environmental impact. About a third of the carbon generated from a road scheme comes from the materials used in constructing, lighting and maintaining it over its whole lifecycle: steel, concrete, asphalt, water—everything that goes into a road scheme has a significant carbon footprint of its own. And we need to reduce this embodied carbon, through innovation, but also through making the most of what we have.

The central argument presented by the roads review panel is that we can’t build our way out of congestion. When looked at in isolation, there is often a case to be made for a by-pass or an extra lane, but, cumulatively, it exacerbates the problem. In the short term, creating new road space often speeds up a car journey and makes it more attractive than a public transport alternative. This encourages more people to drive. But over time, this generates more journeys, with people travelling longer distances. This then creates extra traffic and congestion. It also results in retail and residential developments popping up close to the new junctions, as we have seen right across Wales. And these are places, usually, that have few public transport or active travel options, and so people have little choice but to get to them by car, and this produces even more traffic.

As people drive more, fewer people use public transport, which results in fewer services being viable, leaving people with even fewer alternatives. This disproportionately disadvantages women and people on low incomes, who we know from the data are the most dependent on public transport. For those who feel forced into running a car to access work, the costs can be punitive. Studies have shown that the poorest households can spend up to a quarter of their income on transport costs, putting them into transport poverty. Not only has our approach been running counter to our climate policy and our planning policy, but it has also been running counter to our social justice policies, and that has to change.

Deputy Minister, you had a real chance here to get Wales moving again by giving communities across Wales infrastructure they not only need, but really deserve. Residents in all four corners of Wales have been on tenterhooks for nearly two years while this backwards road building ban has been in place. But the wait is finally over, just under 60 schemes went under the microscope as part of your review, and now we find out just a handful have been spared the axe and will be going ahead as planned. Deputy Minister, given people in those areas have been waiting for action for so long, when exactly do you expect the diggers to hit the ground?

Whilst news of some of the projects being waved through will be very much welcomed by commuters, visitors and residents in those areas, the misery, mayhem and uncertainty for everyone else in limbo is still unfortunately going to carry on. Deputy Minister, what will you say to all those people who are going to carry on suffering as a direct result of your decision? What do you say, Deputy Minister, to all those businesses that are struggling to operate and will now continue to struggle because of this decision?

I know that you get great pleasure from blaming the UK Government for all of your shortcomings. However, I feel like I should remind you that your Government did return £155 million back to Westminster because you simply didn't spend it in Wales for the people of Wales. And I don't need to remind you that many areas of transport that we talk about are, in fact, devolved. To you, Deputy Minister, roads might be these awful stretches of concrete, but to us, businesses, commuters and residents, they are a necessity. We need adequate roads to run a top-quality public transport network, to help businesses thrive, and to get the economy firing on all cylinders—just some of the few reasons why I speak so passionately about this.

I understand that some projects might eventually be given the green light if some tweaks and amendments are made and they pass your rings-of-fire tests that are now in place. So, given that £24 million had already been spent on road projects in research and development before this freeze took place, who is now going to foot the bill for the redesign work? The director of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association has contacted us saying that he wants some urgent clarity on the matter of what's going to be happening moving forward.

I also have some concerns about two councillors, Labour's Anthony Hunt and Plaid's Llinos Medi, tasked with reviewing projects that are economic development sites going forward. Couldn't a panel of independent people have been assembled to explore this, instead of two politically aligned councillors?

Well, I do know how to read a budget, and I'm afraid she's got the complete wrong end of the stick while reading ours. There was no cut from £220 million to £180 million on active travel. I don't know where she gets these figures from; that's a complete fantasy, and, as for handing £155 million back to the Treasury, I think that's an act of fantasy too.

I appreciate we might have wrong-footed Natasha Asghar with today's announcement, because I've been reading increasingly alarmist pieces from her on how I was going to bring about the end of humanity as we know it, and clearly we've come up with a sensible set of recommendations based on independent experts, agreed as a consensus for them, agreed as a consensus within Government, greeted warmly by local government, that makes us meet the challenges ahead of us.

As I say to her and her colleagues, with the greatest of respect, if we sign up to targets of net zero by 2050, we have to be prepared to do things differently. Let me quote this to them:

'the longer we fail to act, the worse it gets and the higher the price when we are eventually forced, by catastrophe, to act.... It’s one minute to midnight on that doomsday clock, and we need to act now. If we don’t get serious about climate change today, it will be too late for our children to do so tomorrow.'

That was said by a Conservative Prime Minister less than a year ago. So, the words on net zero are there, certainly amongst her party in London—less so here. But it's no good saying words unless you're prepared to do things differently.

All I've heard from her is a set of slogans that she wants to create wedge issues to wind people up over. I haven't heard a single constructive suggestion of how, if we accept we need to achieve net zero, we do it in transport. That's what we've done here; we've taken that exam question: 'How do we achieve net zero in our roads programme? Let's go away and examine that.' That's what's happened, and that's what we've come up with: a credible, practical, pragmatic way forward that keeps building roads, but builds roads that don't keep adding to our problems. And that's the difference, I'm afraid, between opposition and Government: we can't speak in slogans; we have to look at practical projects to take forward, and that's what we've done. I'm sure, when she has a chance to read the report in more detail, she will realise that we have set out a pragmatic way forward. And if she has other suggestions of ways we can bring emissions down, I'm all ears.

Diolch, Weinidog. I would have hoped that everyone in the Chamber would agree that addressing climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. The science is clear: if we don't take bold action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we will have no future. So, the roads review and all of the difficult decisions it entails has to be seen in that context. The principle is one I welcome—how can we not? But, the policy is far from perfect, because we need to find ways of helping people to change their lives, but many of the areas where road building projects have been paused are already underserved by public transport links. I have concerns, Minister, about the effect that this will have on the lives of people who live in those areas. Many people in rural Wales rely on private vehicles to get around, just like many people in Valleys communities rely on buses. We, of course, have to change that over-reliance on cars, but it won't happen overnight. It's the transition period that I'm most concerned about, because many people will rely on roads to get to work, to access essential services, to visit friends and family, and a pause on new roads without, perhaps, more certain investment in public transport could mean longer journeys, increased travel costs and reduce access to important services. So, it's the social justice element of this that I'm concerned about. That's why I believe it's important that the Welsh Government needs to be clear about what other steps it will take to respond to air pollution that absolutely are essential.

I know that reducing emissions from transport is a critical part of the solution. It can't be the only solution, of course. We need to consider the needs of all communities, to work together to find ways to reduce emissions and improve air quality. So, in terms of the other steps that the Welsh Government needs to take to respond to air pollution, surely key to all of this needs to be investment in alternative modes of transport, like public transport. This should surely be the most important time to promote and provide certainty about funding for public transport. I would associate myself with the comments already made in the Siambr earlier today about the certainty over bus service funding.

Now, I know that active travel, Minister, is something that's close to your heart, and I welcome the point that you made about giving priority with roads to active travel routes to buses. I would welcome more information on that, because investing in these alternative modes would reduce the number of cars on the road and help to reduce emissions. Surely we should also be investing in electric vehicle infrastructure so that people can switch to cleaner, more sustainable forms of transport. There is chronic underfunding in that area. It's welcome to say that we want better bus services and modal shift. It's not just welcome, it's vital. But, with all of these things, they will rely on roads still. Again, it's the transition that I'm concerned about.

Thank you for your broad welcome to the approach, and I certainly agree with you that we need to make it easy for people to make the transition. I think that is absolutely central to the approach that we all need to take. I'm struck with the parallel with our record on recycling. When you think 20 years ago, few people in Wales recycled. Now we have the third best rate in the world. And why is that? Because it's easy. We've taken the pain away and it's now become habitual. People have their own dynamic, and we all know it from our own lives and become quite obsessed about recycling and chasing down the odd bit of cardboard that's gone down the back of the chair. But, when you look at the difference between transport and waste, since 1990, waste has reduced its emissions by 64 per cent. In the same period, transport has reduced its emissions by 6 per cent, even with the rapid gains in vehicle technology we've seen in that time. And you think about the lessons we can draw from that: we became recycling leaders through sustained investment over a decade, central leadership by the Welsh Government, and determined efforts by local authorities working hand in glove. Now, we did that for waste. We need to do that for transport. We need to make the right thing to do, the easiest thing to do, and it's doable, but it requires a change of approach, and that's what today is signalling.

And certainly, in terms of air quality, we have an air quality Bill that Julie James, my colleague, will be making a statement about very soon. We have a package of reforms. From bus reform, we have a Bill coming forward later this year, which will put in place a coherent system, in contrast to the wild west of the privatised system that we're dealing with at the moment. We have £1.6 billion of investment going into rail and metros across Wales now. There are new carriages into service this week and every month for the next 18 months, and we've increased by tenfold our investment in active travel. There is more to do, and there is a role for low-emission zones, and that's part of the clean air Bill, and we know that Cardiff council is leading the way in looking at introducing congestion charging.

So, I think we have the framework for a policy approach that will tackle this problem. The challenge we have in the short term is the finance we need for buses, and we're all very concerned about the situation the bus industry now faces. The fact of the matter is—. I listened with interest to what Adam Price said in the Chamber earlier, but, collectively, your party and my party have made financial choices. We've prioritised issues. We've prioritised free school meals. We've prioritised cost-of-living measures. We've prioritised, us as a Government, a pay rise for public sector workers. Those are the right things to do. But you can't spend the same money twice, and the money simply isn't in the budget. Adam Price nods, but I'd like to see his workings out. He's seen the Welsh Government budget, just as I have. There is simply money not there in the short term to make up that shortfall, which was never meant to have been sustained; it was an emergency fund. It was never meant to be a permanent solution. That said, we do need to safeguard the network as best as we can. We've managed a three-month extension, and we're working closely with the industry and local authorities to try and do what we can, but, clearly, it's not going to be enough to keep the services as they currently stand, and that is a real shame. Today's announcement is about changing the pipeline for medium- and long-term investments, to shift the funding out of road building schemes into public transport.

There's a long debate to be had over public transport and transport in Wales, but I don't think today is the right time to do it, and I'm sure you don't think that today is the right time to do it.

I've got two questions for the Minister. What is the Welsh Government's policy on new roads to land designated in local development plans for housing development? And, in the 1960s, the Llandeilio northern bypass was built. Does the Minister intend to build a second Llandeilo bypass? And, really, how many other towns and cities have got two bypasses?

Well, thank you for being brief and to the point—much appreciated. So, on the first point about new roads for land identified in local development plans for housing, once you get a chance to look at the roads review, it makes comments on this very subject, and we've had a discussion within Government about the best way to implement this, and this is partly what the review that has already been mentioned that we've asked Anthony Hunt and Llinos Medi to help us with is, to pragmatically marry our planning, transport and climate policies with the development schemes already in place. For example, the project at the Grange near Cwmbran in Llanfrechfa, where, next to the hospital with no bus route, is planned to be a housing estate. Now, we don't want a traditional, edge-of-town, car-dominated housing estate, so the review panel recommends an exemplar project where we build in low car ownership from the get-go, and that's what we want to work with local government to design. Similarly, in Wrexham, the local authority are very disappointed that the roads review panel—and we've accepted—have decided not to build junction enhancements next to a planned large housing estate on the edge of Wrexham town centre, right next to the dual carriageway junctions. Now, we think that will simply create more traffic and will create more congestion. We've said very clearly to Wrexham that we want to work with them to get that development to go ahead, but to do it in a way as an exemplar where we build in low car ownership and we don't contribute to the same problems over and over again. We want access roads to development sites. What we don't want is to use development sites as an excuse to introduce a bypass or a rat run. So, the review panel makes clear that a road in and a road out is what we need, not using edge-of-town developments as a motor for yet more out-of-town roads that generate additional traffic.

As for Llandeilo, the Member knows, and it's mentioned in the plan, that the commitment we made in the budget agreement some years ago stands, to investigate options for a Llandeilo bypass. We continue to do that. We are going through the WelTAG process. We have a proposal for a part extension of the road at Ffairfach, and we will be publishing a preference for the next steps in the coming months.

I thank the Deputy Minister for the statement today, but I must say I'm disappointed that, at the point of the statement being read out, we didn't have a copy of the roads review available to us. So, in terms of being able to make a sensible contribution today in response to your statement, that's made it very difficult for many Members in this Chamber. This is a 327-page document now, and you said to us in your statement,

'I would urge Members to read the roads review panel report in full.'

