The Senedd met in the Chamber and by video-conference at 13:30 with the Llywydd (Elin Jones) in the Chair.
Welcome to this Plenary meeting. The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Carolyn Thomas.
1. How does the First Minister intend to address biodiversity loss in Wales? OQ61000
Thank you. We will address biodiversity loss by strengthening our legislative framework, including introducing statutory biodiversity targets, tackling the pressures that drive the loss, and action to improve the condition and resilience of our most precious habitats and species. This includes our nature networks, marine protected areas and national peatland action programmes.
Thank you, First Minister. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Without biodiversity, we will have no food, we will have no economy. May is a really important month for biodiversity—we have International Biodiversity Day, we also have No Mow May, and, next week, I'm sponsoring an event in the Senedd, where we have 24 different organisations coming here with stands, and I'm hoping that you and other Members will be able to visit as we celebrate biodiversity day in the Senedd.
I've been working on a project called It's for Them, with local authorities and other organisations regarding managing grass verges and amenity grass for nature, which is really important. And with the Welsh Government's Local Places for Nature fund, organisations and volunteers have been managing, now, tens of thousands of areas for wildlife, for nature. Over the last few years, lots of expertise has been built up, and we've created so many wildflower sites. I know Flintshire has just been awarded bee-friendly status, which is amazing. So, First Minister, would you agree that the Local Places for Nature funding from the Welsh Government is really making a difference for sites across Wales?
Yes, and thank you to the Member for the question on the practical steps that we can take to make a difference, and, in particular, to acknowledge the work that the Member for north Wales has already done to help develop, promote and support the It's for Them campaign. And that is about helping local communities understand the importance of verges and green spaces for wildlife, including pollinators.
I recognise the Senedd's biodiversity day is an important annual event—and I do hope to be able to drop in during May—and, in particular, your point around not just the local nature partnership action Wales, but some of the work you've done in chairing some of the work on this, about understanding a different approach to municipal grassland and roadside verges, and how they can actually help to add to biodiversity. So, recognising that work, and hoping that is taken on board, progressively, by more and more authorities as a practical step they can all take and support.
One of the rare species in Wales that is affected by biodiversity loss, of course, is the red squirrel, and, as the red squirrel species champion, it would be improper of me not to take this opportunity to ask the new First Minister what action his Government is taking to promote a red squirrel vaccine in respect of squirrel pox. He will know that this is a very dangerous disease, which is causing a great deal of angst amongst the red squirrel-supporting community, and could severely hamper the conservation efforts across Wales, particularly on Anglesey, where we've seen some outbreaks in the past, and people there are very concerned to protect the population that exists. Now, we did have a debate—a Petition Committee debate—last year on this very subject, and, at that time, the Minister responsible for biodiversity helpfully gave a response that suggested that the Welsh Government would try to work with other UK Governments in trying to bring a vaccine forward. Can I ask what progress has been made in respect of that vaccine? Thank you.
I want to first acknowledge Darren Millar's role in championing the cause of the red squirrel, and, in particular, of course, the most significant bastion of the red squirrel is on Ynys Môn in Wales. On the challenges of squirrel pox, I have seen a briefing on this. I can't actually recall the detail of the work that is being done between Governments in the UK, but I'm more than happy for the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to provide an update to the Member, and also make sure that a copy is available through the library, so that other Members can see that as well, if they wish to see that practical update.
First Minister, the Gwent levels are a great asset for Wales, and, certainly, in my local area in Newport East. Luckily, we have the living levels partnership doing a great deal of work to take forward the environment and biodiversity with wildlife groups and key partners. I'm the species champion for the water vole, and we see the water vole now spreading across that Gwent levels area as one example of the wonderful, unique biodiversity that it has. Would you join me in praising all the volunteers, First Minister, who make this work happen, through the Living Levels partnership, and all the organisations that coalesce around it, and all that they are doing for biodiversity locally and in Wales as a whole?
I'm very happy to recognise the work of the Living Levels partnership, and, in particular, the work of the Member as the chair of the Friends of the Gwent Levels organisation, bringing together a range of different partners. I'm sure that water voles around the country celebrate your success as their species champion, and you continue to raise their cause in the Chamber and beyond. There is a serious point of course, though, around the point around biodiversity and the Gwent levels being a particular habitat in Wales, and our shared interest in seeing that habitat improve—that's both in the formal planning policy and also the work that's already started on an enhancement programme for the Gwent levels. That will continue with this Government, carrying on the work of my predecessor's Government, in making sure that there's a highlight on this work, and we understand its importance for all of us, as well as those who get to enjoy the Gwent levels in their local area.
2. Will the First Minister make a statement on access to transport for visually impaired people? OQ61033
I thank the Member for the question. We provide a range of support to visually impaired people to access public transport in Wales. We have set up a disability rights taskforce to identify the issues and barriers that affect the lives of many disabled people in Wales, including how to provide and access inclusive and genuinely accessible transport.
Thank you for that answer.
My constituent, Ryan Moreland, booked a taxi to take him from Rhiwbina to the University Hospital of Wales for an urgent medical appointment. He was waiting outside on the street, and when the taxi driver drew up and saw Ryan's guide dog, Jamie, he drove past, hid at the end of the street and cancelled the job. Ryan managed to get another taxi to get to the hospital, but the story doesn't end there. On the way back from the hospital, the taxi driver at the ranks that Ryan approached was again hesitant to take Jamie, and then added £5 to the bill because Ryan had a guide dog with him. This is something that visually impaired people experience every day, despite both actions being illegal. Would the First Minister condemn the actions of these taxi drivers, and would he do all he can to move towards compulsory disability training for all taxi drivers and to try and stop these shameful practices?
I was genuinely appalled to read of the experience of Julie Morgan's constituent, Ryan Moreland. It is unlawful for taxi drivers to refuse to carry assistance dogs. It is unlawful for them to add an extra fee for carrying an assistance dog. It is a positive that Veezu, the organisation that had the driver as a partner, have removed that person who refused to carry your constituent, and also reports were made to Cardiff Council to consider the licensing for that particular driver. I think that it's an important reminder of the fact that, despite the law, in practice, people's rights are determined by other people's attitudes and behaviours. This should never be acceptable. I'm pleased that some action has been taken, but I do not want a single disabled person to face the same barriers and challenges that we know your constituent has faced, and others will have similar stories, I'm afraid. So, we do intend to introduce national disability equality training for all taxi and private hire drivers, and we're working with Guide Dogs Cymru, and other groups who represent disabled people, as we develop those plans. And I'd be more than happy to provide an update, as indeed will the Cabinet Secretary for transport, on how that work is progressing.
I'd like to thank the Member for asking such an important question. First Minister, just last week, I raised the issue of ensuring equality of access to public transport for people right across Wales with the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice. I was pleased to hear that the Cabinet Secretary was willing and ready to look into methods such as Braille on handrails as a means of boosting accessibility for people with visual impairments, because, First Minister, this comes at a time when these measures are more urgent than ever. Just last month, we actually saw a young woman state publicly that the lack of support by Transport for Wales for disabled people has made her question her place in society. This quite frankly is unacceptable in 2024, when countries like Japan have had such measures enshrined in law for the past 18 years. So, further to my question to the Cabinet Secretary last week, First Minister, can I get a commitment from you today on a timeline for your Government to properly investigate measures, such as Braille on handrails and tactile paving within public transport facilities across the country, to help support visually impaired people, as this is an urgent issue and we need to catch up with the rest of the world? Thank you.
There'll be a further update from the Cabinet Secretary on the work that is already in train. It's, of course, important to understand our responsibilities and Transport for Wales's responsibilities to make the environment a genuinely accessible one, as well as our understanding of who is actually in control of the different infrastructure to provide practical access to rail. I've dealt with some of this in my own constituency. I understand the real practical impact of ensuring that station facilities are accessible. Many of our older stations still have steps, don't have lifts, and so there are real challenges about how different rail users are able to practically access them. And I am sure that the Member will want to follow up when the Cabinet Secretary does provide that further update in due course.
Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. The question that started this session of question time from Julie Morgan indicated that a taxi firm obviously had broken the discrimination rules against disabled people. I believe the owner of that taxi firm contributed to your leadership campaign, First Minister. I am sure you inadvertently in referencing them would have declared an interest, but I'm sure you'll want to put that on the record so people can understand that you did receive a donation from them. And talking of donations, we have obviously seen continued speculation and comment on the substantial donation that you received for your leadership campaign. That company that donated to you, at the close of their accounts on 30 June 2023, in a footnote on their accounts, stated,
'Therefore, the external opportunities created for the Dauson Group to succeed continue to be mainly legislative driven'.
You are leader and First Minister of the Government that sets the legislative agenda. Can you not see why people are deeply, deeply concerned about the tensions between the substantial donation, the comments that the company asked people to see in their accounts about the legislative opportunities, and your accepting of that donation?
So, there are a couple of different points to make here. The first is that Veezu Holdings Limited did make a donation. That's been formally and properly declared. In answer to the first question about setting out the action that they took in removing that individual driver-operator from their platform and in reporting that matter to Cardiff Council as they should have done—. And I am pleased that they did so.
When it comes to the legislation this Government is pursuing, it again goes back to the first question. We will pursue the improvements in biodiversity targets, we will improve not just the legislation, but also the fines for people who do not meet the standards that are going into legislation. This Senedd will have before it in this term that substantive environmental sustainability Bill. It will be introduced by the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs. There is no question of any change in the commitment of this Government to introducing those measures. And, again, we go back to what's happened as a matter of fact, where donations have been properly declared or the rules have been followed to do so, and there is no link between any choice that this Government has made and what has taken place in the leadership contest, and all real conflicts are being managed. This is a business, that you referred to, that is based in my constituency. I could not, have not and will not make any kind of ministerial choice around that company.
Well, we also heard in questions this afternoon from the Member for Newport East how valuable the Gwent levels are. But we know that the individual who made the donation to you has been the subject of court action and been convicted on two accounts of dumping and polluting the Gwent levels. But, equally, we've heard from other senior figures within your own ranks over the last week—Andrew Morgan, for example; a big fan of mine on Twitter, I might add—who has highlighted, obviously, his concerns, and he is leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council and chairman of the Welsh Local Government Association. We've also had Beth Winters, the Member of Parliament for the Cynon Valley, and even your de facto deputy, Ken Skates, when interviewed on this last Wednesday, was struggling, I think, to put it kindly, to defend the position. So, what do you say to those substantial individuals within the Labour movement who do have genuine concerns, and the wider public who have real concerns, when they look at the evidence that is before them?
Again, if you want to go back to the evidence, the evidence is that donations have been declared quite properly by both campaigns following the leadership contest. There is a formal review process taking place to look at the length of the campaign, campaign finance and a range of other matters. That's being dealt with openly and transparently. It's a matter for my party to decide the rules for future leadership contests.
Actually, what we are doing is focusing on the business of this Government and of this country, what really matters to people: the cost-of-living crisis; the reality that many families still go to bed worrying about paying their bills at the end of the week or the end of the month; the reality that we know that we have more to do around our public services; the key importance of the funding settlement we have; and of course, last week, the news from Tata that they are looking to go ahead with their proposals to shed not just more than 2,500 direct jobs, but have an impact on the economy of more than 10,000 people. That's the business this Government is engaged with.
That's why, next week, I plan to go to Mumbai to meet Tata to press the case again not just for the alternative, but a clear case that we have continued to make and will continue to make for there to be no hard compulsory redundancies, and to look again at the opportunities for steel within Wales and Britain, and what it will mean not just for our renewable future, but the general future of our economy. That's a First Minister and a Government that are getting on with what matters to the people of Wales.