It was impossible for us to do that by the time you got on your feet to make the statement. But, nonetheless, looking at the statement—or the report, should I say—since you have been talking, it's clear to me that north Wales is going to miss out massively as a result of this review. Of the 16 projects that are lined up there, the recommendations are for 15 of those to either stop or to be scrapped altogether, and let's look at some of those. You've already mentioned the Wrexham bypass at junctions 3 to 6 on the A55. You've got the A494 Lôn Fawr Ruthin/Corwen Road scheme to be scrapped; the A5/A483 Halton roundabout work to be scrapped; the A55 junctions 15 and 16 to be scrapped; the A55 junctions 32 to 33, that work to be scrapped; the Flintshire corridor improvement work to be scrapped; and then, the kick in the teeth, the third Menai crossing completely dismissed, despite the issues that we've seen across to the island, even in recent months. My constituents in north Wales are going to be extremely concerned not just at this, but also the reports we've heard earlier in regard to the north Wales metro in terms of the amount of investment intended there, compared to what's happening down in south Wales.

You need to ask the question now, please, Sam.

I certainly will do. What assurances can you give to my residents in north Wales that they'll get a fair share of public transport investment, which clearly isn't happening at the moment?

Well, thank you for the question, and can I first of all apologise that the statement wasn't given to you in good time? It certainly was the intention. I think we started a little earlier and, as a result, there was a delay in getting it before I got on my feet, but that was a sin of omission not commission, and I did in fact meet with Natasha Asghar this morning and briefed her and talked her through fully what the report said, as a courtesy. So, certainly no disrespect was meant, and I can apologise sincerely for that. There's still a chance, of course, to digest it. I wouldn't expect the full report to be digested today. I've had several months to digest it, and I wouldn't expect Members to take it all on board immediately. I'm sure there will be further opportunities in this Chamber and in committees to talk in detail about the report, and I'd very much welcome that.

In terms of the substance of his charge, I realise he does enjoy driving the north-south divide wedge whenever he has the opportunity, but I think he's misplaced on this one, because what this report is doing is applying the decisions already made on the M4—a £2 billion project in south-east Wales—and the Burns commission approach in south-east Wales to the rest of Wales. So, it's not a case of one part of Wales being treated differently; this is about, through a staged process, all parts of Wales being subject to the same rationale.

We have also set up a Burns commission, as the Member knows, which is currently meeting. It has published its interim report, and it will be engaging with Members for ideas and publishing its proposals in the summer. The idea behind that is just like the Burns commission in the south-east: it'll come up with a pipeline of public transport schemes and other schemes that will be able to be developed up, working jointly with the local authorities, Transport for Wales and the Welsh Government, to put forward for funding to the UK Government for rail schemes and to Welsh Government for other public transport schemes. So, there's no question of the north being treated any differently or being missed out; we've just done this in different phases.

On the schemes he mentioned, the Menai crossing certainly hasn't been dismissed. The roads review panel looked at it and decided that it did not stand on its merits. They've looked at that scheme as a stand-alone scheme; we want it looked at properly as part of the Burns work to see its role across the north Wales transport corridor. We've asked Burns to look at the Menai crossing within that context and report as part of its work in July. So, it hasn't been dismissed, but the roads review panel have found that it does not stand against the tests by itself. But there is more work to do on that.

Minister, this has taken us back a good 15 years, undoing the good work of my predecessor, Ieuan Wyn Jones, when he was transport Minister, undoing the good work of your predecessors in mapping out why the case had been made for a third Menai crossing and which routes should be pursued and why. Can I also comment on the way that this announcement has been made? I have had a chance, in a short period of time, to read through the review and what it said about the Menai crossing. I have just heard reference there to a further review by the Burns wider look at north Wales travel; that's not mentioned in the roads review, as far as I can see. We have here a decision that states very clearly,

'The A55 Third Menai Crossing should not proceed.'

That is as clear as it possibly could be. It explains why the third crossing, as planned, runs contrary to Government policy, but the decision itself not to proceed with the crossing, I would argue, runs contrary to the Government's own policy. Look at what the report says among the five stated objectives behind the need for a bridge: improving network resilience and reducing reliance on the use of the Menai suspension bridge. I see no reference whatsoever to the fact that the Menai suspension bridge has been closed for three months. I'd love to know when this was signed off. There was mention of—

Rhun, you need to ask—

This is of huge importance to my constituents.

I appreciate that, but we have lots of people who want to speak as well.

There's mention of a site visit; I'd like to know when the site visit happened and whether that saw the chaos caused by the closing of the Menai bridge. It says it's to improve accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists, but another part of the review says that one opportunity for increasing modal shift is to dual the railway line on the Britannia bridge. Is that right? Well, the only place where you could put pedestrians and cyclists currently is on that second rail line across the Britannia bridge. So, you're moving, potentially, pedestrians and cyclists away from the Menai bridge. There is so much that this is contradictory here. It is inconsistent with your own policy. The report speaks of increased regularity and severity of weather events; this is a resilience issue. And do you know what? I agree with the principles behind this roads review. I agree with principle that we need to pursue modal shift, and I agree with the principle that decisions to proceed on roads in future should be based on environmental reasons. But there is a missing link here. There should also be a basic level of resilience within our road network and that is what I have argued long and hard for in terms of the need for a third crossing. We have seen in the last three months—

Rhun, I do need to ask you to finish.

—what that lack of resilience means. I'm appalled by this decision, the way that it has been made, and the inconsistencies in the way this Government has made this decision today.

Perhaps I can explain. I realise there are lots of documents for Members to digest in a short period of time. I did provide a briefing to Plaid Cymru this morning to try and allow you to understand the contours of the decision making here. The roads review is not a report of the Welsh Government; it's an independent report. You're quoting there, accusing us of running contradictory to our own policies; it is an independent report. The national transport delivery plan that we published alongside it is the Government policy response. The schemes included in the national transport delivery plans, based on the recommendations in the independent review, are our response; that's what the Government is supporting. Alongside that is the roads policy statement, which is now the new policy of the Welsh Government, and the tests applied for future funding schemes and in the WelTAG process. The panel makes its view clear on the Menai bridge, based on the tests it has consistently applied across the other 55 schemes. You'll see at the back of the report, in the annex, a chapter with a detailed view on that.

He says from a sedentary position, 'It's totally inconsistent.' It's the panel's analysis. It's allowed to be inconsistent. It's not our analysis; it's their analysis. We've asked an independent panel to look at it. We have said—and I've just told him what we have said—'We will ask the Burns commission to look at this in the broader context of north Wales.' I hear what he says about resilience; we have to balance short-term resilience with a longer term resilience to the climate change issues. At the moment, this is a £400 million scheme for which we do not have the funding. So, regardless of the recommendation in the review, it's a slightly academic point at the moment given the state of our budgets from the UK Government. I know there's a hotly contested race going on in Anglesey, and no doubt Virginia Crosbie will be—[Interruption.] Let me finish. No doubt Virginia Crosbie will be issuing press releases this afternoon calling us everything. There is no money from the UK Government to proceed with a third Menai crossing. We're going to look at the Burns commission work in north Wales to look at a whole package of support, and whether or not the resilience case that Rhun ap Iorwerth has just made stands up to scrutiny or if the work of the roads review is robust in its own terms. We'll return to this question.

Can I remind Members that I have 12 Members who still wish to speak? I understand the passion and the emotion that Members wish to express on behalf of their constituents, but can we try and ensure we keep the to the times to allow all 12 Members to contribute today, please? Jack Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It will come as no surprise to the Minister, I'm sure, that I'm obviously deeply disappointed in today's announcement. It's clear from the publications and the statement you've made today that the red route in Flintshire is not going ahead. Ultimately, this project was about reducing air pollution. Minister, I'm conscious that other Members in the Chamber have similar passions, but this is one deep passion of mine. It's time for you to deliver now. My constituents need immediate action; they don't need more reviews. I'd be grateful if you could update the Chamber today and outline what immediate action looks like, and also what steps you are taking as the Minister responsible to invest all of the money earmarked for the red route in Deeside to alleviate this very serious public health problem.

Thank you. I respect Jack Sargeant's point of view, and I was pleased to meet with him and Mark Tami to talk through the issues. I understand the strength of feeling there is in the local area to address the air quality concerns, and that is why we have decided to look at Aston Hill as a separate case. We will look with the local authority to develop solutions that will bring some short-term benefits to that area. In terms of immediacy, I would point out that the Flintshire red route would not have been immediate. The construction time for that—even if the money had been available, which it is not—would have been very considerable. So, I don't think that is fair.

I know it's been a long-running debate, but what's very clear from these schemes—. When you look at the conclusions of the roads review and each of the panel's suggestions, it goes through the detailed process of how these decisions have been made. In every single case, at the first stage of the options appraisal, there were a slew of other schemes that could have been developed that would have addressed the transport problems in the area, at stage 1. When it got to stage 2, all but the road options, typically, were removed and the engineers focused on taking forward the road option. So, I believe there are other ways of tackling many of these problems short of building a large, expensive, climate-damaging, biodiversity-damaging bypass. I think we need to separate out the issues of air quality that we hope to do something about from the broader case for a traffic-inducing road. I will continue to work with him to understand and address the needs of his constituents, but in a way that is consistent with the climate emergency.

I'll say again to Members that I've often heard many people saying, 'We agree with the principles of the roads review, but in the case of my constituency, there are exceptional circumstances.' I understand that, and that applies to my constituency too. I understand the pressures we all face from a set of expectations and a set of behaviours and investment decisions over 70 years in terms of the way to deal with transport problems. But if you read the report and if you draw through our own commitments on net zero and how that applies to transport, the slowest of all sectors to respond, we should all surely recognise that we need to do something different.

Deputy Minister, a decent road and transport infrastructure is key to a vibrant economy, yet you seem to want to block Wales's progress at every turn. What else have we come to expect from a failed socialist Government intent on banning things and slowing progress down? We could and should have seen an M4 relief road by now, yet this ludicrous decision to scrap the M4 relief road was taken despite spending £157 million on it, despite the vast inward investment that that would have brought. It just goes to show this Government will spend millions of pounds on anything apart from improving our road infrastructure. This Government wants to seemingly ban driving or make it impossible to drive, which, for someone living in a rural area, like many people in Wales, is a little bit insane, without significant public transport routes in place or laying more track. I cannot see this in any of your plans. On some of your successes to date, Deputy Minister, there has been no increase in the uptake of cycling for active travel purposes, and no money spent on advertising active travel since 2018 by this Welsh Government. Wales is falling significantly behind on moving towards electric vehicles, as my colleague Natasha Asghar outlined. And to top it off, the Welsh Government has reduced spending on active travel in 2023-24. Deputy Minister, I have one question for you: with an inadequate rail service, failing airport and crumbling roads, how do you expect people to get around, let alone get this economy moving again?

First of all, Deputy Presiding Officer, given the complaints that have been made in this Chamber about the use of language around mental health recently, I would question whether the use of the term 'insane' is appropriate. The Conservatives have made criticisms about other Members, and I think they should apply that to their own. Perhaps I'd ask you to consider that when you examine the record.

As ever, I enjoy Laura Anne Jones's rehearsals for the Conservative leadership election, pressing the buttons of her grass roots, continuing the culture wars whenever she gets an opportunity. Her starting premise is simply false. Nobody disagrees that a decent road infrastructure is key to the modern economy. If you'd taken the trouble to listen to my speech before writing your own, you'd have noticed that we said that we will continue to build roads, that road building is a key part of our transport approach, but we need to reassess the type of roads we build, the purposes for which they're built and the way in which they're built. Your own Government's net-zero capacity—[Interruption.]—will surely support that.

We are having the usual tropes from the benches in a sedentary position that we're anti-roads, anti-inward investment. These are vacuous slogans without any basis in policy, intellectual analysis or rigour—[Interruption.] If you took the trouble to read the report instead of pressing buttons for your own activists—

Can we allow the Deputy Minister to give his answer, please?

—we would have a richer debate. The issue of spending on active travel being below where we would have seen it is an issue of capacity in local authorities. That is an issue we are addressing with local authorities, who simply can't spend the budget we are making available for them. That's why the money is where it is. So, I do hope that we can all do better than this, because it's not going to address any of the problems we face. This is just inane tittle-tattle.

Can I assure the Deputy Minister that we will review the transcript?

Thank you.

I think we are here to both represent our communities and our constituencies, but also to take the wider picture, and that is hard. I and three others in this Siambr represent Mid and West Wales, and Brecon and Radnorshire is the most sparsely populated constituency in England and Wales. So, we do know about rural communities, but I stand here saying that I support this review, and I'm here to say that we need to take a brave step forward for the most pressing issue that we have ahead of us, which is the climate emergency. I will be defending this, and I'm sure I'll come in for a lot of stick, but we need to be saying: let's have more bus services, let's look at how we develop our opportunity to be an exciting, vibrant country that demonstrates that we don't need to rely on roads, that we're taking the climate emergency seriously, and let us go ahead on the basis of this.

I support this statement, and I would like to ask the Minister: what can you offer to rural communities? Because it is important that we hear exactly what this roads review can offer to rural communities, including, I hope, looking at enhanced bus transport and, I would hope, free bus transport for our under-25s. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you for that, and it's a consistent position that Jane Dodds has taken on these issues, and I appreciate it. On the point of rural areas, which I know is something that the Conservatives have been raising too, I fully accept that, in rural areas, you need a different approach to urban areas. It's entirely possible to do that. If you look at rural Switzerland or rural Sweden or rural Germany, with much deeper rural areas than ours, they manage to have, in many parts, a bus service to every village every hour. There's nothing set in stone that we can't provide alternative transport in rural areas. These are choices we've made. Of course you're more likely to be car dependent in rural areas than you are in urban areas, but there are other things that we can work together on. I published a written statement last week on rural areas, I've been holding a series of round-tables with local authorities and others who live in rural areas. It's interesting now how the Conservative benches have gone quiet and they're looking at their phones while I'm actually answering their questions, because they're denied their cheap campaign lines. The truth is that there is an answer for rural areas if we want to find it, and if we are to tackle climate change, we have to tackle it in urban and in rural Wales, and we need to work together on solutions rather than constantly saying there's nothing that can be done in rural areas.

Now, on Jane Dodds's specific point about her constituency, one of the concerns, I know, is speeds in rural areas, and our next piece of work is to review speed limits across the country. One of the key points in the roads review is that, where there are accident black spots or safety concerns, we should be looking to reduce the speed limits in those areas first, and do small-scale interventions rather than rebuilding entire corridors to make them suitable to drive at a faster rate. So, I don't think there is any tension, actually, between a viable, safe rural transport system and the climate goals—it's how we go about it.

But, of course, in the real world, it is the Welsh Government that is taking services further away from people. It was the Welsh Government, of course, that funded a new hospital without any public transport links at all for my constituents, and I've come back here for the last six, seven years, and been assured by every Minister who's held that portfolio that public transport links would be provided, and they haven't been. They haven't been today. And so, what I want to see from the Welsh Government is more joined-up thinking—that, if we're going to take services away from people in terms of distance, then what we have to be able to do is to provide a public transport option that is available for people to reach those services, and that hasn't happened.

It's the easiest thing in the world to make a pious speech or to say 'no'. What is more difficult is designing the public transport structures and systems that give people a real choice, and the most striking part of your statement for me, Deputy Minister, was when you said that most successful economies have modern, successful public transport systems. Now, you know, and I know, that the deregulation of the buses, which didn't happen in London, of course, by Thatcher's Government has wiped out bus services across Wales—rural and urban—and what we need to do is to reinstate those. So, what we need to sit alongside this statement is another statement on the alternatives available to people, to some of the most poor and vulnerable people in the country, because promising more committees and more commissions year, after year, after year is not going to cut the mustard any more. People want to see real plans for real public transport options, and when that is done, you won't need to make speeches like this; you won't need to have any more statements—

Alun, can you conclude now, please?

—because people would make the choices themselves.

Of course, I agree with that, and I said earlier that we need to make the right thing to do the easiest thing to do. We need public transport to be on the doorstep for people to turn up and go. And one of the purposes of redirecting our roads pipeline is to free up finance in future years to allow that investment to take place. We are suffering at the moment from past decisions and from, as you said rightly, a fragmented and privatised public transport system, and, of course, the headwinds of COVID, which has caused real damage. He's absolutely right about the lack of joined-up thinking about placing services at out-of-town sites, and we need to stop that, and that's one of the things that the roads review makes very clear.

Julie James and I have been working on the new 'town centre first' policy statement, which will be published soon, which has, at its core, the need for the public sector, in particular, to join up and think about where it places its services so that it strengthens town centres, and it doesn't occur to drag them out into out-of-town centres where no thought has been given to public transport. He is right; that example is a scar on the record of joined-up thinking in the public sector. In terms of the private sector, Julie James has already published a new planning policy, 'Future Wales', which makes those sorts of developments out of line with policy.

In terms of alternatives, we have provided and trialed the 'fflecsi' demand-responsive bus in Blaenau Gwent, and the results in different settings have been very encouraging. It's been different in the different places we've trialed it. We've got some good data that we're now evaluating. The challenge then will be to spread and scale, but, as ever, when the budgets are as they are as a result of austerity, which is a political choice by the Government in London, we don't have the resources to do all the things that we want to do. And the specific example that he quotes of the bus service in Blaenau Gwent, which, as he knows, we've tried very hard to put a publicly-subsidised bus in there, but it has been challenged by a commercial operator, and that's one of the reasons why we are re-regulating the bus network to make sure that there's a coherence to the transport system, and is not left to the randomness of the market.

I would like to say that the one thing I would say about you, Minister, Lee, is that your heart is in this, and it has been for quite some time, and no-one is denying that we need more active travel. But I think the point that Alun Davies, my colleague, has made is the fact that you get your infrastructure in place, then you can decide not to do what we've always done and keep building roads. But I am going to have another moan about my two roundabouts on the A55, because part of the reason is about the environment and climate change, and also about air pollution. Really, I would ask you now today to review the options on those two roundabouts.

I'm also told that the Holyhead free port could be under threat if those roundabouts are not removed, because there are no roundabouts from Hull to Holyhead in that way, and those roundabouts do cause congestion now for my residents, where, when you did go to consultation, £9 million—and it was proven that those roundabouts should be taken out. They were scrapped before even this roads review. All I would say is that you've seen the keen interest. We've all got issues in terms of our own constituencies. As a shadow Minister for climate change and environment, we've been taking extensive evidence on our public transport system, and it does not make good reading for anybody or for the Welsh Government. You need to get that infrastructure in place. People are not going to get out of their cars and get on to buses that don't exist, or get on trains that are unreliable, sometimes very dirty and are often cancelled. I would just ask you, Minister: can we have a full debate on this?

Dirprwy Lywydd, you've been really, really good letting all of us have our little say today. I was excited for this roads review and the plan, and today, my bubble has been burst, because we've not been able to really scrutinise it. So, please step up to the mark. Let's have a good debate next week on it, a Government-brought debate. Cheers. Thank you.

Well, I sincerely am sorry to burst your bubble, Janet. It is hard to keep up, I must say, because when we made the decision not to go ahead with the roundabout changes, you told me that you were in favour of the decision. You're now against the decision. So, it's quite confusing. The point about those roundabouts, like the other decisions made in the roads review, is that, when schemes were built for road-safety reasons, the cases being made by our own departments and engineers were that the way to deal with that was by putting in grade-separated junctions—so, flyovers, in effect. Now, as I mentioned in the speech earlier, a third of all emissions from transport schemes come from the embodied carbon in the scheme. So, grade-separated junctions are expensive, they use a large amount of carbon, and the safety case that you make—if you read again the report that the roads review issued of those junctions—the safety case had not been made. They were effectively about increasing traffic flow and traffic speeds. Now, that is not consistent with safety.

I know nothing about your claim that it would put economic development in jeopardy, and I'd like to hear some evidence behind that, if that is, indeed, the case. But let me go back to the earlier point: you said that you want to put the infrastructure in place first and then look at the services. You know, this is a chicken-and-egg situation. We've been trying this approach of, 'Let's deal with this traffic problem with a bypass; let's deal with this traffic problem with an extra lane' for 70 years, and what it's done, as the roads review makes clear, is generate extra travel, which, then, the roads fill up and there's more congestion and then you have more investment. So, there is never any money to fund the alternatives. At some point, we have to break this cycle to put us in a way that we are fit for purpose with the climate targets that you and I have both said publicly we support, because it's no good supporting the target if you don't support the actions necessary.

The announcement regarding the decision to stop the Llanbedr bypass was made in the autumn of 2021. It was the wrong decision and it came as a very bitter pill after decades of promises. So, while we accept that everything must be done to tackle climate change, not only should this action allow for a just transition, but it should also be commensurate with the likely impact on the communities affected. In Llanbedr's case, we're not looking at a road that will add further vehicles to the road network, but rather, we're looking at a plan to improve the safety of the local residents and strengthen the local economy.

In fact, the Deputy Minister talked, in his presentation, about the most vulnerable people who suffer because of a lack of public transport. He talked about improvements in public transport and increasing active travel. Yet, in the year and a half since the Llanbedr announcement was made, we've seen no investment into any of these things in Llanbedr or even the Meirionnydd coast. In fact, last week, the Government intended to cut the bus emergency scheme, making routes along the Meirionnydd coast unviable for most bus providers. And, in another part of my constituency, we've seen the essential T19 service cut as well without any help from the Government. So, it seems like a lot of warm words but no action at all as far as the Meirionnydd experience is concerned. So, can the Deputy Minister tell me today what investment is the Government putting into Llanbedr and the Meirionnydd coast, so that the people living in those communities have easy access to all that they need to live a life of dignity and free of the deadly dangers that they currently face? Also, the Llanbedr report recommended building an amended version of the original proposal, with a slower speed limit. This would be welcomed by the community, but we've had no movement on this as yet. So, will the Deputy Minister commit to this alternative here today and have a meeting with me and the stakeholders to move this plan forward? Diolch.

Well, as the Member knows, I've already agreed to meet with him and a delegation from Llanbedr to discuss the issue. I'm slightly gobsmacked by his claims of a lack of action, when we have been trying repeatedly to make progress with the local authority, who have not engaged in a way that has brought progress with us. We've had meetings—they've certainly turned up to meetings—but we've had no willingness to seriously engage in solutions. Instead, they've gone outside the devolution settlement—this is a Plaid Cymru-led council—to appeal to Westminster, who have no powers over transport, to fund, over the heads of their devolved elected Welsh Government who do have powers for transport, a scheme under the levelling-up fund, at the same time as Plaid Cymru are here, pushing us to reach net zero by 2035. You know, I think the contradictions are breathtaking. We remain willing to work with the local authority. I would like to treat Llanbedr as an exemplar rural scheme, to try and find alternative solutions to deal with the problems. I've said that to the council leader, I've said that to the cabinet member on multiple occasions, and I remain willing to work with them, but it takes two to tango.

Deputy Minister, you will be aware of my long-standing commitment to the Cynon Gateway North, working alongside residents of Llwydcoed and Penywaun and the local councillors there. The purpose of the gateway scheme is to mitigate the forced dispersal of traffic from the dualling of sections 5 and 6 of the Heads of the Valleys road, due to the permanent removal of the main Hirwaun entry and exit point. Can you place on record today the fact you understand that this is a scheme that is not designed to increase road capacity, but rather to mitigate the effects of the removal of this main route in and out of the Cynon valley? I'm encouraged to hear that local authorities will be able to start resubmitting their plans from the start of the next financial year, in just a few weeks' time. So, can you give an undertaking that your officials will work closely with Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council to explore how this scheme might be amended in order to meet the future road building tests?

Thank you. I understand Vikki Howells's position on this road, and she's been consistent in her campaigning for it. The roads review examined it, and they set out in detail in their report the reasons why they don't think it's compliant with the tests that it has set, and we've agreed with, to develop as a road scheme. That said, we have said in our national transport delivery plan, and in the conversations I've had with both her and with Andrew Morgan, the leader of the council, that we are willing to look at this scheme to see if we can make it compliant with our policies, to see if it can meet the tests. And that applies to all schemes in Wales: where there is a genuine transport problem in a community, we want to tackle that problem. We're not convinced that building a traditional road scheme is the best way to do it; we think there are other ways. Let's try and find an agreement and a consensus way forward, so we can help her constituents.

There are three schemes that are referred to in my constituency in the roads review report, all of which, unfortunately, it's likely, appearing from the document, are going to be scrapped. Now, these are schemes that I've corresponded with you and your predecessors on over many years and each time I have corresponded with you, up until the roads review started, everything had a green light and the work was going ahead, and dates were being scheduled and everybody was being prepared for the work.

I refer in particular to the Maes Gamedd junction in Gwyddelwern, a project that has been promised for well over a decade, with you and your predecessors giving me answers to written questions saying that the work would proceed. That's a dangerous junction, which needs to be addressed, and the local community will be looking to you to find out why on earth it isn't going to be addressed, given today's announcement. The Corwen road and Lôn Fawr junction on the A494 in Ruthin—another project that has been promised for a very long time, a gateway into Ruthin, a junction that needs to improve, Minister, if I may say, in order to deliver active travel on a circular route around Ruthin as a town. And yet you're scrapping a piece of work that will enable the delivery of that, and yet you're saying you're in favour of active travel. And I believe you're in favour of active travel, but I don't see how that decision is consistent with your ambition to deliver it. And a third scheme—Abergele town centre congestion scheme—again, ditched. And this is a town that is facing congestion on a daily basis, not just in the summer months, when it's very acute because of the visitors that we receive, but every single day of the week.