It's wonderful to hear you're having an internal review in the Labour Party to look into all this. It does remind me of the Communist Party era when they used to have the politburo slapping themselves on the back and saying, 'We've done a great job, we'll have a quick look at the next five-year plan, and we're still in the same position.' The fact of the matter is, the average punter in the street does have serious questions over this particular issue. It's coming up time and time again, over why £200,000, and what was expected in receipt of that £200,000. Because it wasn't given to the Labour Party, it was given to you specifically to solicit the role of First Minister.
Humza Yousaf yesterday lost his job as First Minister because he failed to read the room. First Minister, are you failing to read the Welsh public's mind on this particular issue by not coming forward and commissioning that independent inquiry into the important issues that people have identified as being of deep concern to them, so that we can have clarity on this, rather than you being judge, jury and executioner, if that's what's required at the end of this process? I hope it's not, but ultimately we need the clarity and that's why we need the independent inquiry. What have you got to fear?
I think there are a number of points to make. The first is that there was of course an election—not soliciting the post, having an election for the post. Members made a choice in a one member, one vote ballot. The second is, the Member made reference to Humza Yousaf, and it's a reminder of how difficult and brutal the business of politics can be. But, I have to say, in all of my interactions with Humza Yousaf, I found him to be a decent individual. We, of course, have different views on constitutional futures, but I do wish him and his family well. Every now and again we should acknowledge that there are decent people on all sides of our political divide, trying to do the right thing for their country.
When it comes to how the public feel, I don't think the public will rally to the Tories' banner when it comes to how politics should be funded. Indeed, when you look at how the public feel about a whole range of issues, the most recent polling evidence simply doesn't support the Member's contention. The public are most concerned and most obsessed with the cost-of-living crisis, they're concerned with the future of the UK and Wales, they're concerned with how well-funded their public services are, and they're concerned with the sort of economy we could have. If you went to Port Talbot or to Llanwern or to Shotton or to Trostre, you wouldn't find people obsessing about the issue the Member wants to raise. They're concerned about this issue. They're concerned about the issue of the future of their jobs. They're concerned about the future of their communities. They're concerned about whether the UK Government is prepared to support a decent future for steel. That's what people are concerned about. That's what this Government will be focused on. I look forward to doing just that.
Leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. People want to know that they have a Government and a First Minister that they can trust, and that's why there's so much public attention on the poor judgment that you showed in receiving that money as part of your leadership campaign. I'll look forward to continuing with the scrutiny when we look at this again in the Senedd tomorrow afternoon, because these questions won't go away.
I also noted that perhaps the First Minister should reflect on whether a declaration of interest is needed when he mentioned not once but twice, in positive terms, a taxi firm, Veezu, that he was given £25,000 by as a donation to his campaign. It is a matter of a declaration of interest. But, this afternoon, I'm going to turn to the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service.
In February, it was announced that the Welsh Government would take over the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service after a finding that there was a culture of misogyny and sexual harassment. The commissioners who were sent in by the Government appointed Stuart Millington as interim chief fire officer. But it became clear that Mr Millington himself was facing an employment tribunal following an accusation of harassment and discrimination in his role with the North Wales Fire and Rescue Service. Now, although the Fire Brigades Union, the FBU, asked for the withdrawal of the appointment, the appointment was defended by the commissioners. But is the First Minister entirely confident that commissioners and Ministers have all relevant information in order to come to a conclusion on the appropriateness of his appointment, be that information in the public domain or not?
I'll first just go back to the point about Veezu, the fact that a declaration has been made and referenced today, and I was pointing out factually what they had done in response to the very, very difficult and wholly unacceptable treatment of Julie Morgan's constituent. And that is a simple matter of fact that that report has been made.
On the reality of the commissioners' appointment of Stuart Millington as the acting chief fire officer for south Wales fire and rescue, I recognise that in a previous internal investigation, whilst no disciplinary action was taken, there were points of learning for Mr Millington about his managerial style. I understand the sort of comments that that can lead to. Of course, I've been a former trade union shop steward and an employment lawyer myself. I understand a lot about the realities of the world of work and how difficult it can be for people to raise complaints in the first place, but also in contested matters how there is often a need for the leader or the manager in question to undertake and take on board changes to their own management style.
There is, of course, an employment tribunal that is due to take place on 7 May, where the North Wales Fire and Rescue Authority are the named respondent. The Welsh Government will, of course, take an interest in the evidence provided at that tribunal and, indeed, the outcome. If further action needs to be taken after that, we will do so, but there is a process in place to have a permanent leader in place for the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service and the improvement that is plainly required within that organisation.
The interim appointment is an important one. I know this is something that is being pursued by journalists at ITV Wales. When Stuart Millington was appointed, the north Wales chief fire officer, Dawn Docx issued a statement saying, and I quote,
'While it would be improper for us to comment on any particular grievance, we do provide Welsh Government with details of cases of inappropriate behaviour, including bullying and harassment, on a regular basis.'
Now, we were told that the complaints Mr Millington was facing represented only learning opportunities, or minor learning opportunities—a phrase repeated by the First Minister today. None were deemed serious enough to meet the threshold for a disciplinary panel to meet, but I have here a copy of the report presented to Dawn Docx on 12 October last year, an independent report commissioned by the north Wales fire service into allegations against Mr Millington. It concluded that there is evidence to support a prima facie case that may amount to bullying, harassment and discrimination, or harassment on the grounds of trade union activity. Is the First Minister content that Dawn Docx's response gave an accurate reflection of this report's conclusions? And does he know whether the commissioners appointed by the Welsh Government were aware of this independent report when they promoted Mr Millington to his current post?
I haven't had the advantage of reading the report that the Member refers to from October last year. The point about a prima facie case is that you then need to investigate that fully to understand what comes from that. And I've represented in my life before coming into this Chamber people on all sides of the employment relationship, so I wouldn't want to try to reach a judgment on a report that I haven't read, haven't had access to, and, indeed, not understanding the investigation that did or didn't take place.
What is important, I believe, is that when information is provided to decision makers to make a choice on it, you can understand why that's happened. When actually, as in this case, there's a suggestion that there may be more information available, well I'd want us to consider that. And, as I said, this is an issue where there is an employment tribunal taking place about the North Wales Fire and Rescue Authority, where Mr Millington may or may not be a part of that. I'll need to understand that, and I know the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, Local Government and Planning will want to understand that too, to see if there's anything for us to do, but the first point is for the commissioners to understand what that looks like.
This is important to get right the leadership and the culture, not just in south Wales, but across our fire and rescue authorities. None of this takes away from the bravery and the service of all of the firefighters across the country, but the culture has to be right for everyone to have the opportunity to join and to be able to progress as they should do within the fire and rescue authority, and where that is not the case, we want to see action taken.
The First Minister is right: it's key what happened after this independent investigation. The Cabinet Secretary for Housing, Local Government and Planning was questioned about Mr Millington's appointment in the Equality and Social Justice Committee only last week. In her evidence, she said that, yes, prior to appointing Mr Millington, a complaint had been made about him in 2023, that he had been the subject of an investigation, and that
'that had concluded that there was no disciplinary case to answer.'
But we know that the independent external investigation did say that there was a case to pursue. The Government's most senior fire and rescue adviser, Dan Stephens, also downplayed the allegations against Mr Millington. In the same committee, he said that the disciplinary investigation found that no aspects of the allegations made against Mr Millington met the threshold for disciplinary action. But we have already established that the external report found evidence to support a prima facie case that may amount to bullying and harassment, and that if upheld, the report concluded that this may amount to misconduct or gross misconduct. Now, bearing in mind that Dan Stephens is aware
'of all complaints made against principal officers and the outcomes'—
his words to the committee—does the First Minister, again, have confidence that Government has been given an accurate account of investigations, all investigations, including this independent external one?
I think there are two important aspects to what the Member has said. It's both his earlier comment about a prima facie case; that isn't a conclusion at the end of a disciplinary process, but is the point about disciplinary action if those prima facie allegations were upheld, and that's what I'm interested in. The disciplinary action to date has not found a cause of action that has been upheld. The employment tribunal and the evidence in it may change the picture. I know what I'm not prepared to do is to comment in advance of that, before I understand what has happened. It will be the same thing for the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, Local Government and Planning. We need to understand what evidence is provided at that employment tribunal, and if that changes the position for the commissioners.
The bigger picture, though, is actually the cultural change that is still required within South Wales Fire and Rescue Authority to make sure that the culture at work is a welcoming one, where there's appropriate challenge and support within the workplace, and we don't tolerate behaviours that we're determined to drive out of wider society. That's the path that I want us to take, and not to be drawn away from. If that means that there's a challenge with any senior manager within the fire and rescue service in any part of Wales, then I will want to see that addressed and for Ministers to be properly informed about not just the investigations, but the action that does need to be taken.
3. Will the First Minister provide an update on the north Denbighshire community hospital in Rhyl? OQ61001
Yes, thank you. The health board is currently reviewing its proposals for the Royal Alexandra Hospital site in partnership with local stakeholders. The proposals are expected to include a minor injuries unit, intermediate care beds and integrated care. The business case should be submitted to the Welsh Government for consideration when ready.
Thank you very much for your update this afternoon, First Minister. I think the perceived progress and the actual tangible progress being felt by my constituents are somewhat not parallel here, because the fact of the matter is that my constituents have been waiting over 10 years for this community hospital to be built within Rhyl, which has long been seen as the remedy for treating some of the most acute issues in Glan Clwyd's accident and emergency department, which is the worst performing hospital in the worst performing health board.
You were the health Minister when you first announced £40 million to go towards the north Denbighshire community hospital, and while I can appreciate the fact that costs have gone up significantly since then, I think you can go two ways with this, First Minister. You can either be the latest First Minister in an ever-increasing line of First Ministers to fail to deliver this project, which your direct predecessor said was a regret that, in his time in office, this hospital wasn't delivered, or you could be the First Minister to finally get this project over the line. Which will it be? If it somehow is the latter, then what would your message be to my constituents in the Vale of Clwyd who have been waiting too long for this to happen?
The Deputy Presiding Officer (David Rees) took the Chair.
It is, of course, a matter of regret that the proposal to use the Royal Alexandra site, which has widespread support, has not come to fruition yet. When I approved proposals some years ago, the initial price tag was thought to be around £40 million. That then increased to £100 million. And it's just worth reflecting not just the significant increase in the cost of the project, but actually all of that took place against a backdrop where our capital ability within the Welsh Government and within the Welsh NHS has reduced successively. We've actually done worse on capital than we have done on revenue in the last few budget rounds, so we're really, really squeezed.
What has now taken place is the scheme has been prioritised by the regional planning board, with other partners—the health service, working with other local partners—to look at a design that should work. It is a matter for those partners to come up with a full business case that can come to the Government for approval. I would very much like us to be able to have a business case we can invest in and see delivery in as well. That will make a real difference for different stakeholders and constituents not just in the Member's constituency but in the wider region. But we do need to have the business case robustly provided to us, with detailed costings around it, and I then want to be able to give the go-ahead for that. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services actually recently wrote to Councillor Joan Butterfield, the chair of the partnerships scrutiny committee, giving an update along those lines.
4. How is the Welsh Government is promoting tourism opportunities in the Valleys to the world? OQ60999
Visit Wales promotes the Valleys as part of the strategy 'Welcome to Wales: Priorities for the visitor economy 2020-2025'. This focuses on growing tourism across the whole of Wales. The Valleys have recently featured in tv advertising, social media and website activity, and in promotion to the travel trade.