So, I would challenge you, Minister: come with me to my constituency. I'll give you a tour of these locations, and you can see for yourself the problems that your decision is going to result in as a result of the scrappage of these particular schemes. And I do hope that you'll consider my invitation, because I want you to see first-hand, for yourself, why scrapping these schemes doesn't make any sense.

Well, I'm sure you've had a chance to look at—perhaps not in full yet—the reasons set out for the three schemes in the roads review. For example, on the Maes Gamedd road junction improvement on the A494, the review panel says that it

'should not proceed in its current form. The safety of the junction should continue to be monitored. Further options to reduce speed and improve the visibility splay at the existing junction should be developed if the collision record suggests that action should be taken.'

In our national transport delivery plan, we have said that we will consider

'alternative and small-scale options to improve safety, aligned to tests set out in the Welsh Government's response to the Roads Review.'

I think that it's another example of that we're not denying that there's a problem, and we're not saying that we don't want to work on a solution, but we need to make the solution proportionate, in carbon terms, to what's appropriate at that junction. And I think that that's what we will continue to do. So, I think that your constituents can be reassured that we're committed to work to find a safe solution, but one that meets the tests that we now have set out in policy.

I fully support Janet Finch-Saunders's request for a full debate. We need to be able to digest all the content here—and I do accept that you did apologise, Deputy Minister, for not publishing beforehand—because it is important for our constituents that we are able to engage fully in matters like this, and just glancing during the course of debate doesn't allow for that.

You'll be aware that many local development plans contain national targets for the quarrying of aggregates for roads. This includes Craig-yr-Hesg quarry just outside of Pontypridd, which has been granted permission to proceed with an extension to its life and area quarried by Welsh Government, despite strong local objections. In reviewing the investment in roads, what consideration has been given to how this will impact on the need for aggregates? Communities such as Glyncoch have previously been told that the economic need for the aggregate outweighs environmental or health considerations, which is at odds with the approach you're outlining today in terms of the roads review. Therefore, I think we need some clarification. If there is a review in terms of the need for new roads and the investment in new roads, how will that then impact on the need for aggregate?

I'm not familiar with the detail of the example she quotes, but I would say in general the key finding—. One of the tests we've set for future road schemes is minimising the amount of embedded and embodied carbon that is involved. That implies that we'd use less carbon-intensive materials, so we'd need fewer materials overall. That may well have knock-on consequences. But, rather than give an off-the-cuff response, perhaps I could get back to her once I have the chance to consider it more fully.

Deputy Minister, I rather fear that the cart is being put before the horse today, and has rolled over it. Alternative public transport options really must exist if people are to get out of their cars, and that's what the Wales transport strategy was designed to deliver, but it's hard to find any new alternatives in today's announcement. Does the £56 million earmarked for the A483 junction improvements remain in the national transport delivery plan for improvements around Wrexham? Will you agree to commence the devolution of responsibilities and funding for north Wales trunk roads to north Wales? Given the need for clear and consistent policy as well with the end to new road routes, will new air and ferry routes to and from Welsh ports now be stopped? And finally, as a result of today's announcement, how much extra revenue are you planning to put into bus services as the main alternative to cars?

In terms of the geographical spread, of the 17 schemes that are going ahead in the national transport delivery plan, five are in north Wales, five are in mid Wales, so I don't think the case that there's geographical bias here stands scrutiny. And I don't accept the idea that we should not have a national approach to transport and roads building. So, I don't agree with the Member about that. We've set out a detailed, evidence-based analysis, based on the carbon targets we all joined up to, developing the Wales transport strategy he and I developed together and which we endorsed. The national transport delivery plan is designed to implement the principles in that. I appreciate, at a constituency level, the Member has some concerns about a scheme, which I was pleased to meet him last week to discuss. As I said then, we will continue to work with the local authority to find a way of addressing the local air quality problems in a way consistent with the tests. But building extra road capacity has been shown, time and again, to generate further traffic, which has the overall impact of worsening air quality and damaging the climate. So, I appreciate these are difficult trade-offs at times, and we all have local constituency considerations, and he is not the only one with that, but we have to be prepared to follow through on the policies that we've set out.

Minister, I'm disappointed that a number of schemes that I've been promoting for many years are not progressing, but I was pleased to see that the Caersws road scheme is progressing, and really I suppose to challenge that perhaps it really shouldn't have been in the road review scheme in the first place, because it was more about a safety issue, rather than building a new road. But I think you're pushing at an open door when the report talks about more active travel being included in that scheme; that will gain community support. But, particularly, I notice, Minister, there's no mention of the Pant and Llanymynech bypass—this is a scheme that straddles the Wales-Shropshire border—being progressed, and which had support on the Welsh Government side and the UK Government's side for a number of years, mainly funded by the UK Government, and the road scheme would be largely in England as well, but I think you did confirm to me 18 months ago that this was part of the road review scheme. So, if it's not included, perhaps you could update me on that, and, if not today, perhaps you could write an update with regards to that element and that particular project.

Thank you. Again, I appreciate you haven't had long to look at it, but I think you'll find in the national transport delivery plan there is mention of the scheme, that it will be subject to the test, like any other scheme is. And as you say, it is largely in England, but we are expected to pay a disproportionate share of the costs ourselves, given how little is in Wales. But that would be treated the same as any other scheme.

You referred, Minister, to the bypass in Llandeilo, and I welcome the commitment that there is in the transport delivery plan to that particular scheme. But could you explain, in terms of the announcement that you are about to make, as you say, that that will be done on the basis of WelTAG 2, namely the framework that was the basis for the consultation? And will it move on then to WelTAG stage 3 in accordance with what has been presented in terms of the stakeholders? And in your response to the review, in terms of your policy, is there anything that you think could be a barrier to delivering on the commitment you made seven years ago to build that bypass in Llandeilo?

Well, I know that Adam Price is committed to seeing this scheme through. The words in the transport plan are clear. They are the same words that we jointly agreed between our parties in the budget agreement. As I said earlier, we'll progress to the next step of that process. In terms of the status of policy, we now have a roads policy statement that is Welsh policy, so that will apply to all schemes, and obviously it'll be a material consideration in the event of any planning dispute. So, the policy applies to everybody, and we have made a commitment to you and your constituents for your particular scheme, which we are working through and will honour.

And, finally, Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Deputy Minister, for commissioning this roads review, which is going to help us align our net-zero obligations with our transport strategy, and it's clear that there's still quite a lot of work to do to ensure our planning policies are also aligned with our net-zero obligations. For example, just as we need to halt unsustainable housing developments, such as the one you referred to in Wrexham—and the one that is in my constituency, the Lisvane housing development, where Redrow has made an absolute killing on it, and I've yet to see any measures to improve active travel or, indeed, bus routes to join up that very large housing development with any public transport, and so that's something that we should all worry about as it starts to reach completion—.

I think that it's really helpful, this roads review, because it gives us a really clear direction of travel. Roads were invented long before the combustion engine. In fact, it was the Romans that built the A5, so it's about how we use our road network and surely we have to focus on those who don't have a car, as to how we can enable them to get around. And I think that the issue I want to speak about, and ask you about today, is really how we can get more rapid bus transport routes with dedicated bus lanes as a vehicle for getting the constituents of Blaenau Gwent or the Cynon Valley into Cardiff without having to use cars? Because, at the moment, the main reason given by people who bring their cars into the city centre, just to sit for eight hours while they are working, is that they can't rely—

You need to conclude now, please.

—on the buses, because they are clogged up in the congestion created by cars, which is an absolutely vicious circle, and I wondered how we can make serious and rapid progress on that in order to make rapid progress there.

One of my great frustrations is how long everything takes in transport. One of the tensions we have is we have climate science that tells us that we need to act urgently, and we have systems that take forever. If only we could embrace some of the innovation that we saw during the pandemic, when we saw pop-up bike lanes put in place at break-neck speed, in all fairness to local government, but we seem to have reverted to type. That is a real challenge for us, I think.

In terms of your specific point on rapid bus transport, I absolutely agree that that is an essential part of the mix that we need to see. I have awarded money in the current financial year, £1 million, for the consortia to work together on a regional footprint to identify pinch-points and potential regional bus corridors in order that we can then create a pipeline of schemes. I've also made an invitation to the bus companies to identify areas that they think would make a significant difference to their reliability and journey times. That needs accelerating. The purpose of the regional transport plans that we're going to be developing, and the vanguard work that the Burns commission has done in the south-east, is to start mapping out some of these regional bus corridors and then to systematically work together to make them happen. But I share your impatience with the length of time it's taking.

Thank you, Deputy Minister. Before we move on—

I've received a request from two Members to raise a point of order. Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer. During the statement, in reply to a question, the Deputy Minister referred to Plaid Cymru as shaping the budget. This was also referred to in answer to a question at First Minister's questions. Now, since shaping the budget is a fundamental part of the executive role of Government, it raises significant questions about our ability to scrutinise members of Plaid Cymru who are shaping the Government and working within the Government. At the moment, there is no means of holding designated Members to account. We need to have a debate in this place about how designated Members function within Government, and decisions that are taken alongside designated Members, so that we can have proper accountability and scrutiny in this Chamber.

Thank you for raising that point, which is an important issue. I don't believe it's a point of order, but it is an important point that needs further consideration, which will obviously be done.

The second person is Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I would like to take issue with the Deputy Minister because he said two factually incorrect things, in my opinion, here today. On one, you said that—. I only raised with you about the two roundabouts in my constituency, and you made the point that I was saying one thing now, but I'd said something else differently, that I welcomed the fact that they were staying. Well, let me remind you of this: on 16 February 2022, I put

'It will come as no surprise, Deputy Minister, that I rise to challenge you on your decision to scrap the roundabout removal schemes on.... These schemes have been on the table since 2017, involving many costly assessments',

costing the taxpayer approximately £9 million. And, actually, that's the position I have today. So, I'd like an apology or a retraction of that.

You also said that there was nothing at the time that indicated there were any safety issues, and I said to you then as well:

'Now, the Welsh Government's own report highlights safety concerns as junctions are not compliant with current design standards; traffic delays as a result of poor network resilience; a lack of suitable diversion routes'.

But, the thing is there, we've got to be very clear when we're speaking in this Chamber that we don't set out to mislead. I don't think you did set out to mislead, but I would like you to correct the record. Thank you.

As the Deputy Minister has already asked me to review the transcript, I'm sure he will also review the transcript and then come back to correct any errors that have been made within it. Okay? Thank you.

Item 4 this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services on the Health Service Procurement (Wales) Bill. I call on the Minister, Eluned Morgan.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to make a statement on the Health Service Procurement (Wales) Bill, which I introduced to the Senedd yesterday, together with the accompanying explanatory memorandum and regulatory impact assessment.

The Bill seeks to reform the way in which certain NHS healthcare services are procured in Wales, bringing forward primary legislative powers and enabling the Welsh Ministers to create a new regime for NHS health service procurement. The powers within the Bill support the aims and objectives of our 'A Healthier Wales' strategy and this Government's commitment to provide effective, high-quality and sustainable health care, by supporting the NHS in Wales to deliver better health outcomes for the citizens of Wales.

The provisions in the Bill are partly in response to proposed changes established as a result of the UK Government's Health and Care Act 2022, under which there are plans to introduce regulations and a new regime for the procurement of NHS health services in England. The Department of Health and Social Care's provider selection regime, applicable only to the procurement of health services in England, will aim to improve patient outcomes by seeking to remove unnecessary bureaucracy from the process of working with independent healthcare providers, by encouraging collaboration and partnerships.

The provider selection regime will therefore give NHS England more flexibility to procure and arrange health services. As a consequence, these new arrangements may have an impact on NHS Wales's ability to maintain and secure health services in Wales when working with independent providers. To ensure that health service procurement in Wales is not disadvantaged as a result of introducing the provider selection regime in England, we too need to ensure that the NHS in Wales also has the ability to benefit from more flexible procurement practices.

The provisions in the Bill and the future regulations will facilitate that flexibility, providing a supportive mechanism that aims to maintain the current procurement level playing field for NHS health services between England and Wales. This will assist in mitigating the risk of NHS Wales being adversely affected by the operation of a different health service procurement regime in England. It will retain the ability for the NHS in Wales to commission independent health service providers on a co-compliant and collaborative basis, in turn supporting and optimising financial and staff resources, supporting the NHS in Wales to deliver efficiently and effectively.

Measures in the Bill will also aim to mitigate any potential market distortion by ensuring that the Welsh health service marketplace remains attractive to independent health service providers who may otherwise be deterred by having to participate in two different procurement regimes between England and Wales. It is hoped that a more flexible, collaborative and less bureaucratic approach will open up more supplier opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises and third sector organisations based here in Wales and, therefore, as a consequence, bring economic benefits across other programme for government priorities, such as our commitment to the foundational economy of Wales.