I know you've previously stated that tourism in Wales can't only rely on our mountains and our coastlines, and that we have to tell our story and our history too. In the Rhondda, we have the Eisteddfod coming to Ponty to celebrate our language, with Clwb Coffi providing Welsh lessons, and the Lion in Treorchy hosting Welsh language events, including Mabon festival. But we also have beautiful walking trails at Maerdy reservoirs and Cwm Clydach country park, and amazing mountain bike tracks at Barry Sidings. These beautiful places also tell the story of our industrial history. Add to this the Tower colliery zip wire and the Rhondda Heritage Park and Heritage Park Hotel, and we have a real opportunity to sell our story, through amazing experiences, to the world.
More recently, Martin Roberts has brought new life to the Rhondda tunnel project, which, when completed, will be the longest cycle tunnel in Europe. So, First Minister, would you please be willing to visit the Rhondda tunnel with me to meet the fantastic team, and to be lowered down into the tunnel to see for yourself the potential on offer, and, please, raise the funding problems we currently face to restore the tunnel with the UK Government?
Thank you for the offer. I'm sure the previous First Minister is regretting he didn't have the same opportunity to get lowered into a tunnel in the middle of a mountain. But you're right about the funding challenges, because, actually, there's a real will and desire locally to see the tunnel reopen. There's about £20 million of capital work that needs to be done. I'll be more than happy to arrange a visit with the Member to look at tourism opportunities in the Valleys. I'm sure that a number of Members, including Vikki Howells, in whose constituency the Tower zip wire is, are delighted to hear name checks for those. But I'm also pleased that you mentioned different aspects within your own constituency, including the old wash house in Maerdy on the way up to the reservoir, the memorial for the Cambrian colliery disaster at Clydach lakes, and the old railway sidings at Barry. I think there are real opportunities there to think about more tourism that can go there in a way that is genuinely sustainable. So, I'm more than happy to talk to the Member about an appropriate visit, and we'll see whether that will be in the middle of a mountain or somewhere else.
You're welcome to walk through the tunnel and come out in the Aberavon constituency.
As we've heard, First Minister, the Rhondda Tunnel Society has been campaigning to reopen the old Rhondda railway tunnel between Blaencwm and Blaengwynfi in the hope of creating Europe’s longest indoor cycle path, as well as creating a tourism and community hub, which would include, among other things, a visitor centre, a bike trail and an amphitheatre, which will undoubtedly help attract visitors to the area. It has the potential to be a major tourist attraction for the Valleys, and bring in vital jobs to the area. And for the record, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm a member of the Rhondda Tunnel Society, and this is project I believe passionately in. I've met with the Secretary of State for Wales and I've been in correspondence with the UK transport Secretary, and the latest is that the UK Government will only pass ownership of the tunnel on to a Government body, local or otherwise, not directly to a trust or other organisation. As you will know, First Minister, the UK Government has offered this tunnel to you in the past, but this has been refused. With this in mind, can you please give an account of the reasons for this, and explain why this Government is refusing to help support this opportunity to grow tourism in the Valleys? Thank you.
I should mention that Martin Roberts, of course more famous for being the Homes Under the Hammer presenter, in this context has provided a real boost to the tunnel society. The challenge, though, in Joel James's question, is the fact that this asset, which is currently owned by the Department for Transport in the UK Government, as I said in response to Buffy Williams, comes with a £20 million capital cost to deliver the project. That simply isn't available to us. There's also, then, the need to generate £0.25 million in revenue terms. None of that has been offered by the Department for Transport, so essentially it would mean transferring something with a massive bill and a liability for the Welsh Government. I'd like to have a sensible and grown-up conversation between the Welsh Government and the UK Government about the costs that come with that. I would like to see it turned into a real asset for the visitor economy here in Wales, and indeed the opportunity, potentially, for active travel too, as part of that. But we have got to be upfront and honest about the real cost and the significant price tag that exists on an asset that is in the responsibility, at present, of the UK Government.
I thank Buffy Williams for asking this question. I should state that I'm a member of the friends of the Rhondda tunnel, and not just because they put me underground. And I have to say, it's not the Mabon ap Gwynfor festival that will be held in the Rhondda, but the Mabon festival, which will celebrate Welsh music and Welsh culture on Saturday in the Lion in Treorchy.
One of the great challenges, of course, in terms of tourism is people being able to have access to the rich array of attractions already listed. Something that's raised with me often by local businesses is the fact that, following the upgrading of the Treherbert line, which has been a significant investment, the timetables haven't been expanded, which means that people can't get back to whichever part of Wales or England they come from if they want to enjoy what the Valleys have to offer. When you think about the Park and Dare Theatre, for example, in Treorchy, there's no late train in the night. So, could I ask how is the Welsh Government working with Transport for Wales to ensure that the timetables are expanded so that more people can stay and enjoy the rich array of attractions the Valleys have?
I should have said in response to Buffy Williams earlier that I in particular look forward to going to the Eisteddfod in Ponty. I look forward to joining Andrew Morgan and others, and I'm sure that many Members here will also take the opportunity to visit the Eisteddfod—a great window into Welsh language culture. Indeed, I'm delighted that it's taking place in a Valleys location this year. And I was at the proclamation for the Wrexham Eisteddfod that will take place next year, with Lesley Griffiths, on the weekend.
On your point around the Treherbert line, our challenge is how we deliver against a significant investment in rolling stock. Part of the reason I mentioned Wrexham is that we saw two new trains named after the co-owners of Wrexham football club. That's part, though, of the roll-out of a significant improvement in the rolling stock: £800 million that has been invested. There are significant capital works taking place on the Treherbert line as well, and a much better passenger experience and a more reliable experience for people paying fares. That is essential to get to where the Member wants us to and indeed this Government wants us to. We'll have more options on the timetable, and we can expand the services. What we need to do, though, is to increase patronage on those lines. That's why the journey that Transport for Wales are on in improving their punctuality and in improving the reality that they are the best performing franchise in Wales is so important to us. Without that increase in passengers, we're unlikely to see the developments that we want to, and of course the opportunities for a fair funding settlement to allow us to invest in passenger rail services here in Wales.
5. Will the First Minister make a statement on Welsh Government support for public transport in Mid and West Wales? OQ61012
We have provided substantial and continued support for public transport in mid and west Wales, both financially and through the resources of our officials and Transport for Wales. We want mid and west, and indeed all of Wales, to have a public transport system that meets the needs of our communities.
I welcome the Welsh Government's investment of £4.6 million in mid Wales to improve public transport and economic growth. The funding will help to develop important projects like the second phase of a shared-use path along Severn Road to Welshpool town centre, improving road safety in Llanidloes, and the Rhiwgoch footway link to Aberaeron. First Minister, do you agree with me that it's vital that we see continued investment in local tranport infrastructure to encourage people to use active travel and public transport?
Yes, and I'm really pleased that the Member has highlighted the £4.6 million that has been invested to improve public transport and active travel in mid Wales. This is part of more than £100 million awarded to local authorities through grants for active travel and safe routes, to help improve road safety, electric vehicle charging facilities, road resilience, local transport and unadopted roads. We're also, of course, investing in transforming high streets in Brecon, Crickhowell and Newtown, and in strategic bus corridor infrastructure in Ceredigion. It's a good example of the practical support we provide—not just support in terms of wanting people to use public transport, but how we practically make it easier and more effective for our constituents to do so.
First Minister, I want to raise with you public transport in mid Wales from a rail perspective. It's pretty abysmal, I'm afraid. I continue to get constituents contacting me about delayed trains on the Cambrian line, and also trains not turning up at all at short notice. It shouldn't really be a surprise, of course, because Transport for Wales had the worst customer satisfaction of any train operator in the UK, according to the rail user survey.
But most frustrating to me is the delayed progress on an hourly service. We've had commitment after commitment that's gone broken. Back in 2021, Transport for Wales informed me, 'We're very sorry to break another commitment, but your hourly service on the Cambrian line will now be delivered in May 2024.' Now we're in May, just about—later this week—and I'm told that it's going to be 2026 until we get a true hourly service stopping at every town on the Cambrian line between Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth. And even then, it will only be in the summer months.
So, First Minister, as you are ultimately responsible for Transport for Wales, can you give me a commitment, and my constituents, as to when they can expect a service that is on time for the vast majority of occasions, and also is not cancelled at short notice, and when can we really expect that true hourly service, as was promised many, many years ago?
There are two broad points to mention, and they're factual points here: the factual point is that Transport for Wales is the best performing franchise in Wales by a significant distance. It performs better on timeliness and on the lack of cancellations compared to every franchise that is run and managed through the UK Government departments. That's a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion, and it's a shame that the Member can't recognise that, even if he would choose not to celebrate it. [Interruption.]
I would like to hear the First Minister's answers, and that means all backbenchers on all sides should remain quiet, so we can hear the answers.
The second point, of course, is that rail infrastructure is not devolved. The challenge that the Member faces is on the one hand regretting and complaining about the challenges that a lack of investment in rail infrastructure causes, without willing the means for that to happen. I'd have a deal more respect for the Member if he was prepared to stand up and call out the fact that the UK Government has not invested in rail infrastructure in equitable terms, and it is the rail infrastructure that is a direct cause of the challenges that the Member points to on this part of the rail network. I'd have a great deal more respect if he was prepared to call that out. I look forward to a UK Labour Government that will invest in rail infrastructure. I look forward to making and winning the case for real investment in rail infrastructure here in Wales. I hope the Member will then recognise that in the future, even if he is not prepared to call out the shameful Tory failure to invest in our rail infrastructure in Wales.
6. Will the First Minister outline the Welsh Government's plans for the economy in rural Wales? OQ61032
We will continue to support our rural economy, as we support the economy across all of Wales. We're investing in our growth deals, digital infrastructure, transport network and Welsh-speaking heartlands. We maintained the basic payment scheme at £238 million in 2024 and are also funding rural investment schemes.
Prif Weinidog, as the chairman of the cross-party group on rural growth, we launched a report in March, entitled 'Generating Growth in the Rural Economy'. With support from CLA Cymru, the report was compiled following four evidence sessions focusing on key components of Wales's rural economy: tourism; housing and planning; economy, infrastructure and connectivity; and, finally, food production and the supply chain. My thanks to the range of experts and stakeholders who took part in the inquiry. Now, these evidence sessions helped to draw up 19 recommendations, non-partisan recommendations, that, if accepted, would boost our rural economy. So, given Wales's economy continually lags behind the rest of the United Kingdom's, what consideration have you given to the work of the CPG, its inquiry, its report and the recommendations to give Wales's rural economy the shot of adrenaline it so desperately needs?
I'm proud of the work this Government has done and will continue to do to support the rural economy across different parts of Wales. We will of course take seriously the work of the cross-party group and the different recommendations, some of which will be for the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, leading on the food industry, some of which will be for the Cabinet Secretary for the economy and energy. We're doing that, of course, against a backdrop where we have lost nearly £0.25 billion that would otherwise have been spent on the rural economy in Wales. So, there are challenges about our funding, resources that are available to us. Even within that context, we will look seriously at the work of the cross-party group, and I'm sure that the relevant Cabinet Secretaries will be happy to make sure that their officials respond to you.
We learned on Ffermio last night that 12,000 responses had been received to the consultation on the sustainable farming scheme, which, of course, is a very substantial number, and suggests that there is substantial work that needs to be done to ensure that the scheme is fit for purpose. But may I ask you, as a result of any proposed changes to the scheme, will there be a new economic impact assessment prepared based on the final proposals and that that, hopefully, won't be as narrow as the previous assessment, and will look at things like impact on the supply chain that wasn't previously included, but it will also look at social value, because that is a very important element of the value of the scheme moving forward, and one that hasn't been given due attention to date?
I continue to make the point that I'm someone who has a real connection to our rural economy. I grew up in a rural community and, as the Member knows, I spent many hours on farms with my father in my childhood. So, this isn't something that I need to be introduced to: understanding what rural life is like or the hard work of our farming communities. So, that informs the way that I and my Government address this issue.
As the Member knows, the three groups of early stakeholders I met were steelworkers, doctors and farmers. So, we are looking at the nearly 12,000 responses to the sustainable farming scheme consultation. It was always the case that it would be a genuine consultation, so we will take account of what we've been told. That does mean that there's likely to be some change in the scheme, and the conversations that are taking place around how we deliver a scheme that is fit for purpose, that prioritises and promotes sustainable food and drink production here in Wales and properly takes account of the climate and nature emergencies that we face. Of course, farmers know that, because they see that impact on the land that they are the guardians of. So, I do look forward to a constructive conversation that will get taken forward by the Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs, and I think, when it comes to that, we may well not agree on every aspect of it, but we can envisage a scheme that will allow farming to move forward in a way that is genuinely sustainable and champions Welsh produce.
7. Will the First Minister provide an update on plans to train education psychologists in Bangor? OQ61034
Yes, thank you for the question. Educational psychologists play an important role in the education system in north Wales, and, indeed, across the whole of Wales. We are investing £2.6 million to train and retain new educational psychologists in Wales.
There is a grave shortage of educational psychologists in the north-west of Wales, which means that some of our most vulnerable learners don't receive the support that they need. There is a significant challenge in recruiting educational psychologists, and this stems partly from the barriers in the current training pathways, with only Cardiff University in Wales providing the three-year doctorate required for an educational psychologist. Travelling or relocating to Cardiff after doing the first degree in Bangor is a specific barrier. So, do you agree that the simple answer is to establish an educational psychology doctorate in Bangor University along the same lines as the clinical psychology training already there?
Thank you for the follow-up question. I should have responded to Llyr Huws Gruffydd that, of course, there will be a new economic impact assessment on the new sustainable farming scheme.
In response to the Member's point about educational psychologist training, we have increased educational psychologist training at the course in Cardiff. I do understand, though, the point the Member makes about where people train and where they're likely to then work. And the challenge for people who undertake their training over the border in excellent universities in the north-west of England is about whether they will then come back to practice here in Wales, and in particular the challenge about having educational psychology support in both of our national languages. So, I understand that there is an excellent psychology department in Bangor University, with the potential to train educational psychologists. My understanding is that there's a meeting with partners, including Gwynedd local authority, to discuss this. I think it's next week that the meeting takes place. So, I'll take an interest, as, indeed, will the Cabinet Secretary for Education, in the conversations that take place and whether, actually, we can deliver more training in different parts of Wales, because I recognise the point that the Member makes.
Finally, question 8, Delyth Jewell.
8. Will the First Minister make a statement on future funding of the arts and culture in Wales? OQ60993
Yes. The Government will continue to work closely with the arts and culture sectors in Wales to ensure that they receive sufficient funding within our budget envelope. Details of funding for arts and culture within this financial year are set out in the final budget that this Senedd passed in March.
Thank you for that.
Starving the arts of funding impoverishes us all. Music, drama and literature bring immense riches to people's lives. Culture should not be the reserve of only people with lots of money, because poverty doesn't only hurt people in the pocket, it also saps the soul. More that 100 years ago, James Oppenheim wrote that
'Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes; / Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses.'
First Minister, I wonder if I might give you this rose and if you will keep it and press it as a reminder of that vital sentiment that, no matter the pressures placed on this place or its people, the heart of Wales shall not be starved. So, First Minister, will you accept this rose? I promise there is no thorn in it. [Laughter.]
The roses I grow in my garden have plenty of thorns on them. But, look, thank you for the offer of giving me a flower. I'm not entirely sure that that would be welcomed at home—[Laughter.]
It's a yellow rose, not red.
But on your point around 'Bread and Roses', I recognise the point that's made and this Government does not want to reduce funding for our cultural institutions; we want to make sure that it is genuinely accessible in terms of what we do in trying to introduce arts and culture, across the opportunities, for young people in every community, recognising that access to arts and culture is different, in practical terms, between different communities. The challenge we have, though, is having the budget envelope that we had and prioritising health and local government and then, within my then department, making choices about wanting to put more resources into apprenticeships. It's a difficult space to be in. Our commitment is to listen to the sector, to work with them within the envelope we have. I would like to see us in a place where we can not just have a cultural strategy that we've agreed with the designated Member, but actually to be able to fund significantly in that in the future. Our current envelope doesn't allow us to do that. What we have done, though, is prioritise money for the cultural strategy, with agreement that that money will be used to try to ameliorate and avoid further job loss in the sector. And that transference of resource does show the shared commitment between the Government and Plaid Cymru in wanting to see jobs continue, wanting to see the culture sector continue. And I look forward, in the future, when I hope there will be a different budget settlement, to seeing a rebirth and a growth in what the cultural sector is able to do and the real contribution it makes to our economy and, indeed, to our society.
Thank you, First Minister.
Item 2 is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Trefnydd, Jane Hutt.
Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. There are three changes to this week's business. Shortly, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language will make a statement on Tata Steel. Secondly, the debate on the legislative consent memorandum for the Victims and Prisoners Bill will now happen next week. Finally, the debate on the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill will now last four hours. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out in the business statement and announcement, which is available online.
Trefnydd, can I call for a statement on the Welsh Government's childcare offer? I've been contacted by a number of concerned constituents in my constituency of Clwyd West who are expressing with dismay the lack of support with childcare costs that they are eligible for compared to their friends and family over the border in England, where the UK Government, of course, is rolling out 30 hours of free childcare for children aged two, three and four, whereas we have a much less generous offer here in Wales. But you do seem to be able to provide free childcare in Flying Start areas to people who can afford to pay for their children's own childcare, which seems absolutely ludicrous. The Welsh Government is getting the money to be able to offer a comparable free childcare offer to working parents in Wales. Why aren't you giving parents here that level playing field and making that support available?
Well, indeed, Darren Millar, we are very proud of our childcare offer here in Wales, the best childcare offer in the UK, not just in terms of the 30 hours, but the extension of that childcare offer for three-year-olds to those who are in training—not available to anyone else outside of Wales—and that it also covers some of the all-important holiday periods.
Now, equally, we're immensely proud of our Flying Start initiative. The loss of Sure Start in England—the cut to Sure Start in England—after 14 years of austerity has had such an adverse impact in terms of the needs and circumstances of our youngest children, because, of course, Flying Start is about our earliest years. Evidence has proven that Flying Start, which we are going to extend—we have extended it in our co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru, and we've extended it across Wales—. Of course, the Minister's taking this forward, in terms of the next steps, again in co-operation with Plaid Cymru, to ensure that we can ultimately reach up to all two-year-olds in terms of Flying Start.
Actually, I have to say that the First Minister and I visited a Flying Start setting with Jayne Bryant only a couple of weeks ago in my constituency, in Barry, and we didn't actually have to go up to the parents; they came to us and said what a positive impact Flying Start had had on their lives—not just their children's lives, but their lives as well, because of the parenting engagement, but also recognising the impact that Flying Start had had on those children's lives.
Trefnydd, I'd like to ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for economy. I'm sure you will have seen the news in terms of the 100 jobs that are at stake in Rhondda Cynon Taf in light of the news about Everest Windows. Many Members, of course, will recall that 496 jobs were lost back in October with the closing of UK Windows and Doors. These are jobs that we can't afford to lose, so can I ask whether the Cabinet Secretary would be willing to make a statement in terms of any negotiations or discussions that have taken place with the company? Also, what package of support is available for those workers, some of them facing redundancy or losing their jobs for the second time, which is heartbreaking? Thirdly, what assessment is being made of any other companies that are currently employers in RCT that are, perhaps, at risk of closure? How can we create a plan in orderin order to ensure that there are good jobs in Rhondda Cynon Taf, because the need is great and many of those who lost their jobs back in October still haven't found alternative employment, so this is heartbreaking news for many, but also very concerning news?
Thank you very much for your very important question.
Of course, we have the Minister for economy here in the Chamber, and I know these issues have also been raised by the local Member, Buffy Williams, as well, but you do it also in terms of the region—Rhondda Cynon Taf as a whole—in terms of job impacts. Of course, we are going to be having a statement very shortly from the economy Minister, which looks at this in terms of the impact of those job losses across south Wales and further beyond. So, I'm sure that the Minister will be following that up. Diolch.
Cabinet Secretary, I've been supporting a constituent, Lucy Vers, whose six-year-old son, Elliot, has Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a rare condition that involves muscular wasting and is life limiting. Much of her concern has been around access to clinical trials, and, on occasion, she's taken Elliot all the way from south Wales to Newcastle just for a blood test, as part of those clinical trials. And access to clinical trials for children is, of course, an issue for other conditions, not just Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I am aware that Welsh Government is doing work on these matters, and I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary for health could make a statement on that work and how Welsh Government, with partners, is addressing these issues.
Diolch yn fawr, John Griffiths, for that very important question. And you raise that point about the importance of those clinical trials, and their importance for your constituent. I think the Welsh Government, via Health and Care Research Wales—. Importantly, we must report back that there's approximately £19.6 million in funding a year to support the delivery of those kinds of high-quality research studies across health and social care, particularly looking at not just a broad range of diseases, but rare diseases as well, and working with rare disease clinicians and charities. It is important to look at where there are specific research studies—and you've named one that your constituent has been accessing—and it's important that funding for travel is also available, so actually encouraging your constituent to discuss access to those trials with consultants and clinical teams. But, again, we've noted today what you've brought up, and we'll be sharing that with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care.
Trefnydd, I'm again calling for the Welsh Government to make a statement on the ongoing situation at Withyhedge landfill site in my constituency. I wrote to the First Minister, who didn't even give me the courtesy of a response and instead just passed it on to the Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs, who basically confirmed that the Welsh Government will not intervene in this matter. Therefore, I'd be grateful if the Welsh Government could provide a statement outlining what criteria need to be met before the Welsh Government will intervene on a serious environmental and public health issue. This issue is affecting people's health and well-being, and there are huge air pollution and environmental concerns, and so it's infuriating that the Welsh Government can't do the right thing here and intervene to support the community. And so I'd be grateful if a statement could be made urgently, clarifying the Welsh Government's position and explaining what criteria need to be met before it will intervene on such serious issues.
Secondly, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd also like to request a statement from the Cabinet—
[Inaudible.]
Okay, thank you very much.
Diolch yn fawr, Paul Davies. I know that this issue you've raised with us, and you've raised with me as Trefnydd in the Senedd. And I assure you that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs recognises that concern that you raise again, the concern within the local community, and also the need for swift action; I know that's what you're calling for. And your point about the swift action really has to be directed to Natural Resources Wales, and also ensuring that residents are reporting instances of the odour so that action can be taken.
But I think, just in terms of Natural Resources Wales's priorities, it's been action to remediate the most likely source of fugitive landfill gas emissions, to identify and then remediate that source, while, obviously, looking at other potential impacts of this work. So, that is the next point in terms of the update, but I have to say that the site is controlled by an environmental permit, which contains conditions that the operator must comply with.