The draft Bill seeks to bring forward two regulation-making powers. Firstly, it will include a disapplication power, which will enable Welsh Ministers to dissaply provisions of the UK Government procurement Act that would otherwise apply to NHS health service procurement in Wales. Secondly, it will include a creation power to enable the Welsh Ministers to develop and implement a new, alternative procurement regime for NHS health services in Wales. This will be done through future regulations that will be accompanied by new procurement regime guidance, and these will be co-designed and implemented by the NHS in Wales.

The provider selection regime in England is expected to commence later this year. Therefore, to reduce any potential market distortion and to ensure continued delivery of key NHS health services in Wales, there is some urgency to minimise the period of time when NHS health service procurement platforms in England and Wales will operate on a different basis. And as such, it's proposed that the Bill follows an expedited timetable to seek Royal Assent this summer and to future regulations aiming to come into force early next year. This timeline will also seek to maximise procedural efficiencies for NHS Wales by coinciding with wider changes being brought about as part of the UK Government's Procurement Bill reforms, which are currently programmed for next year.

Whilst we need to be mindful that any new regime and any future regulations and guidelines need to operate on a similar basis to the proposed provider selection regime in England, Welsh Ministers have the necessary legislative competence and ability to design a new regime that best suits the specific needs of Wales in terms of patient care and health outcomes. The practical details of how this will work will be explored further and defined at the future regulation stage.

In conclusion, the proposed Bill will provide the necessary powers to enable future regulations to adapt and respond to proposed changes being introduced to NHS health service procurement in England. Consequently, they will bring about a new procurement regime for NHS health services in Wales to support patient care and better health outcomes for the citizens of Wales. I am pleased to introduce this Bill and very much look forward to the contributions of Senedd Members today, and, of course, in the coming weeks, as part of the Senedd scrutiny process. Thank you.

Minister, can I thank you in advance for the briefing that you gave to the Health and Social Care Committee last week? I know that your officials are going to be providing a technical briefing to Members as well, so that's of course appreciated. Of course, we do need to ensure that the NHS is nimble enough in its procurement practices so it doesn't fall behind other parts of the UK. As I've understood—and I'm still learning—the Bill to date, I understand why you're bringing this Bill forward, but there are some questions I have that sit behind that.

I do think, Minister, it's right, of course, to highlight that we don't want Wales to fall behind or be disadvantaged compared to England when it comes to health procurement, but I suppose it would be helpful if you could set out anything that helps us to understand how we got into this position in the first place. Then there's the position of whether an LCM could have been brought forward via the legislation being passed through the UK Parliament. That would have, of course, saved the Senedd and indeed Welsh Government valuable time. So, I wonder if the Welsh Government actively sought this legislative route, and if not, perhaps you could outline some of the obstacles that sat behind that decision.

This is an enabling Bill, so, as is often said, the devil is in the detail of the regulations that will be made using the powers that this law will create. So, given that secondary legislation will be perhaps the more significant part of this Bill, I hope that won't be contentious, but I am of course pleased that the Senedd will be allowed to vote on them as they will be part of the affirmative procedure, as I've understood it. But we do need to understand the policy intention behind the Bill, so I wonder, Minister, whether you can tell us what these regulations to follow might look like, and which health services in particular would these powers be used for.

We were also told that it's particularly important for those NHS services that deliver for patients near the England-Wales border, and of course I would have an interest in that. So, can I ask if you have any examples of where this would apply, especially for NHS-to-NHS services? And given that the Bill is about giving the Welsh Government flexibility in procuring the services of independent providers, does this mean at all that the Labour Government here is intent on increasing the use of private services in the NHS at all? Can we expect this to occur?

Also, just to understand how this Bill might help those 50,000 people who are of course waiting for over two years for treatment. I know your target is approaching, to eliminate the backlog by the end of March, and I think you'll probably confirm that that is unlikely to be achieved, but how would this Bill help in that regard?

Thanks very much. There are lots of questions there. If I'm honest, this is not the most exciting Bill that this Senedd has ever seen. What we're doing here is responding to the fact that what has happened in England is they've presented this new Bill that will allow some organisations, perhaps, not to have to retender. Sometimes that takes a lot of energy, effort and finance, when actually the service that they're providing is pretty good. So, I think that's the intention from the UK Government's point of view.

We did ask, 'Listen, can you just slip us in there? Why don't you just add our name to that?' And actually, they said that they couldn't provide Welsh Ministers with the two necessary powers to disapply the current procurement rules and to create the new rules. That's why we're in this situation. So, we did ask that question, and that's why we're having to bring this forward now, because otherwise there will be, effectively, a gap and there's going to be a difference in terms of the different procurement regimes between Wales and England.

We don't want to be disadvantaged. This is an enabling Bill, it's a framework Bill. As you said, the more exciting bits, the bits that bring this thing to life, will come when secondary legislation comes in. I'm pleased to say that the Senedd will have a chance to look at that detail through the affirmative procedure. That's the bit that I think everybody needs to get excited about; this is just creating the framework.

In terms of whether we'll just cut and paste whatever they do in England, we haven't seen what they're going to do in England yet. We haven't seen the detail of their secondary legislation. So, we don't know whether we want to copy and paste that. We'll have to have a look. It may be that we want to do things differently. Maybe we want to skew things in a slightly different way from what they're intending to do in England. It's about keeping an open mind and seeing what they come up with. But at least we will have the flexibility to respond if we need to.

There are, I think, opportunities. There are lots of areas where we do procure from across the border in England for highly specialised services, and there's no reason why we would want that to stop, necessarily. There are, for example, renal services, child and adult mental health services where it's really, really specialised, and those services may not be available in Wales. What we can do then is to go under the same procurement banner as they would in England.

You asked about the border, and you're absolutely right; there are examples, for example out-of-hours GP services. There is an example in Powys where the out-of-hours service is shared between Wales and England on the border. That would be really difficult for us to do in future unless we've got a common procurement framework. There will be examples where we want to do this. If the regulations come forward, we'll have to see whether we agree with them or not in terms of what England wants to do. But we'll have a chance to discuss that in the Senedd at that time.

Thank you for the statement this afternoon, Minister, and for the briefing provided to us beforehand. It's a little unclear at this point some of the things that we will discover as this proceeds over the next weeks and months. I have listened to the Minister's rationale for her belief that this is necessary and that there needs to be a level of protection because of legislation being introduced over the border in England that could create the kind of distortion that may be problematic to us. In that context, I want to be pragmatic and fully understand what the practical impacts of that may be and what is the practical need for taking this step in Wales. The fundamental problem that I have is why the Government in Westminster, or rather in Whitehall, is introducing this change when the Minister tells us today:

'The provider selection regime will therefore give NHS England more flexibility to procure and arrange health services.'

I don't trust the motives of the Conservative Government for wanting to do that, and there will be issues of principle leading me through this process. The fundamental principle is that I don't want to see this as a means for the private sector to lay down deeper roots within the provision of health services in Wales, and to be able to set those roots far more easily than they would have been able to do in the past. So, I would like to hear from the Minister on the record that she shares those concerns.

It is a concern of mine that there is an expedited process for scrutiny of this. Because I want to be pragmatic and to understand exactly what's at stake here, it's a cause of concern that that scrutiny period is shorter than it perhaps should be. So, what confidence can the Minister give me that the period, even if it is shorter than usual, will allow the same depth of scrutiny? Because we do need to be entirely clear that we look at all of the possible implications here. I will be pragmatic, as I've said, but those concerns do mean that the scrutiny is extremely important. I know that other Members on these benches share my concerns, and I would welcome the Minister's comments on her concerns.

One specific question that I have asked previously, and I just wanted to know if there are any early findings coming from the work done by Government here: procurement in a more streamlined way would make it easier to give contracts to the third sector, not just to the private sector. I have wondered whether we can differentiate between third sector and private-sector provision within this legislation. I would appreciate an update on any work that is been being done on that possibility.

Thank you very much. I do think that we do need to keep a weather eye on what is happening, and we do need to bear in mind that this is a very brief Bill. So, what we're talking about here is a framework, and what will be important is what will go into that framework, and that's why it's important that we'll have an opportunity to come back to discuss the details of what goes into the framework. That'll be the point at which it will be much more of a political issue, and that's the point where we'll have to look at whether what's being proposed in England is appropriate for us here in Wales too. So, I don't think that this initial phase is as contentious as that; it's the second phase that will be, and of course, we'll have to come back to the Senedd for that.

I do share your concerns in terms of the private sector, and we have to be vigilant in that regard, but I also think that there are examples where the third sector, for example, does excellent work, and what is a barrier to them—and I'm sure you've discussed this with some of them, too—is that they have to jump through all of these hoops, even though they provide such a good service. Why do we have to go through that process time and time again even though the service they provide is so good? That causes difficulties in terms of keeping people in their posts and so on. So, I think that there are aspects that will be of assistance to the third sector, and that is something that I would be comfortable with. I just want to be clear: in terms of the reason why—.

Just to go back to Russell's point earlier in terms of why we couldn't get into the first Health and Care Act, the point there is that the scope of the Health and Care Act was for England, so that's why it was difficult for us to say—. It was about the scope of the Act itself, which meant that it was difficult for us to join in. It was just applied to England, so they were reluctant. Usually, I think, when it comes to LCMs, they're dealing with broader issues, but this is very much a very carefully defined devolved area, which is why I guess the scope was quite defined for them.

And finally, Joyce Watson.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I thank you, Minister, for your statement. As you say, the first stage of this is a framework Bill, and the second stage will be where the detail lies. When I put the term 'flexible procurement in the NHS' and the Tories together, I get really concerned, as most of the country should be, because we will remember the personal protective equipment fiasco that happened with the flexible VIP fast-tracking, or, if you like, in my words, fast-profiting, regime being put together. We need to clearly keep a watching brief. We know that there's going to be a provider selection regime and we need to know more about how that will look in Wales, because you're absolutely right not to go down the same road as we suspect the Tories in England will do and give jobs to those people who invest in that party. They've got a good track record in putting those two things together. We don't wish to follow that, and we want legislation that will safeguard, first of all, the NHS in Wales in and of itself, but also, of course, the patients, because it would be those people who'd be receiving that care and receiving the outcomes from that care who have to be at the absolute centre of everything that we do. Yes, we would have all liked more time, but, as you say, the first stage is a framework, so it has to go through as it is—

You need to conclude now, Joyce, please.

My question to you, Minister, is: when you exercise the second part of this, will you give adequate time, or more time, certainly, to scrutinise what will be in that framework so that we can all be assured that those things that I've just outlined happening over the border won't happen here in Wales?

Thanks very much, Joyce. I just want to reassure you, really, that we'll be the ones who decide what it looks like in Wales. If we like what they're doing in England, we can copy it. If we don't like it, we don't have to copy it. But we've got the framework now to make those decisions. What we are talking about here is quite often highly specialised services that we can't offer in Wales, so we're not in a position, very often, to make choices; it's either there, or you don't get a service. We've got to keep an eye on what is good for the patient constantly, and that is part of what we need to do here, which is why, for example—. You represent also a border constituency. Shropdoc, the out-of-hours service, is co-commissioned with health boards in England and Powys health authority, so it would be much more difficult to do that in future, which means that the cover for the people living in those border areas out of hours would be very, very difficult to provide. It may be that in that example, there wouldn't be enough people on the Welsh side for people to tender for that service. So, it is about being practical, this, I think, and just keeping our eye on what is best for the patients, but without losing that ideological lens that I think we're all very committed to.

Thank you, Minister.

Item 5 this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language on digital learning in further education. I call on the Minister, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Over the past three years, we have seen a step change in the development of digital learning, on a scale that we could never have anticipated before the COVID-19 pandemic. I want to pay tribute to the dedication of our staff and leaders across the whole education sector, who worked to keep our learners engaged during a period of unprecedented challenge.

It's now time to look forward. We have an exciting opportunity to consider how teaching and learning can evolve to meet the changing needs of learners, the changing needs of the economy and the changing needs of society—these are ever-changing needs. And this is about harnessing the potential of technology to enhance learning experiences and widen access to learning opportunities for people in Wales. Our new school curriculum will help to develop pupils’ digital competence, and I want to ensure that our young people can continue on that journey as they progress into post-16 learning.

The further education sector is also at the forefront of our plans to equip learners of all ages with the skills they need to progress into meaningful, fulfilling work. Effective vocational learning means working with the tools and techniques used by modern industry, and our colleges have forged strong partnerships with employers to help fulfil the digital skills mission in the digital strategy for Wales.

In spring of last year, I set out my overall vision for the further education sector in Wales. I made it clear that I expect digital tools and technologies to become a natural part of a learner’s journey, as part of a modern, coherent approach to learning. We already have a strong foundation to help make this ambition a reality. Our strategic framework for digital learning, namely 'Digital 2030', which was published in 2019, was co-produced with the post-16 sector. We are using the vision, aims and objectives set out in 'Digital 2030' to guide investment and support for the sector.

I want our further education sector in Wales to be at the leading edge of innovation, creativity and collaboration. I am very pleased to see many examples of this type of activity in our FE sector. Our colleges are sharing knowledge and experiences of exploring the use of virtual and augmented reality, exploring creative partnerships with hi-tech industries, and working with partners to deliver digitally focused qualifications.

In December, I wrote to further education college principals to launch a call to action for the FE sector under 'Digital 2030'. Moving on from experiences of emergency remote education during the height of the pandemic, I have asked every college to develop its own strategic plan for digital learning by the end of this academic year. I want to ensure that we embed a sustainable, strategic approach to digital learning and offer high-quality learning experiences that both engage and enthuse our learners. To support this call to action, I have earmarked a total of £8 million capital funding over three academic years for digital equipment and infrastructure improvements in FE institutions. This will bring the total Welsh Government investment in FE digital learning to over £30 million by the end of the 2024-25 academic year. I know that the FE sector supports a very diverse range of individuals, offering a variety of different subjects and qualifications at various levels, and there is no simple one-size-fits-all approach to digital learning, so each college will need to develop its own unique plan.

To ensure that, together, these plans create a cross-cutting strategic approach across the whole of the FE sector, I have set out four key priorities for colleges to reflect in their plans. Firstly, to work collaboratively to widen access to learning opportunities. Secondly, to develop learners’ and staff's digital capabilities and confidence for learning, life and work. Thirdly, to maximise the potential of technology to empower, enthuse and inspire learners, and fourthly, to embed agile, resilient and sustainable approaches to delivery.

As a result of annual Welsh Government funding, colleges benefit from a comprehensive support offer from Jisc. Jisc will continue to be our key partners for 'Digital 2030', developing our research and evidence base, and ensuring that best practice is shared and, indeed, extended across the post-16 sector. We've commissioned a unique piece of research from Jisc, which will identify the opportunities to use digital and blended learning to create maximum impact into the future. I look forward to the results of this research being shared in the spring.

The aims of 'Cymraeg 2050', our strategy for increasing the number of Welsh speakers, are very important to this too. The Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol has been working with a range of activities to increase use of the Welsh language, and also to increase capability and confidence in the FE sector, helping colleges and teaching practitioners to use digital technology to support learners’ Welsh language acquisition and to develop Welsh language skills.

I’m expecting that colleges’ strategic plans will identify longer term ambitions for digital learning, but will focus more closely on the period from 2023 to 2025, whilst the new commission for tertiary education and research is being established. Digital technology offers huge potential to help deliver the commission’s key goals of strengthening collaboration across the post-16 sector, widening opportunities for learners across Wales, and supporting learners’ transition and progression. The call to action will help to ensure that the FE sector is ready to play its part in achieving these goals over the coming years.

Minister, thank you for your statement today. We in the Welsh Conservatives are supportive of the aims and ambitions of the statement, as we all want to see a more digitally adept Wales. And we all recognise that there are major social and financial benefits to be gained from enriching the digital skills of Wales. However, I do have a few concerns about how we ensure that no-one misses out on this, so if you could just allay these fears today, I would be grateful.

People living in rural Wales who are not online are usually excluded due to problems with broadband provision, both for fixed line and mobile broadband services. There are still many areas of Wales affected by notspots, although the prevalence of these is reported by case study participants to be diminishing. How does your plan ensure that no-one is excluded due to poor broadband provision?

Another key issue, as you know, is those from lower income families who are more economically inactive and are less likely to visit a website than those in employment. Lower income families and individuals may be affected by access to and affordability of devices and connectivity, as well as not having access to devices or, possibly, networks, meaning that they also may not develop the needed digital knowledge, motivation or skills. So, another question: how are you going to ensure that income and finances don't get in the way of learning these crucial skills?

And finally, my concern is about those with disabilities or long-term health conditions. Eighty-nine per cent of those with a disability or a long-term health condition use the internet compared to 93 per cent of those without. People with disabilities may require help in identifying appropriate assistive technologies, or could be hindered in their digital learning journey. It is clear that some form of grant or assistance may be needed here to help assist these admirable aims of yours, Minister. So, my final question is: can you tell me what help will be available for those with disabilities or long-term health problems? Thank you, Minister.

Yes, certainly. As part of the investment of over £30 million that we've made into the expansion of digital provision by the FE sector in recent years—that will be the figure by the end of the 2024-25 academic year—one of they key criteria for investment of that is to make sure that everyone is able to access the provision that results from that. The Member will also recall the significant capital investment that we have made to fund the provision of laptops and tablets in both the school and college sector, so that those individuals who may find it challenging themselves to buy what can often be very expensive equipment are also able to access that kit, that equipment, themselves. So, that's been a very important part of the offer, I think.

And she's right to identify the variable access to broadband in certain parts of Wales, certainly, as being a particular challenge. What she will know is that, as a Government, this function, as she knows, is a reserved function to Westminster, but regardless of that, we've sought to invest through our superfast broadband and other schemes in order to minimise the number of notspots that exist because of the geography of Wales, And, indeed, as part of the COVID response, you will recall that, as well as providing kit, we also provided connectivity tools as well, so dongles and so on, to ensure that learners weren't excluded in the way that she fears in her question. So, part of the work that has been undertaken over recent years has been specifically focused on making sure that the tools that are developed, the teaching techniques that are deployed, are as accessible as possible, including to those with particular challenges from disability as well as affordability. It's a really important part of the mission behind this to extend those opportunities, and so, I absolutely agree with her that that's an important priority.

Thank you for the statement, Minister, and we welcome this investment in digital skills, particularly in light of the fact that there is increasing demand for digital skills in the jobs market, and this is demand that isn't currently being met, with a lack of advanced digital skills being a concern too expressed by employers.

'Digital 2030' was launched in 2019, so we're now four years into this strategy, and you have noted an investment of £30 million since then. Research demonstrates that interest needs to be engendered early on in subjects such as computer sciences and ICT, and you've referred in your statement to the role of the new curriculum in that regard. But concerns have been expressed that specialist teachers who are not experts in this particular subject are teaching it as a subject in our schools, and we know that the Government's recruitment targets in the education workforce aren't being met, and this is particularly true of Welsh-medium practitioners. So, I’d like to know what the current picture is in this area in terms of our schools and colleges with regard to those who are able to teach these skills and who are subject specialists. Bearing in mind the need for expertise and the relative inconsistency in wages between the public sector and private sector for such skills, how will the Government ensure that FE institutions in Wales have the necessary digital expertise to provide effective digital learning experiences? How does the Welsh Government intend to continue with this commitment in the long term, bearing in mind, as we continue to provide educational opportunities in innovative ways, and with new technologies emerging to meet industry needs, that we also face increased cybersecurity risks that we must also mitigate?

In light of the call to action in 'Digital 2030' to responding to ministerial priorities, particularly working collaboratively to widen access to learning opportunities, what role will the private sector play in supporting digital learning in further education, and how will the Government work with industry partners to achieve its aims in this arena?

And finally, there is a clear, unfortunately, deficit too in the number of girls studying computer sciences and ICT at GCSE, AS level and A-level. What plans does the Government have to change this via the strategic plan, and how is progress being monitored?

I thank the Member for those questions. I know that she will welcome the work that's already being done to increase the numbers able to teach the sciences, maths and computing, including through the medium of Welsh, and that includes financial incentives, which can be substantial, and other initiatives to attract people to the profession. She finished by asking what we're doing to ensure that more and more pupils choose these courses too, and the question of perception and stereotyping is extremely important in this regard. She will know about the work that we're doing investing in coding and in organisations such as Techniquest, as well as a number of other STEM interventions, and those are particularly focused at attracting girls into the sector for the reasons that she outlined. She talked about skills and how important it was to work with the private sector to meet the need in this regard, and also to provide sufficient professional training for the workforce, so that they can deliver these skills, which are so important.

She will know that we've recently enhanced the individual learning accounts, which have a particular focus on digital skills. That has happened over the past few months. There are also a number of ICT courses available at levels 2 and 3 and 5, and degree level too. So, there's a lot of provision, including cyber security, which she mentioned in her question, which is so important as a growing sector here in Wales, and opportunities do come about as a result of that. In terms of collaboration with the private sector, we've also funded knowledge transfer programmes, so that further education teaching staff can maintain their skills in collaboration with the private sector, and have exchanges with the private sector, so that they can keep their skills up to date, which is so important, as she said, particularly in a sector such as this, which is changing and developing so quickly.

And finally, in terms of professional learning in terms of the post-16 sector, we have commissioned purpose-made training provision from Jisc, in response to the Estyn recommendations to improve the quality and availability of online and remote learning. So, there is a corpus of training already available, and we are adding to that regularly.

And finally, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much. And thank you for allowing me to speak for a few seconds to ask one question, truth be told. I speak as chair of the cross-party group on digital here in the Senedd. It's good to see additional investment going into providing more opportunities to learn digitally, but I wonder whether the Minister can give me an idea of how he sees this fitting into creating the kinds of digital skills that we need for the Welsh economy. The ability to work digitally is one thing, but, through developing those skills, which make learning more interesting, more engaging, we need to keep a weather eye on why we're doing this too, and what benefits we will derive as a society out of developing those skills, and how we, as an economy, are going to benefit too.

That's an important question. Of course, the main purpose of this is to ensure that the way that we educate learners is as broad as possible, so that people have enhanced opportunities to access diverse courses, and there'll be different demands in different areas in terms of courses in our colleges. But it's also an opportunity—as I mentioned in response to Sioned Williams—it's also an opportunity to ensure that we keep the skills of the FE workforce up to date, so that they can ensure that students' skills are also up to date. There is a range of qualifications already in existence. And in terms of apprenticeships, those are designed with the sector itself, and the legislation that we've just passed as a Senedd will make that even easier and more flexible, so that we can ensure that the sectors that are growing and developing quickly can have a direct voice in how we shape these courses. That's very important indeed.

I thank the Minister.

Item 6 is a statement by the Minister for Social Justice on the Ukraine humanitarian response. I call on the Minister, Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to provide an update to Members about our ongoing work to support people from Ukraine seeking sanctuary in Wales.

Wales has now welcomed just over 6,400 Ukrainians under Homes for Ukraine. Almost 3,400 have been sponsored by Welsh households, with just over 3,000 sponsored by the Welsh Government by 7 February. Over 1,300 of those Welsh Government has sponsored have now moved into longer term accommodation. There have been additional arrivals under the Ukraine family scheme, but we're not given that data by the UK Government. The total number of granted visas has not grown very much in 2023 so far. Around 8,750 visas have now been granted to those with sponsors in Wales, and there remain around 1,500 individuals with visas who are yet to travel, and we remain mindful that events in Ukraine can have a direct impact on the number of Ukrainians who may arrive in Wales.

On 31 January, my Scottish counterpart and I met with UK Minister Felicity Buchan to talk about issues affecting our Ukraine response. During my last statement, I outlined the financial issues that I would be raising, and these were discussed with Minister Buchan. Unfortunately, our requests for changes that we believe would support public services and services for vulnerable new arrivals were heard but not progressed. Since our meeting with Minister Buchan, our Minister for Finance and Local Government raised similar matters with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, including the need for the UK Government to raise the local housing allowance, but no indication of a change of approach was forthcoming. But we're still working with the UK Government to ascertain what proportion of the new £150 million fund for Ukrainian housing support during 2023-24 will come to Wales. We've put forward a proposal and we've been clear that clarity is needed urgently to enable local authorities to plan sufficiently.

This leaves us and local authorities in a difficult budgetary position, lacking the clarity we need to most effectively deliver our humanitarian response. Nevertheless, we are working with local authorities and partners to consider how best we use the £40 million we have put in the Welsh Government budget for 2023-24. This will support move-on to longer term accommodation, including hosts, and support integration within our communities.

We are currently developing a communications package to encourage further recruitment of Welsh households as hosts for those arriving or remaining in Wales. The UK Government decision to only uplift host 'thank you' payments to £500 after a guest has been in the UK for 12 months means many will struggle with bills when they need help most. However, one positive aspect of the UK Government's funding changes was the extension of the host 'thank you' payments for our guests' second year in the UK. We will raise awareness of this change to retain hosts. We will seek to increase activity in the spring to find those who may be able to support us in this endeavour. As ever, interested hosts can go to gov.wales/offerhome to learn more and register their interest. We're particularly looking for hosts who can support large families, those with pets, or single men.

I've been providing these update statements for many months, but it is still barely believable that we're already approaching the anniversary of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. We know that some Ukrainians here in Wales, including those who sought sanctuary years ago, see 2014 as the start of the current invasion. I think it's important we remember that, even as we reflect upon the anniversary of the invasion intensifying.