The miners' pension scandal has gone on for decades, and I request a statement from this Welsh Government setting out how it will demand that this injustice be made by Westminster. Our miners paid a terrible price for their labour, in the dust that choked their lungs and in their blood that stained the mountainsides of our valleys. But their pension fund is making rich people in London richer, and keeping the miners themselves in poverty. It is daylight robbery of the men who worked in darkness, the men who suffered physically and mentally, the men and women who ripped the coal from the earth and had their health and happiness ripped from them. So, I'd like a statement setting out how the Welsh Government will demand that Westminster relinquish their entitlement to the investment reserve and transfer the billions they've stolen to the miners themselves, and, what's more, when they will commit to implement the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy's inquiry's own recommendations into the mineworkers' pension scheme. We owe these miners better than this.
Diolch yn fawr, Delyth Jewell. Thank you for drawing attention to this injustice, an injustice that I know the Counsel General Mick Antoniw MS has been addressing, as MS and in a ministerial capacity. But it is something that, again, our finance Minister will be aware of. So, we will take that back, to explore it further.
The Llywydd took the Chair.
Trefnydd, over the weekend, we saw the JD Welsh Cup come back to where it belongs—back across the border to Cymru, with Connah's Quay Nomads Football Club as champions, a fantastic achievement from all those involved at the club, and left one proud club ambassador on Sunday evening. Trefnydd, it was topped off by a graduate of our academy, Josh Williams, scoring an amazing volley to win the game. We've already seen videos of current academy players trying to replicate his goal. Can I ask for a Welsh Government statement from the Cabinet Secretary responsible for sport on how we can build on successes like Connah's Quay Nomads in the Welsh Cup and promote grass-roots football across Cymru? Diolch.
Diolch yn fawr, Jack Sargeant. I'm sure that all of us here in the Chamber want to congratulate Connah's Quay Nomads. You've named Josh Williams, and I think he needs to be down on the records. He was of course the club ambassador, I understand. They won on Sunday in the Welsh Cup final. Of course, our term of government remit letter to Sport Wales, which has a budget, sets out our expectation that Sport Wales will promote equal access to sport, and it is clearly supporting young and talented athletes in grass-roots clubs. So, I'll ask my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice to also write to him, further outlining how grass-roots sport is promoted across Wales.
Good afternoon, Trefnydd. I wonder if I could have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for—I've forgotten now—social justice and something else—culture; apologies—on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, and its effect on our citizens here in Wales and those seeking asylum. We've heard about the cold, callous Conservative Government policy of literally picking up people who are waiting for decisions on their asylum applications and placing them in detention, with the possibility of then putting them on a plane to Rwanda. I wonder if I could ask the Cabinet Secretary for a statement on how she is interacting with the Government in London to ensure that this doesn't happen to people who we have welcomed in Wales as a citizen of sanctuary. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Thank you very much for that very important question.
Thank you for raising this with us today. We want to be a nation of sanctuary, we want to have that welcome. But can we just start by expressing our condolences for the recent tragic loss of life in the English Channel? And despite UK Government claims, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill will do nothing to stop these perilous journeys. It's fundamentally clear that what we need are sufficiently safe and legal routes to protection in the UK, and international co-operation must be developed with our European neighbours to undermine the business models of smugglers. And that is what we've said to the UK Government.
Of course, migration policy is not devolved, so solutions to some important issues, the supporting issue, lie with the UK Government. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice—as I did, in my former role—will continue to make clear our opposition to the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and our opposition to the newly passed Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. The provisions are unworkable, leave most people in limbo and undermine other priorities. As I say, we weren't given advance notice of the UK Government operation to detain individuals residing in Wales pending removal from the UK, and we do understand a small number of individuals have been detained. So, can we today—and, I hope, across this Chamber—urge the Home Office to ensure detained individuals are given prompt access to legal advice in terms of addressing this issue? We have to recognise, in Wales alone, over 3,000 people are sat in limbo, with worsening mental health, no right to work and a UK policy that makes community integration impossible.
I will refer Members to my declaration of interests in terms of property ownership. Last month, the Minister at the time, Julie James, for housing, informed the Welsh Parliament that the Minister for Finance and Local Government had encouraged local authorities on empty premiums, on the second home council tax premiums, to publish the information about how much additional revenue has been raised. We were told £17 million. Now, I am concerned that that figure promoted might be incorrect. For example, having submitted freedom of information requests asking, in relation to council tax premiums on second homes, for the financial losses from property owners—an issue that's been raised with me—switching from council tax to business rates, several local authorities have reported losses: Ceredigion has seen a financial loss of £1 million; Conwy, £1.8 million; Pembrokeshire, a financial loss of £3.6 million. So, the figures would be higher if it was assumed that the properties—that's just three out of 22 local authorities—switching from second homes to business rates in one financial year then remaining qualified for business rates in the following financial years. We need, Cabinet Secretary, to get to the truth of the figures in terms of the impact of the second homes premium. So, as such, could you ask the Cabinet Secretary for finance to make a statement on the possibility of requiring an audit into these figures? Diolch.
Diolch, Janet Finch-Saunders. Of course, regular monitoring in terms of the implications of implementing a policy that is important to the future of Wales in terms of housing provision, in terms of the impact of the second homes premium—. I'm sure that Ministers concerned—the Cabinet Secretaries—will be able to provide an update on those impacts, which we believe, in terms of the second homes premium, are so important to address our housing need in Wales.
Trefnydd, can we have an urgent statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Education, following the shocking incident in Ysgol Dyffryn Aman last week, into what plans the Government has to hold an immediate review of school safety? I feel certain, having spoken to staff, students and parents over the last few days in Ammanford that they certainly would welcome a review of this kind. And I think among the issues that a review could usefully look at would be the current proposal to phase out the funding for school community police officers, the accessibility and resourcing of pupil referral units and other relevant services in terms of child and adolescent mental health services and children's social services, the powers available to staff in dealing with challenging behaviour and the guidelines around that, and the latest data that we have on the prevalence of knife possession in Welsh schools. I feel certain there is a need now, isn't there, to rebuild trust and security amongst staff, students and families to make sure that people know that we are making our schools as safe as possible, and I think a review at this time would be a very, very important step forward.
Well, thank you very much, Adam Price, and thank you for the way Members, and yourself and your colleagues, and our colleagues across the Chamber, engaged so clearly last week, and, of course, we acknowledge family members as well. I think the Cabinet Secretary for Education, definitely in Cabinet yesterday, was saying this is a priority for her at the moment to look to how she can and we can support the community, support Ysgol Dyffryn Aman, recognising the huge courage and also the cohesion of that community response and with the local authority. Her focus has been on the provisional support for the welfare of those pupils, staff and anyone impacted by that incident, and, of course, as the investigation proceeds, lessons will be learnt and taken forward.
But I know you are referring to much wider issues that can affect many other schools in Wales. I think it's important to just look at issues around security. Welsh Government guidance is available to support schools in planning to deal with any incidents such as this, in 'Emergency planning and response guidance for education and childcare settings'. On the point about access to safe learning environments, education settings have a legal duty to ensure children and young people are safeguarded, and guidelines are in place to support organisations with this. So, on the wider issues, yes, I'm sure the education Cabinet Secretary will want to respond in greater depth. Thank you.
I thank the Trefnydd.
The next item will be item 3, a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language on Tata Steel. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement—Jeremy Miles.
Thank you, Llywydd. Tata Steel announced on Thursday that it will proceed with its plans for Port Talbot, which will see the closure of two blast furnaces to be replaced with an electric arc furnace. The announcement follows seven months of discussions regarding their proposals with trade unions.
It's extremely disappointing that the recommendations from the multi-union report commissioned by the UK steel committee on the transition to lower carbon steel making at Port Talbot have not been taken up. This will have a devastating impact for thousands of workers, their families and whole communities in Wales, particularly in Port Talbot.
We are proud of our steel sector in Wales. It provides a strategic asset for the UK, with a skilled workforce able to deliver the sustainable, primary steel-making capacity for the Welsh and UK economies, the capacity that the Welsh Government has argued for consistently.
Since Tata’s proposals were originally announced last year, Ministers have raised concerns about the speed of the proposed transition. Consultation between the company and unions could have secured a longer, fairer transition that minimised job losses. With that consultation now concluding, Tata will instead be taking forward its plan to close blast furnace 5 in June, and blast furnace 4 and the remaining heavy-end assets by the end of September. As part of the £1.25 billion plan, in order to be able to meet its customer needs during the three-year transition to electric arc furnace steel making, and continue production at their downstream sites, Tata will be reliant on imports from overseas. Tata has previously announced that up to 2,800 jobs are expected to be lost as part of its transition plan, around 2,500 of which would be impacted in tranches over the next 18 months, with the first tranche expected this July. The company expects that a further 300 roles would be lost in two to three years at the Llanwern site.
Llywydd, the confirmation by Tata of the ending of blast furnace steel production at Port Talbot is incredibly sad for Wales and means a very difficult time ahead for employees and their families, as well as those within local communities and the wider supply chain. It is essential that the company now does all it can to avoid compulsory redundancies within its loyal workforce and works with the transition board to ensure the affected employees receive the appropriate help and guidance to reskill or seek employment. There is also an urgent need for Tata to provide detail and timings of the impact on its workforce and on its supply chain, where many, many thousands more jobs could be lost, to ensure that the Welsh Government and our partners can provide them with the best possible support. This will include the provision of tailored support for skills and training to enable them to plan for a positive future.
We will also urge Tata to give their workers and supply chain, wherever feasible, the opportunity to work on the decommissioning and construction phase required to move to electric arc steel making. Preparatory work begins in December this year and could therefore offer continuity of employment for some workers. However, there will be a significant time lag between the closure of the blast furnaces at Port Talbot and the commencement of the operation of the proposed electric arc furnace. This means that we are in danger of losing many supply chain companies along with the expertise and cutting-edge skills and specialism that they bring to the Welsh economy.
We are concerned about the impact that the Tata plan will have on output volumes across all Tata sites in Wales, not only on Port Talbot, but the downstream plants based at Llanwern, Trostre, Shotton and Caerphilly, primarily during the transition period, but also once the electric arc furnace is operational. We need to see a clear vision from the company that will involve significant investment in all sites and one that continues to harness the innovation within our universities.
Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for the statement and for giving me prior sight of it. Thank you.
I and my colleagues on these benches share the Cabinet Secretary's disappointment at what has unfolded with Tata in Port Talbot. The impact that this will have on individuals, families and wider communities cannot be underestimated. We think of those who are impacted and living with the uncertainty at this time. Our position has been clear, that we wish to see Tata continue to operate a blast furnace as they transition to an electric arc furnace.
Cabinet Secretary, your statement offers a clear commentary on where we are, but it is light on detail on how the Welsh Government is supporting the workforce and the wider community. But knowing now how Tata wish to proceed, can I ask, Cabinet Secretary, are you privy to who within the Tata workforce will be directly impacted? What skills and type of employees are due to be lost to the workforce? And, if you are aware, have you been able to reach out to them directly and what support will you be offering to them? For such large-scale redundancies to occur, an audit, in essence, of who and with what skills will be made redundant could help with finding suitable employment for them as quickly as possible. The Welsh Government has often stressed the support it has offered to the Tata workforce prior to these plans being announced last year, specifically support around skills and training. Therefore, can I ask and seek assurances that any and all skills accreditation and qualifications that the workforce received, which were Welsh Government funded, either in part or in whole, are fully transferrable to a new employer and are not constrained to Tata employment only? For example, would a forklift driver be able to take their certificate with them to another company, or would they have to undertake further qualifications?
As we look to future opportunities, we must include the Celtic free port, which promises thousands of new jobs by the start of the next decade, many of which will be in Port Talbot. Knowing that, and given Tata's decision and its timing, there will a period between the blast furnaces ceasing to operate, the arc furnace being in operation and the Celtic free port being itself fully operational too—another reason why Tata's decision is disappointing. Cabinet Secretary, can I ask how you will support the workers in this transition period so that they will be able to stay in the area and then get the jobs that the free port offers? Clearly, if there is a loss to skills in this transition period, if there is a brain and skills drain, then we simply will not be able to maximise the full economic benefit that the free port has to offer to Port Talbot and to the wider areas.
One way to minimise this brain and skills drain would be to utilise all of these skills as best as possible in the decommissioning and the construction of the new arc furnace, which you've mentioned, and that would involve using local employed people by local businesses. Therefore, can I ask, Cabinet Secretary, if, in any discussions you've had with Tata, you've been able to stress and urge the use of the domestic workforce, those already on Tata's payroll, on the construction of the electric arc furnace and on the decommissioning of the two blast furnaces too? If so, what guarantees have you had from Tata that they are willing to accept that proposal?
I thank Sam Kurtz for his observations and his questions. The Welsh Government support that will be made available is an extensive range of interventions, which match the scale of the challenge that the workforce and those in the supply chain face. So, he will know about the multi-agency approach that we seek to adopt in Wales, and will be adopted in this situation, where we will bring our support programmes into play, alongside the jobcentre, Working Wales, local authorities, trade unions and Tata Steel itself. Whether it's the ReAct+ programme or Communities for Work, whether it's the Flexible Skills Programme, which jointly funds some skills programmes, whether it's the changes that we've recently introduced to personal learning accounts, which mean that the wage qualification that would otherwise rule many employees at Tata out of eligibility, we have now removed that, expanding the availability of PLA, for both those affected in the workforce and also those in the supply chain, there is a range of programmes that we will make available, as we have in other contexts, albeit previously in the context of fewer redundancies and fewer job losses.
At this point in time, it is not possible to quantify the scale of that, though the programmes will be made available, because we are not party to the conditions attached by the UK Government to the funding that it has made available, and we are not party to the work that Tata itself has undertaken around the mapping of the numbers of jobs lost at which particular points in time. So, we await that information from Tata so that we are able to make sure that our contribution, along with that of the range of partners who will also be making a contribution, can be most effectively brought to bear to support those workers.
One of the key tasks in the work of the board—. And I wouldn’t accept the characterisation of the board doing the heavy lifting. There are a range of partners who have a considerable role to play, either represented on the board or beyond, and it’s really important that this is a collaborative effort. So, I think that is the way in which we want to be able to proceed. But, critically, we need to identify the support that is customarily available, and I’ve outlined to you what that would be from the Welsh Government’s perspective, and then identify what more needs to be done. So, that piece of work is absolutely critical, so that the resources that are available can be brought to bear in addition to what we would normally provide.
The Member mentioned a number of important points in relation to skills, and he will understand that we aren’t able to identify the particular skills mix at the moment because we are awaiting that further information, but we will be able to do that when that information is available. But there are some understood challenges already. One is the accreditation of skills that workers may have acquired during their employment at Tata, but where that hasn’t led to a qualification that would be portable outside the workplace. That is recognised as a challenge. Tata itself will be working on that, and is already working with Bridgend College on how those can be mapped onto recognisable qualifications for the workforce in that job matching that will need to follow. So, that piece of work is one of the pieces of work that will need to be taken forward.
The news on Thursday was of course news we didn’t want to see, and I’d associate myself with the Cabinet Secretary’s comments as well as the comments of the Conservative spokesperson in expressing solidarity with workers in the wider communities that will be impacted by this.
I want to put on record as well my disappointment with the way in which Tata has acted over the past few months specifically, making statements of intention during their consultation period, during committee inquiries, threatening to pull generous redundancy packages from workers, and still not being transparent with information around who exactly will be affected by the closures and where they are in terms of being directly employed by Tata or in the wider supply chain. A responsible company doesn’t act like this, especially when the context is of intergenerational linkages with the place you own.
This whole situation has shown very clearly the issues we have with the Welsh economy; perhaps it even crystallises why the Government has been unable to make significant improvements to the economy over the years. It's an ownership problem, isn't it? Here we are, in a situation with a strategic resource, important in so many ways, in a situation where there is cross-party agreement that the blast furnaces should stay open, and here we are nonetheless, bystanders in our own nation's future.
I'm frustrated to no end. Two thousand eight hundred direct jobs, thousands more in the supply chain and contractors—it's all I've heard since being elected: job losses, job losses, job losses. What is the point—and I put this to every Member in this Chamber—what is the point of us here? What is the point of Members of Parliament in Westminster if when our communities need us the most, we throw our hands in the air and let things happen? Are we so eager to accept defeat?
Now, we've played the game. We've tried to appeal to Tata's better nature. We've put alternatives in front of them, but it's here, it's happening. They're doing what they want to, so what do we do now? Well, there are three options as far as I see it now, two of which Plaid Cymru has consistently put on the table: nationalisation, take ownership of a strategic resource, take control of our future. It's an idea supported by the Industrial Communities Alliance, an idea that, by some accounts, the UK Government's civil service has floated. The First Minister called it a red herring. In the face of this now, will the Cabinet Secretary agree with that statement? Of course, this would have to be done by UK Government.
The second option is an idea originally floated by Adam Price, to use the planning system to put a preservation order on the blast furnaces, to give us the time to work out how the steel industry might become sustainable. That is something the Welsh Government could do. And thirdly, accept the managed decline of a vital industry. So, which is it? What's your preference: nationalisation, preservation or managed decline? It's game night. What's the play? This can't be it. If the workers are willing to fight, we should be too.
I thank Luke Fletcher for the comments that he has made and the passion that we will all feel in the way he's put his case. I absolutely agree with him: primary steel making capacity is a strategic resource for the Welsh economy, for the entire UK economy, and to have an economy that gives that up is absolutely unthinkable. That has not been our position as a Government. We've consistently made the argument for primary steel making in the future of Wales on a sustainable basis, and have argued for the last 14 years for that to be taken seriously on a UK-wide basis without the success that we would have wished to have seen.
He makes the point about a number of policies that Plaid Cymru have advocated. I think that the reality of the situation that the workers are facing on the ground is one that is, I think, somewhat different from the scenario that the Member paints. I think that reaching for creative solutions is always the right thing to do, but I think we need to recognise the reality of what is happening on the ground at the moment.
My own view about a stake in the business is that we've seen—. In the banking sector, we see this discussed from time to time; in the nuclear sector, I think that these things are ideas that are considered, but I think these particular circumstances on the ground are very different. We have a business that although I, and I know he, would have much preferred to have seen a plan very, very, very different from what is being pursued, and one which was much more closely like the plan that the multi-unions proposed, which provided for that just transition to a future sustainable steel sector, which we would all want to see, here is a business putting in £1.2 billion for a different vision, but that, I think, puts a very different context around the point he makes around nationalisation.
Our approach as a Government is to make sure that we do everything we can to support the workforce, to make the case strongly to Tata about the need to provide the workers with the best possible package as they face what they do face now, as the impact that will have on them, on their families, but also on communities right across south Wales is absolutely immense. So, they need the best available package from Tata, but also we need to see a commitment to invest in the future of steel production in all sites across Wales. And that involves continued investment and increased investment in the kind of research, with university partners, that provides that cutting-edge capacity, so that that is a critical part, and agreed to be, and committed to be, a critical part of the offer for steel production here in Wales into the future.
Cabinet Secretary, can I thank you and your predecessor for all the support you've given to Tata Steel workers over recent months? And here we are again. We could be back in November, because very little has changed since November, when the announcement was made: Tata are shutting down two blast furnaces, they've shut the coke ovens. And this is not a transition, because a transition moves from one thing to another; this is a closure of a steel industry, steel making in south Wales, and we are waiting for, hopefully, an electric arc furnace, which will allow us to recycle steel in the future, and now we've got a huge gap in between.
I very much welcome the cross-party support for the multi-union plan, which was, by the way, not from the unions, it was from steel experts. They actually had the knowledge and they put it together, and it was about keeping a blast furnace operational, to actually allow a transition to take place, and that's unfortunately been rejected by Tata.
The UK Government has actually honestly failed to move Tata in the right direction; they've just let them get on with it, and they've put no conditions upon any money. So, I appreciate the local economic action plan that was produced and presented to the transition board last week, but my worries about that is that it's a plan for the future, with regeneration possibly included, but no guarantees that businesses will come. No guarantees of what skills will be required. And you've said yourself that Tata haven't even done their skill assessment and supply chain assessment of their own workforce areas, so it's a huge gap we're going to have coming ahead of us.
There's no lack of ambition in the town, and I'll be putting my hand up saying I'm prepared to fight; I'm not going to give up, and my communities will not give up. There's no lack of ambition. We want to move forward. We have resilient people, but we need to have the future and hope there for us, and, at the moment, we're not seeing that hope. I want us to be able to give that hope. The Celtic free port is a wonderful idea, 10 years down the line. Where are we going to get the workforce and where are we going to be in the next 10 years? That's the crucial element of what we've got to do.
So, the reality is, Cabinet Secretary, you're doing everything you can, and I appreciate that. We've got more to do, all of us have got more to do; we've all got to work together to support our communities, to support the families, to support the workers. But the reality is—and this is the true reality—this current Government has no industrial strategy and no plan for steel. It's time we got rid of this Government, and do you agree with me that the only way we can actually move forward is with a Government with a plan for an industrial strategy, a Government with a plan for steel, and that's a Labour Government?
Well, I thank David Rees for his questions, and I associate myself with all that he has said, and acknowledge his championing of the steel sector in his own community and right across Wales. And I know how hard he works for his communities who are facing an unimaginable level of anxiety as a consequence of the news that came last week.
He is right to say that what we need to see is a Government in Westminster, as we have already in Wales, that is interested in investing in the foundations of our economy, investing in an industrial strategy, and that will provide opportunities for south Wales, as in other parts of the UK. He's right to say, I think, that the plan shows a number of potential projects in the future that, when they come to pass, will provide opportunities. But he's also right to say that we have a period of time between the closure of the blast furnaces and some of those plans coming to fruition, and so what we are seeking to do, as part of the partnership working with others, is to identify, for example—and I know, from my previous discussions with him, that he's concerned about the effect on the supply chain—what the impact will be on the supply chain. We know that Tata has done that work and we'll be receiving that information, I hope, very soon.
But then there are opportunities in high-value manufacturing, again in his part of the world, in Baglan. The developments there will provide opportunities, I hope, for some of those companies in the supply chain to have support to diversify into other sectors of the economy where their skills, where their business, where their capacity can—where they can take advantage of those opportunities.
But critical in this is that work I mentioned earlier, which is not simply to rely on the work that all of us do, in terms of a normal offer, through Business Wales and the Development Bank of Wales. All of those have a critical role to play, but what now is the additional support? What now are the additional programmes that are required that we look to the transition board funding to be able to support, so that we're able to give that support, not lose those skills, not lose those businesses, so that they're here to make the reality of those plans that are set out in the local economic action plan?
Can I thank the Minister for his statement today? It was—I agree with my party spokesperson, Sam Kurtz—a little bit light, I think, on the detail in terms of what the Welsh Government is going to practically do to help steelworkers in Port Talbot, and relied quite heavily, I think, on the actions of that transition board. It's a matter of deep regret for me and many constituents that I speak to that the Welsh Government still has not contributed towards that transition board. We've seen £80 million put in by the UK Government, £20 million from Tata Steel itself, but still nothing from the Welsh Government, and that is a matter of deep regret to me.