As you reflected, 24 February marks a year since Putin's illegal and barbaric invasion of Ukraine. In your update on Ukraine here three weeks ago, you stated that:

'The UK Government has announced that there will be a new UK £150 million fund for Ukrainian housing support during 2023-24, but details are currently scant',

where the UK Government had announced a new support package for Ukrainians of over £650 million, including an increase in payments to £500 per month to Homes for Ukraine hosts.

In response to me, you also stated that you had met Felicity Buchan, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing and Homelessness, together with the Scottish Government's Minister for refugees, before Christmas and that you had a further meeting scheduled with Felicity Buchan the following week. In your statement today you referred to that meeting, confirmed that these issues were discussed, and that you put forward a proposal. What was this proposal? And what, if any, indicative timescales were given to you for a response?

Although the Welsh Government's supersponsor scheme was temporarily paused on 10 June 2022, what is the current position with this, where, as you've indicated, 6,437 Ukrainians, sponsored by the Welsh Government and Welsh households as part of the Homes for Ukraine scheme, have arrived in Wales and almost half of the refugees in Wales are sponsored by the Welsh Government's supersponsor scheme?

It is reported that many Ukrainian refugees in Wales have spoken to the media about the difficulties that many of them are having finding and maintaining housing accommodation. For example, Ukrainian refugees who've had to leave their sponsor homes have been told that welcome centres aren't an option for safe accommodation, and landlords appear reluctant to take on refugee tenants due to concerns over stability of future earnings. I'm quoting here from newspaper articles, and therefore I don't know how secure the progeny of those stories is. But, responding to you three weeks ago, I also referred to the case of the mum and daughter who fled fighting in Ukraine but now face homelessness as their Welsh sponsor pulls out, who can't afford private rent and who fear they could end up on the streets.

I further noted that the Irish Government has announced that it would be delivering 700 modular homes for Ukrainian refugees this year, including 200 accommodating 800 Ukrainian refugees, built by Easter, as it scrambles to find housing. Given that Wales has a long-standing affordable housing supply crisis, will the Welsh Government be considering this option alone or with the UK Government? And if so, what is it currently doing about it?

Thank you very much, Mark Isherwood, and can I say I absolutely agree with your opening comments about the barbaric, as you say, invasion? And we are, of course, now, facing a year where we all stood together in this Chamber to acknowledge this and to pledge ourselves to respond in the humanitarian way that we do believe is right and just as a nation of sanctuary. We have worked very closely, I would say, over the past year, with the UK Government, and with Scottish colleagues as well—Scottish Government. Both the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government agreed and decided to develop the supersponsor route, which meant that those who were fleeing the invasion could come to Wales and go straight into initial accommodation and that we would support them with our funding that was being made available by the Welsh Government during this financial year, and of course, as I've said, we have in the draft budget the £40 million for the next financial year. Inter-governmental relations, therefore, have been important in terms of the way that we've worked together to move forward, but also to provide evidence that the route that we've taken with our supersponsor scheme has been beneficial in terms of the initial accommodation that we've provided through our welcome centres.

I think it is important to say that we have been working very hard with our local authorities, not only to support people in initial accommodation, but then, all importantly, to help them to move on. But just to recognise that we have been providing comprehensive support for particularly the first few weeks of Ukrainians arriving in Wales. We call this the welcome phase. It does obviously mean that we can then work with local authorities in terms of getting access to schools, translation services, health services, and English for speakers of other languages, and then to support arrivals into longer term accommodation.

Yes, as I said, the £150 million, we await the response from the UK Government as to how that's going to be allocated. We worked with the Scottish Government in terms of finding a way forward to make sure there was a fair, proportionate allocation of funding, and we await to hear the response from the UK Government to our proposals.

But it is very much linked to our framework of accommodation, which is the other point that you make, and I'll just focus on that in terms of concluding my response to your questions, because the move-on accommodation is crucial, and that's working with local authorities. We have a framework for accommodation in order to work with them. It has a formula and it provides support for local authorities, working with the Welsh Local Government Association, to look at ways we can help all those in temporary housing need in Wales.

In terms of securing longer term accommodation, which is why we want to access the £150 million, it's a mixture of accommodation; individual hosting, as I've said in the statement; the private rented sector; and also other forms of good-quality transitional accommodation. This is actually where we can share what we're doing in Wales with UK Government and Scottish Government. The transitional accommodation capital programme, which was £65 million at this financial year, we're actually increasing that to £89 million with support from Plaid Cymru. We've got these wider housing pressures, and we are looking to see that transitional accommodation capital programme delivering a range of initiatives, including, of course, ways in which we can support good-quality housing, opening up empty housing, and also ensuring that we can have the modular accommodation that can be provided at pace and at cost, and that it can be then used as a transitional capital programme into the next financial year.

I think it is important, just for the record again, to say that over 1,300 have now moved on into longer term accommodation—over 800 of those settling within Wales—and of our supersponsor arrivals, almost 1,100 have moved on into longer term accommodation. And also to recognise, of course, that these are all members of our communities, many of whom are working, integrating, and you will know them all across Wales.

As we approach the anniversary—the grim milestone, as you called it—of the illegal and barbaric invasion of Ukraine, I want to echo your thanks to people all over Wales who have provided sanctuary to people from Ukraine. When we in Wales say, 'Refugees are welcome', when we declare ourselves a nation of sanctuary, when our Government declares itself a supersponsor to aid those forced to flee their homes, it counts. And the language used by those in Government counts. And I'm so glad that we in Wales use different language to that of the Westminster Government—in all senses different.

We are a nation of sanctuary.

Minister, do you agree that the terms used by those in power when discussing refugees especially and all those marginalised in our society count, because language has consequences? And we saw this in Knowsley this weekend—despicable and potentially terrible consequences. One hundred organisations have signed an open letter to call on all political leaders to condemn Friday's attack on refugees. Has the Welsh Government voiced its concern to the UK Government that hostile words lead to hostile actions?

Our support in Wales over the past year for Ukrainian refugees has shown how responding to need in times of extreme crisis can be an opportunity to bring out the best, not the worst, in society. Many of us have seen examples first-hand how refugees enrich our communities. I met Iryna last week, a graduate of Kyiv university, who came to Wales through the supersponsor scheme and stayed at the welcome centre in Llangrannog. She is now working at Power and Water in Swansea and is at the forefront of that company's groundbreaking work in the field of the chemical-free treatment of waste water. Iryna was fortunate that the company helped find and fund her accommodation initially, so that she could take up that job. Many of her fellow refugees, of course, aren't so lucky, and we know, as you've alluded to, that the pressures on housing are immense.

As Mark Isherwood noted, WalesOnline has published accounts of Ukrainian refugees and sponsors who have struggled with the system in place to accommodate them, with refugees being expected to live in short-term accommodation for long-term periods and being almost rightless tenants under landlord sponsors, to sponsors feeling that they're lacking support during the cost-of-living crisis. Could you please comment on what potential issues with the supersponsor and the other sponsor schemes were identified by Welsh Government at the start of their implementation, and so what preventative measures were put in place? And is it possible for the Minister to confirm the number of settling Ukrainian households, particularly from the current welcoming centres and hotels that each local authority will be expected to welcome, in order that authorities' preparations can be further firmed up by the way of support and integration into local communities?

Cymorth Cymru conducted a survey with 650 front-line workers and held meetings with 68 homelessness and housing support workers across Wales to find out how the cost of living is affecting their lives and their jobs. The impact of the cost-of-living crisis and people's fears for the future were widespread, affecting not just their finances but their mental health and their ability to do their job. They talked extensively about the impact on their mental health, referencing anxiety, having to take time off work, concerns about increasing workload due to people leaving the sector and, of course, increased demand. And of course, during the last year, the cost-of-living crisis has deepened considerably. Cymorth Cymru recently raised concerns about the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on front-line homelessness and housing support workers and their families. These workers are facing significant stresses in their jobs due to the crisis, and they will now be facing even more added pressures as they try to protect Ukrainian refugees here in Wales from homelessness and assist them with accommodation. So, has the Welsh Government conducted any assessment as to how changes in support for Ukrainian refugees here in Wales will be affecting our already stretched services? How are they working alongside these services to ensure they are getting the support they need to be able to best support vulnerable refugees here in Wales? Diolch.

Diolch, Sioned Williams, and thank you very much for, again, expressing the importance of our welcome, that refugees are welcomed to Wales. As you say, it's a grim milestone that we’ve reached, but we will also be measured about that welcome and the strength and the depth of that welcome. We can see it’s so strong in terms of the way people across Wales, in all communities, have responded, and the way that local authorities have worked together with us in Welsh Government and with all the third sector, as I've responded to Mark Isherwood.

And also to say that this always, in terms of our responsibilities as a Welsh Government, has to go way beyond our powers—way beyond. I mean, immigration is a matter reserved by the UK Government, but we will use all our powers to support sanctuary seekers arriving in Wales, and we believe that the actions that we are taking and we've taken with our supersponsor scheme are essential in tackling inequalities faced by sanctuary seekers, supporting them as they settle in Wales, building cohesive communities. There’s been an outpouring of support that we've seen, including thousands of Welsh households hosting and supporting Ukrainians directly.

It is important that we look at issues in terms of—. That is where the Welsh Government stands, but I very much endorse the views of the 100 organisations who have condemned hostile words. This is no place for a hostile environment, and whenever we have the opportunity, we as Ministers are making it very clear where we stand and how we oppose the hostile environment and hostile words, which can have an impact on the sort of community cohesion in our nation of sanctuary that we endorse and espouse.

So, it is, I think, very important that we look at what lessons we've learned in terms of health and support, and in handling the perhaps greater needs of some who’ve come forward with huge issues in terms of mental health, the impact, the trauma of people, and mainly women, of course, coming from Ukraine. We've also made sure that we can therefore make sure that the health service is fully engaged. We've got a Cardiff and Vale inclusion service, for example, which is now looking at complex health assessment needs, but in terms of mental health as well. This is something where those fleeing the war need to get in touch with our contact centres and the welcome centres. They may have experienced extreme trauma. This is where Public Health Wales, New Pathways, were developing packages of support for staff, also to ensure they can give mental health support.

The impact of the cost of living has been profound on our Welsh communities and people, especially many who have protected characteristics who are already facing inequalities. It is wonderful that, actually, many of the communities experiencing the tougher socioeconomic impacts of the cost of living are still supporting the guests who are coming into their communities. I'm very concerned that the tariff for local authorities has been reduced for those who are going to arrive in 2023. For the last year, it was a £10,500 tariff. It’s being reduced by the UK Government to £5,900. Also, we believe, as I said in my statement, and I'll say it again: that £350 per month thank-you payment for hosts who accommodated, well, we think that everyone who has been a host and continues to be a host should be paid the £500, because this is about enabling them to continue to support in the cost-of-living crisis.

I'm grateful to the Minister for the way in which she's responded to this statement this afternoon. Language and tone in politics is fundamental to our debate and it talks about the values that we all share, and I think the way in which people in Wales have reached out to Ukraine, recognising the catastrophic impact of the invasion on people's lives, I think demonstrates that people in communities up and down this country want this Government to continue to reach out to support people in Ukraine.

I also want to thank the Counsel General for his leadership. Of course, he comes from a Ukrainian background, rooted in communities in Ukraine, and has built links between Wales and Ukraine over many decades, but has also used the power of his oratory and his experience in the last year to motivate and to help people with this support. And I think, as a Parliament, we should acknowledge the work that Mick Antoniw has done over recent months.

Can I ask the Minister, in responding to the statement today, that we will continue to support Ukrainian families and people who will come here because of the dangers facing them at home, and we will continue to do that in the profound, comprehensive and holistic way that she's described? But we also need to help people in Ukraine, and that means ensuring that we contribute internationally to what we're able to do in terms of maintaining infrastructure. When we were there in December, one of the things that was very striking was the impact of Putin's war machine on the energy infrastructure, for example, in Ukraine, and anything that the Welsh Government can do to contribute to that wider international effort, I think, would be important. And a final point—

Alun, I've given you a lot of time.

You have, and you're very generous. The final—

But not much more generous.

The final point I'll make is that we do also need to provide the means by which Ukraine can fight Putin and Putin's war machine, and that means also supporting manufacturers in Wales who are able to produce weapons and ammunition to enable the Ukrainian army to withstand Russia's war machine. We do have manufacturers in the arms industry in Wales, and it would be good if the Welsh Government could do everything it can to ensure that the output from these businesses is able to support and to sustain the Ukrainians fighting for the future of their country and all of our democracies.