One issue that Sam Kurtz also mentioned is this issue of worker skill accreditation, where they've got the skills to be able to fulfil a role on the Tata site, in the Tata plant, inside that company, but perhaps do not have the right certification and qualifications outside of Tata, so if they were to move on to look for other work, perhaps they wouldn't have the right certification to be able to do that. I know the transition board is not only responsible for the improvement in the skills of workers but also the wider regeneration of the area, and obviously, the less you spend on one, the more you've got to spend on the other, and that regeneration work is important as well. So, can the Welsh Government confirm whether it will be the one to pick up the tab, if you like, for that worker accreditation programme so that the vital regeneration work can also take place to the maximum scale it possibly can?
Just to address the point that Tom Giffard made, I do think he overestimates the extent to which workers want to hear political point scoring in relation to this. I think what people want to hear is a recognition of the reality of the situation on the ground. Just to set the record straight, I think it's fair to say that the contributions that we've made as a Government to support steel production in Tata, from a skills and innovation and capital point of view, represent a much greater proportion of the budget available to the Welsh Government than the £80 million as a proportion of the UK Government's budget. But we are here to support the workforce and to do everything we can in our respective roles and powers to do that.
The work that he talks about, the skills accreditation, is actually critical. We discussed at the board on Thursday the risk to those workers who have developed significant skills but aren't readily recognised outside Tata and need to have the support so that those skills can be accredited and qualifications recognised elsewhere. The work is currently under way with Bridgend College, and that will be extended beyond that. There are a number of different sources of funding that support that, either from Tata, from the transition board, and from the work that I've already outlined in my response to Sam Kurtz earlier—the commitments that we are making as a Government and the changes that we're making to existing programmes, including the personal learning accounts, which are there to extend the skills of those in work. There are a range of different interventions that will support the workforce, and we'll bring the full capacity that we have from our skills and employability programmes to bear in order to support them.
The news we heard last week from Tata doesn't just impact the workforce in Port Talbot and their families, but also, of course, all of the communities that I represent, and the nightmare that has hung over them for all these months is now real. It's so disappointing, but these people need to know that action is being taken by the Welsh Government to explore every possible route you could take to save at least some of those thousands of jobs that will be lost, such as those put forward by Plaid Cymru. Because you're waiting for a new UK Labour Government, but by that time it will be too late and we will have lost that blast furnace. So, are you doing any work in that vein? How do you propose getting that vitally necessary information from Tata to identify companies and contractors that need support in good time? Because I don't think awaiting it is really good enough. And on those interventions you mentioned being planned for the wider community, how are those who are going to be affected going to be involved in those? Do you agree it's imperative that the community's voice is fully heard as it navigates this difficult future?
We share with you the anxiety on behalf of the communities that are affected. I represent many, many families who have people working at the steelworks, and I know from the discussions that I've had in my own surgeries just what this means for those families. So, I identify myself with the comments that you were making at the start of your questions. But those families also know what we are doing as a Government to support job matching, upskilling, business start-ups, the supply chain work that I was talking about earlier in relation to David Rees's question, the work that we're doing to make sure there is mental health and well-being support for those at Tata who are affected and beyond. We know that there are mental health risks that are very serious that can result from large-scale redundancies, and even much smaller redundancies than this situation. So, we are working with the local health boards to make sure that support will be available. There is support in Tata at the moment, but everyone recognises there needs to be a much wider offer to support the broader well-being of those individuals, their families and the community as well.
What I've outlined in my statement today and in the answers to questions is a very practical set of actions. What we now need to see is the translation of the ambition in that plan that the board looked at and approved last week into the concrete set of actions taken by the various parties around that table—ourselves in a multi-agency approach, working together in partnership, so that we can deliver the support that we can for workers, for their families, for those in the supply chain, and for those in local communities. We have made that case consistently to Tata that we need the information about which workers are likely to be affected when, and the mapping of the supply chain, so that all that support can be brought to bear.
Cabinet Secretary, Llanwern is a major player, still, in the local economy in Newport and the surrounding area, including the Gwent valleys, providing well-paid, highly skilled jobs, and the age profile is actually a lot younger than many people assume, with, of course, a number of apprentices supported by the Welsh Government. So, as matters proceed, Cabinet Secretary, will you ensure that downstream operations, such as those at Llanwern, have all the guarantees that can be arrived at, to keep as many of those jobs as possible, and also that those apprentices at Llanwern continue to receive support so that they are retained and developed for the future?
I thank John Griffiths for those questions. He's right to say that there are steelworkers right across Wales who will be looking at the announcement last week and thinking what this means for them and for their work. In relation to the two points that he asked me about specifically, we have sought and obtained commitments from Tata in relation to both those areas. In relation to downstream production, they have confirmed that, both during the transition process and after the transition, they will protect that downstream supply through imported steel. They've said they're confident they'll have the capacity and the capability to supply that high-quality steel that is required into the future. They have also made a commitment in relation to apprentices—that they will make sure that those apprentices are able to complete their apprenticeships through retaining or redeploying them, to ensure that they get the support that they need.
I'm making a very brief statement, because I want to make sure that the Welsh Liberal Democrats are also joining together in this cross-party support in relation to the workers at Port Talbot. We share your dismay at Tata Steel’s outright rejection of the union proposals and their heavy-handed approach. We must be crystal clear: allowing an unjust transition, which is what this is, which fails the thousands of Port Talbot workers, their families and the surrounding community, is completely unacceptable. These are not faceless statistics, but real people dealing with decades of governmental negligence, a lack of vision, and abandonment by, once again, Tata Steel. Port Talbot is a resilient community, one that in 2011 performed The Passion in their hundreds. They came out and they actually joined in with something so creative. We must be by their side at this time, to ensure that we take risks, are bold, and stand up to Tata. This is totally not acceptable. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
I thank Jane Dodds for that statement and questions. Our view as a Government is that a better deal, both for steel and for the workforce, is available and should have been the kind of deal negotiated between the UK Government and Tata—one that provides for a much longer and fairer transition to a more sustainable form of steel production into the future. We believe the consultation provided the opportunity for such a plan to be brought forward, and it's hugely disappointing that that has not happened. That will have a significant impact on the lives of thousands of individuals, but also their families, the local community, and communities, in fact, right across south Wales. Our task now is to make sure that we fight for the best possible future for the workers and for the steel industry in Wales. I know the First Minister will be going to Mumbai very shortly to make that case on behalf of the steel production sector and steelworkers in Wales.
Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. Yesterday, we received a briefing from the Industrial Communities Alliance, suggesting that the Port Talbot steelworks should be brought back into public ownership. Cabinet Secretary, is this something that the Welsh Government support, and have you had any conversations with the UK Government along these lines? Has the Welsh Government made any assessments of the risks and/or benefits of such proposals, which have also been suggested by unions? Finally, Cabinet Secretary, how are you engaging with the wider community around the steelworkers to mitigate the impact of Tata's proposals on those not directly impacted by the proposed redundancies? Thank you.
I think the Member puts quite an extraordinary point to me—that I should have advocated for the UK Government to nationalise steel production in Wales—when this is a Government that has failed to engage for 14 years on the need to deliver a sustainable future for steel in Wales and right across the UK. There were much different plans available to the UK Government if they wanted to support a sustainable steel sector, which does not require nationalisation; it requires taking steel seriously and the livelihoods of steelworkers seriously. And it's a matter of regret that they haven't chosen to do that.
There will be memories of the 1980s, when the Conservatives didn't take the steel industry seriously then, and what happened in my community. What's happening in Port Talbot is very similar now. It's absolutely devastating news, and it will be felt in steel communities right across Wales. [Interruption.] I can hear the comments, but it doesn't make the reality any different, Cabinet Secretary. You recognise in your statement the importance of other sites, including Shotton in my own constituency. It's absolutely vital that we continue to invest in the skilled workforce in Shotton. The product that comes out the end at the Shotton site is the very best in the world, but to do this, we need the capacity to produce virgin steel here in Wales. Can I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, what conversations you have had particularly about the Shotton site and the future steel supply there?
I thank Jack Sargeant for that important point. I've had assurances from the company that its downstream operations, including the site at Shotton, will continue to operate at planned levels, and that the substrate will be secured from Tata's other steel-making facilities during the transition to electric arc furnace steel making. I agree with the Member that Shotton supplies world-class products, and I am pleased that it will continue to do that during the transition.
An election of a Labour Government with a different industrial policy in October or November will be too late to save a blast furnace that is closing in September. And we know that the company will work very quickly to dismantle, degrade and demolish the blast furnace, because they know that if it's still standing by October or November, with a new Government in place, they will have to reverse their plans. The Welsh Government, we were told by Senedd legal advisers, has the power to maintain and mothball the site. We could introduce emergency legislation. This is not me saying this; this is the Senedd's legal advisers. We could use compulsory purchase-like powers to maintain or mothball the site. If we do that, even just for a few months, we could create the space for that transition to a new policy, new investment, and we can get back to the multi-union plan. Why don't we use the power that we have? Will the Government investigate to see if the Senedd's legal advice is correct, by asking your own lawyers? And will you commit to sharing that legal advice with the Senedd as a whole?
What we want to see is a Labour Government later this year, which will have a clear plan for steel right across the UK, a commitment to invest, and a commitment to invest in the infrastructure that we need for the sustainable future of our economy in Wales. That is why it's an incredible frustration for all of us that Tata is taking the decisions it's taking, at the time that it's taking them, when, on the horizon, directly in front of us, there is a new Government committed to steel production in the way the current Government simply is not.
There is still a commitment from an incoming Labour Government to invest in steel. There is still going to be a need to invest in steel in Wales and across the UK. We will want to see a Labour Government elected to do that, and I want to see commitments from Tata to invest in all its sites in Wales, to make sure that we retain that capacity, that reputation for cutting-edge steel production, even in the transformed methods that they are planning. That investment, that commitment, is critical to our future steel production in Wales.
Cabinet Secretary, thank you very much. It is hugely disappointing that the capitalist steel giant Tata have rejected this index report commissioned by the trade unions—Community and GMB—that examines those alternatives to Tata's plan. And everyone who cares for Wales and the UK's security needs, and the ability to be a primary steel-making nation, will lament this decision, so cross-party support is desperately needed here. But it is the lack of an industrial strategy that is at the bottom of this.
As the Member of the Senedd for Islwyn, I'm hugely concerned about the impacts of the Tata plan, not just on output volumes across sites at the downstream plant in Llanwern, of which a major part of the largest social housing scheme in Caerphilly borough was built—which is in Ty Sign—but also on the steel security, needing to rely on China and others with strategic UK interest. Is that at the heart of that—to produce UK steel for major infrastructures and the Ministry of Defence? And so, without that UK industrial strategy, I'm hugely concerned that this is going to be detrimental to Wales and the UK.
These are worrying times, as the plans outlined involve replacing UK production, as I've said, with imported steel instead. That is truly profits placed ahead of people and the environment. So, how and what guarantees are there for the Welsh Government, which they can potentially secure from Tata and the UK Government, to ensure that the Llanwern site, and an important employment zone to the whole of the Gwent region, will see significant investment moving forward, and to safeguard that primary steel-making capacity for the UK?