Diolch yn fawr, Alun Davies. I'll just briefly respond, Dirprwy Lywydd, to say how important it is that we can be held to account for our language, for our tone, for our delivery of that humanitarian response. It was very good that we were out on the steps together, cross-party, to wish you well and the Counsel General, Mick Antoniw, who has led us, hasn't he, in this Chamber. He's led us in our understanding, led us in Government and, I believe, in the Senedd, to understand how we can best and most appropriately respond to reach out and to support Ukraine—people in Ukraine as well as those Ukrainians who come and live amongst us. He's come to many of our meetings that we've had in constituencies, he's communicated, and we want to thank the Counsel General, who is here today, who will be leading your next mission, I would call it, the journey out, leaving on Thursday, with our support, I think, across this Chamber.

I just have to say that the Welsh Government will do everything that we can to respond to the points that you've made today, Alun Davies, and also to recognise that we can help people in Ukraine. We can have that international role, can't we, as a Welsh Government and the people of Wales. We've really raised our understanding of what that would mean with the visit of President Zelenskyy last week. It permeated to us here in Wales. Of course, over the next weekend, I hope Members will join us as we acknowledge through serious prayer and recognition and also through the event we have here in the Senedd. Diolch.

I thank the Minister.

Following the request by the Deputy Minister for Climate Change this afternoon during his contribution in item 3 regarding the use of the term 'insane' during a question that was presented to him, I have reviewed the transcript, and concluded that although the reference was to a decision by the Welsh Government, and not any individual, this does not make it appropriate. As Members of the Senedd, all of us, including myself, have a responsibility to ensure that what we say in this place and elsewhere in our role as Members is appropriate and cannot be considered otherwise. I'm sure the Member in this case will reflect upon the contribution today and ensure that future contributions, whether here or outside this place, will be considered respectful to all.

Item 7 has been withdrawn.

Item 8, a debate on the police settlement for 2023-24. I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to move the motion. Rebecca Evans.

Diolch. Today, I'm presenting to the Senedd, for its approval, details of the Welsh Government's contribution to the core revenue funding for the four police and crime commissioners in Wales for 2023-24. Firstly, I'd like to record my gratitude to the police for their work in our communities. Although there is a vital, ongoing debate about the minority of police officers who have not lived up to the high standards that the public rightfully expect, and it remains crucial for forces to take swift and decisive action in those cases, I know that the majority of police staff show great dedication and resolve as they keep our communities safe.

The core funding for the police in Wales is delivered through a three-way arrangement involving the Home Office, the Welsh Government and council tax. As policing policy and operational matters are non-devolved, the overall funding picture is determined and driven by Home Office decisions. We have maintained the established approach to setting and distributing the Welsh Government component based on the principle of ensuring consistency and fairness across England and Wales. There are no further changes to the funding arrangements for 2023-24 following the technical and administrative changes made last year. Those changes resulted from Home Office decisions with minimal practical implications for police and crime commissioners in Wales.

The Welsh Government contribution to policing for 2023-24 remains unchanged from last year at £113.5 million. This reflects the change made for this financial year, which replaced an annual transfer of funding from the Home Office to the Welsh Government with direct funding from the Home Office to the police. As was the case this year, there is no impact on the overall level of funding for police forces as a result.

I have also retained the proportion of non-domestic rates that police forces receive at 0.1 per cent, with a consequential adjustment to the revenue support grant to balance this. This allows a smoother transition towards partial non-domestic rates retention for city and growth deal regions, and it will not result in any loss of funding for any police force. As outlined in my announcement on 31 January, the total unhypothecated revenue support for the police service in Wales for 2023-24 stands at £434 million. The Welsh Government's contribution to this is £113.5 million, and it's this funding that you're being asked to approve today.

As in previous years, the Home Office has overlaid its needs-based formula with a floor mechanism. This means that, for 2023-24, PCCs across England and Wales will receive an increase in funding of 0.3 per cent when compared to 2022-23 before the adjustment made for the special branch transfer. The Home Office will provide a top-up grant totalling £63.5 million to ensure that all four Welsh police forces meet the floor level.

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

As we've heard, funding for the four Welsh police forces is delivered through a three-way arrangement involving the Home Office, Welsh Government and council tax, with the Home Office operating a needs-based formula with a floor mechanism to distribute funding across Welsh and English police forces, and with the Welsh Government component based on consistency across Wales and England.

For 2023-24, the total core support for police forces in Wales will be £433.9 million. Police forces across England and Wales will receive a funding boost of up to £287 million next year from the UK Government. The rise will take total funding for policing in England and Wales up to £17.2 billion, and mean that police and crime commissioners across the 43 police forces in Wales and England will receive an increase of up to £523 million from Government grants and precept income. Council tax precepts will rise by 7.75 per cent in Dyfed-Powys, 7.4 per cent in south Wales, 6.8 per cent in Gwent, and 5.14 per cent in north Wales, equating, for example, to £1.86 per month for band D properties in south Wales and £1.34 in north Wales.

Figures last month showed that an extra 1,420 officers have joined police forces across England and Wales in the past three months, and 16,753 since 2019 as part of the UK Government's three-year programme to recruit 20,000 additional police officers by March 2023. This includes 1,843 new police officers across Wales. Of course, Welsh Conservative policy also remains to increase funding for police community support officers each year, aligning with the Welsh Government on that issue.

Although police-recorded crime in Wales and England has risen, the Office for National Statistics states that this was largely driven by increases in the offence categories that are most subject to changes in reporting and recording practices. Therefore, they said these estimates should be treated with caution as they may not reflect a genuine increase in crime. Figures released a fortnight ago show an estimated 136,000 violent offences have been prevented since 2019 in 18 areas of England and Wales, including south Wales, most blighted by violent crime, which have received targeted UK Government funding. And according to the crime survey for England and Wales, the best indicator of long-term trends in crime, the latest crime figures for the year ending September 2022 show that compared with the pre-coronavirus pandemic year ending March 2020, total crime decreased by 10 per cent.

As the finance Minister stated here last week in a different context,

Austerity has delivered a devastating impact on policing in the UK. The brutal cuts to public spending, masked by the term 'austerity', may have been the brainchild of the Tory party, but they are also a stain on other Westminster parties, as it was backed by the Liberal Democrats in coalition Government, and subscribed to by the Labour Party in opposition. The initial wave of Tory-driven austerity led to 400 police officers and 100 community support officers being lost from the ranks—

Will you give way?

I've only just started.

In a minute, then.

The initial wave of Tory-driven austerity led to 400 police officers and 100 community support officers being lost from the ranks of the south Wales police force alone. Despite the recent investments, staffing levels at this force remain well below the numbers it had in 2010. Mark.

Do you accept—and this is a fact—that the police cuts you're referring to that were initially to 2015 were announced in Alistair Darling's last budget in 2010, and simply carried forward in terms of policing by the UK Government? It is evident in the final budget statement by Mr Darling.

That's not an excuse, but I said 'all the parties that subscribed to austerity', which we didn't.

The deterioration in policing levels over the past decade was brought up during a recent street surgery last Friday in Pontlottyn. People had noticed what the Tories, backed by the others in Westminster, have done to community policing. This settlement will make for further grim reading for each of our Welsh police forces. An increase of merely 0.3 per cent in central support funding will do little to address the severe resourcing pressures being faced by our police forces. It will necessitate extremely difficult budget decisions. South Wales Police, for example, is facing a £20.8 million budget gap, and are having to identify £9.6 million-worth of savings this year to show that their spending plans for the financial year of 2023-24 are sustainable, whilst Dyfed-Powys Police are having to contemplate savings of £5.9 million over the next five years.

The recent Police Federation of England and Wales pay and morale survey for 2022 revealed the extent to which police officer morale has been eroded by years of neglect on the part of the UK Government. Such findings emphasise how little the current constitutional arrangements on policing and justice benefit Wales. It is imperative that the Welsh Government pursues the full devolution of policing and justice without delay, so that decisions on how we keep our communities safe are not left in the hands of an out-of-touch and austerity-obsessed Westminster Government. The current UK Labour proposals to only devolve probation and youth justice don't go far enough. The fact that levels of central UK Government funding have virtually flatlined also means that each police force is having to resort to substantial increases in their council tax precepts to merely limit their budget shortfalls.

Finally, I want to make clear how unacceptable it is that regressive council tax increases are being used to keep essential policing services afloat. We all know that council tax disproportionately affects the poorest Welsh households, and within my region, some of the highest rates in the country can be found in Blaenau Gwent. Its reform or, even better, its replacement, cannot come fast enough. Diolch yn fawr.

I will be voting for the police settlement this afternoon, but it gives me no pleasure to vote for a settlement that provides even further cuts to our policing services up and down Wales. Mark Isherwood pays tribute to his colleagues in London for the work that they've been doing in funding police over the last few years, but what we know, and what we know in Gwent, is that police forces are actually seeing year-on-year reductions in their budgets. In this settlement, the Gwent police force, for example, will see a 2.8 per cent reduction in its actual spending power, and when you actually look and take 2010 as the base point, you'll see that Gwent Police again have 85.9 per cent of spending power available to them that they had back in 2010. And when we hear about 20,000 new police officers, what we also know is that what they're doing is replacing police officers who were sacked during the years of austerity. In fact, in this coming financial year, there will be fewer police officers in Gwent than there were in 2010. So, it's not that we're just not seeing the increases; we're not even seeing a stability in the numbers that the Tories inherited from the last Labour Government. What we are seeing is salami-slicing of the police budgets year on year on year, and the people paying the price of this, of course, are police officers themselves who are unable to deliver the service that they want to deliver, but also the communities that we all seek to serve in any part of Wales.

And it is important that when we're debating this, we are able to provide the funding that police forces require up and down the country, but that we are also able to provide the policing service that communities want to see in different parts of Wales. And what that means is that policing is able to operate on the same basis as other public services and other blue-light services in Wales, which means that they operate within a devolved structure and that policing is devolved to this place with utmost urgency. Because we have to do two things: we have to certainly maintain and increase spending, because that's absolutely fundamental to being able to provide a service; but then, what we have to do is deliver the coherence of service, so that police officers are able to work with all other police and public services to deliver a coherence. And I've heard the arguments from Mark Isherwood over these matters on a number of occasions, and he's very, very happy to quote his speeches from many years ago to support his arguments of today, but were he to quote his speeches from 2016, from 2017 to 2018, then he will also see the way in which the UK Government has cut back policing. And it is the poorest and most vulnerable people in our most fragile communities who have paid the price for these cuts year on year on year, and until policing is devolved to this place, we will not be able to have the coherence of services that this place demands and that our people deserve. So, I will be voting for the police settlement this afternoon, but I am really disappointed to see the way in which the Home Office plays fast and loose with police forces, fast and loose with public safety and fast and loose with the future of our communities.

The Minister for finance to reply to the debate. Rebecca Evans.

Diolch. I'd like to thank colleagues for their interest and their contributions today, and colleagues have made it very clear that we have huge appreciation for the work that police officers do in communities across Wales, and I do share those concerns that have been raised about morale amongst police officers at the moment. But, here in Wales, they are an absolutely key part of our integrated public service; they work with health boards, local government and other partners. And I think that they're absolutely incredible, really, in terms of finding creative ways to collaborate. So, they're very valued partners in our Ystadau Cymru work, for example, and they are able to bid for a number of Welsh Government funds, and we encourage them to look at ways to do that collaboratively—for example, sharing corporate services is a really good way to work closely together, and I know that they are potentially looking to expand that work through the community safety partnerships to tackle issues in our communities.

I'd also just reiterate our ongoing support to funding additional police community support officers, and that really does reflect the understanding of the importance of that collaborative way of working. We know that, where we see greater confidence in policing in communities, it's often because there are numbers of PCSOs out on the streets, so giving communities that kind of visibility of policing that people rightly expect within their communities as well—we're really pleased to continue with our commitment to fund and increase the number of PCSOs across Wales.

And we also continue to make very clear our support for policing to be devolved so that we can deliver against the needs, priorities and values of Wales. As we've heard, it is the only blue light service that isn't devolved to Wales, and in that context of collaborative working, you can see that there are many ways in which we could do things differently and better, were it to be devolved. I do know that there is concern amongst police and crime commissioners that this is only a marginally positive settlement this year. That is a matter for the Home Office, but we've heard very powerfully about the impact of cuts in policing over the years on our communities, and I'm very much hearing that the increasing numbers of police officers currently in no way offsets the cuts to the numbers that we've seen previously, and there is yet a way to go in some parts of Wales to make up those numbers.

We are very much committed to working with PCCs and chief constables to ensure that the challenges that we've heard about this afternoon are managed in ways that limit the impact on community safety and on front-line policing in Wales. And of course, we continue to invest in substance misuse and that particular agenda, and our funding there has increased to £67 million in 2023-24. A large proportion of that does go to the area planning boards through the substance misuse action fund.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No, and therefore the motion is agreed.

Which bring us to voting time, but there are no votes today. That brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you, all.