Well, the Member is right to point out the importance of steel production to the security of the nation, as well as the economic health of the nation. She's absolutely right to say that. That's the case that we've made consistently as the Welsh Government. That's why we believe passionately that a primary steel-making capacity is absolutely critical for the future needs, future health and future security of our economy. And I know that that will be the case that the First Minister makes when he goes to Mumbai next week to speak directly with Tata there. And he will be taking with him, I'm sure, the support of Members in this Chamber who want to see steel production successfully, sustainably transformed into the future, but on the basis of a just transition to that new way of steel production.
That is the future—a just transition to that, not the plan that we saw Tata bring forward last week, and I'm very sure that's the case the First Minister will be making next week.
And finally, Jenny Rathbone.
Thank you. The south Wales industrial cluster's mission statement is to develop a world-leading, truly sustainable industrial cluster to meet society's needs in 2030, 2040, 2050 and beyond. It can't be done without steel—just cannot be done, because nobody's invented the material to build rail lines or renewable energy without steel. And I just feel this is not a net-zero plan, as some people have argued at the other end of the M4, but not colleagues here in the Senedd.
The purpose of the Celtic free port can't simply be to import steel from India or China. In 2013 the Welsh Government bought Cardiff Airport for £52 million. I'd like to echo the words of Altaf Hussain and Adam Price to consider nationalisation as the only route to saving our steel industry, not just for Wales, but for the whole of the UK, because, otherwise, Tata Steel is planning to just walk away from all this. So, we need a bold policy now, and I wonder if you've given any thought to discussing this, both with the UK Government—if they could ever be persuaded of the gravity of this situation—as well as with the Labour administration in waiting.
This is not something that is within the Welsh Government's capacity to deliver, as the Member I think accepts in her question. Obviously, we've seen Governments take public stakes in the banking sector, and it's certainly under discussion in the nuclear sector, so there are contexts in which that is considered. I don't think that those circumstances apply directly in this particular case; the context is different. The plan that Tata are putting forward is not the plan that I want to see, it's not the plan that Members in this Chamber want to see, but it is a plan that they are investing several hundreds of millions of pounds in, so it's a different context to the other examples that I have given.
I want to see a different deal for steel making, a different deal for steelworkers than the one that Tata is pursuing. That is the right future for steel making—one that brings about that just transition to a sustainable steel sector, which builds on the plan that Syndex has developed for the multi-unions, as David Rees was saying earlier, a plan that is costed, is credible, is deliverable, and does deliver that just transition. That deal is still available, and the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister last week, making that very point.
I thank the Cabinet Secretary.
Items 4 and 5 have been postponed, and therefore we will now take a break of around 10 minutes, to prepare for Stage 3 proceedings. We will ring the bell five minutes before we reconvene. Thank you very much.
Plenary was suspended at 15:36.
The Senedd reconvened at 15:48, with the Llywydd (Elin Jones) in the Chair.
[Inaudible.]—will be the first group of amendments, and they relate to the name of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 44, and I call on Adam Price to move the lead amendment.
Amendment 44 (Adam Price) moved.
Thank you, Llywydd. It's an honour to begin these Stage 3 proceedings on this historically important Bill in terms of our democratic life and the nation's path.
This amendment and the other related 78 amendments—nobody can accuse us of not being thorough, and I am grateful, of course, for the support that I received from the clerks in this—change the name of the body responsible within this Bill for deciding the boundaries for the new seats for this Senedd in order to withdraw the word 'boundary'. At first sight that seems counterintuitive, but here's a brief background explanation.
The name of the relevant body at the moment is the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales. That is the body that oversees local government elections, and the current name seeks to differentiate it from the Boundary Commission for Wales, which is responsible for Westminster boundaries. In this Bill, as it currently stands, the name of the body changes to the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru—and I'm looking to the Counsel General to see if I am correct in this—but it is the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru to reflect the additional function of the body in taking responsibility for setting the new boundaries for the national Parliament for 2026 onwards. This all makes sense, and I should say that, because I partially agreed the suggestion for this new name in discussing the draft Bill in light of my role at the time as leader of Plaid Cymru.
'So, why this amendment?', I hear you asking. Well, since the publication of this Bill, there is also another Bill, the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill, which changes the functions of the commission. It extends its functions, for example to be responsible for deciding on approval levels for councillors and other office holders within local government. It provides a central role for the commission through the new electoral management board in assessing pilot schemes that innovate in elections in Wales. And it's likely too that this body will be the home of the new online information hub proposed for voters, which will provide information about candidates and the broader electoral process.
The explanatory note to that other Bill states that the commission, and I quote, will
'take responsibility for oversight of the coordination and administration of devolved elections...and advising Welsh Ministers on issues related to the democratic health of the nation.'
So, it's a broad area of responsibility related to the health of our democracy, and, in light of that definition, I have drawn up this change in name, because it appears to me that the body in its new form will have a broad function in terms of Welsh democracy, and highlighting only one aspect of that, namely the boundaries issue, among many under democracy as a whole, gives a false impression of the broad nature of the role that this body will have. Renaming the body and simplifying it as the Democracy Commission Cymru is a better reflection of this new situation. Shorter titles for public bodies are always preferable, I feel, rather than lengthy, complex ones, particularly in terms of the citizen's understanding of the role and constitution of the body in question.
So, that's just a brief explanation in terms of the purpose of the amendment. I should note, in terms of process, that my intention was to introduce the amendment as a probing amendment to the other Bill, as the points that I've noted emerge from that Bill. But, having discussed it with Senedd clerks, it emerged that such an amendment would not have been within the scope of that Bill, and it was only within the context of this Bill that we could change that name, rather than through a probing amendment to the other Bill. So, because of the procedural peculiarities of the Senedd process, we have reached this point where we're discussing changing the name of a body that appears reasonable in the context of this Bill, but not in the context of another Bill that can't be amended to that end.
So, this is a probing amendment still, in terms of my intentions, in order to at least give the opportunity to give consideration to the issue and to hear the arguments on both sides. I have, however, as I mentioned, tabled a full list of amendments in order to give us an opportunity to deliver this change, if that is the will of the Senedd, but I don't intend to push them all to a vote if it's clear that there is not going to be a majority in favour of the change. So, with those few words, I look forward to hearing the views of fellow Members across the Senedd.
Mick Antoniw rose—.
You're a bit presumptuous, Counsel General; I'm going to call Darren Millar.
Diolch, Llywydd. In making my opening comments at this Stage 3 debate today, I want to once again put on record my thanks to the Reform Bill Committee team for their support and work throughout the stages of this Bill so far, supporting Members—including me—with drafting and preparing all of the amendments that we will be tabling. I think it’s safe to say that all of us here in the Senedd are very grateful for the work that the clerks and the legal advisers and the researchers on these committees do. I’m also very grateful to the Member in charge, actually, and to other Members of the Senedd, for their engagement in leading up to today’s proceedings. As they will know, we have fundamental differences about the principles of this Bill and the reforms that it seeks to impose, but we have been able to engage in a constructive way that has been respectful and has given the Bill and the proposed amendments to it the serious consideration that they deserve.
Now, of course, as you would expect me to say, even if this Bill had all of the amendments accepted to it, I think it’s very unlikely that we’d give it our support, but, in saying that, I do want to acknowledge the positive way that we’ve been able to work together and the amendments that we’ve tabled through this third stage of the Bill would make the Bill, in our opinion, a great deal better than it currently is and would be much better for our Welsh democracy and improve the way that the Senedd works in the future.
If I can turn briefly, if I may, to group 1 and the amendments tabled in the name of Adam Price, I have to say, Adam, I find them, I’m afraid, unnecessary. At no stage of the Bill’s scrutiny so far was any concern raised about the proposed change in the name of the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales to Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, and, in fact, removing the word ‘boundary’ from the title will also delete a reference to one of the most important aspects of this commission’s work. Now, I appreciate it’s got much wider and broader responsibilities, but that surely is covered in the word ‘democracy’ right at the start of the title as well, so, in calling it the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, it will do exactly what it says on the tin, like a Ronseal wood stain, and, therefore, I believe that, because these amendments are unnecessary, I’m going to be discouraging people from supporting them.
Counsel General.
Diolch, Llywydd. Can I—? Before speaking on the specific amendments, I’d like to thank both Darren, Jane Dodds and Adam Price and others, really, for the engagement, the constructive engagement? It’s clear there are areas where there are disagreements but it is important to be able to have conversations, to be able to engage and make changes that are mutually beneficial, and also that there is then proper scrutiny of the legislation. So, I thank you for that, and also those who've worked on this Bill, because this is a groundbreaking piece of legislation in the history of devolution and this Senedd. And I believe that this Bill represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern Senedd that reflects twenty-first century Wales, a more effective Senedd with greater ability and capacity to hold the Welsh Government and legislation to account, and a Senedd whose size reflects its current responsibilities.
Again, turning specifically to the amendments, as I think is well understood, the Welsh Government will not be supporting those changes to the Bill, for many of the reasons that Darren Millar has set out, because boundary reviews are and will continue to be a core function of the commission’s work. The commission will have responsibility for reviewing electoral arrangements for local authorities in Wales. It will also confer upon it the Senedd’s constituency boundary review functions, making it the first body with specific responsibility for reviewing Senedd constituency boundaries. So, I think it’s important that the commission’s name should retain the word ‘boundary’ because it highlights and reflects one of the key elements of the commission’s work.
Can I say also that I very much respect and have a lot of empathy with, actually, the points that are made? Because the issue of democracy, the well-being of our democracy and so on, and those elements that are contained within this legislation, and indeed will be contained in subsequent legislation, are very much, I think, groundbreaking and reflect the attention that we pay to improving democracy within Wales, which is what I think this is actually about. So, I’d encourage Members, if it’s moved to a vote, to vote against the amendments, but I do take on board, very much, the points, the emphatic points that are made, specifically with regard to those elements that are there with democracy. It is, in fact, quite groundbreaking that we not only have a boundary commission, but we have a Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, so I think that's important.
Adam Price to reply.
I'm grateful to Members for their contributions, and it's no surprise that this amendment will not achieve a majority. But I do believe that it is important to put on record, as the Counsel General suggested, the broad and increasing range of functions that this commission will have. It's been said, as a criticism on occasion, that I as a politician, and that Plaid Cymru as a party, perhaps, have never identified a problem that we don't want to create a national institution around. That's not quite true, but the creation of national institutions is important. It is part of solving the problems and challenges that we face and delivering our potential, and creating a new national organisation, a newly drawn-up organisation, that evolves and grows in the field of democracy and democratic well-being is something, I think, that we should all welcome.
In terms of the title, I would prefer the shortened title myself. There is something more elegant, perhaps, about such a title. Perhaps 'the democracy commission' is the term that people will use orally and informally. When the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire was created in 1949, I believe, 'the council for Wales' was the term that was used, including by the chair himself, Huw T. Edwards. So, perhaps the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru will become 'the democracy commission' to all intents and purposes. There's a great deal of work, a programme of work, and a very full agenda that we will all want to contribute towards during the exciting times before us. But, with that, I seek the Senedd's leave to withdraw this amendment, and I won't push it to a vote.
The proposal, therefore, by Adam Price, who has already moved amendment 44, is that amendment 44 is withdrawn. If no-one disagrees with that, we will take it that the Senedd agrees to that. There will be no vote, therefore, on amendment 44.
Amendment 44 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12.27.
Group 2 will be next, and this group is amendments relating to Senedd constituency boundary reviews, on publications and implementation. Amendment 1 is the lead amendment. I call on the Counsel General to move this amendment. Mick Antoniw.
Amendment 1 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to open the debate on this group of amendments, which make technical changes to section 2, and Schedules 2 and 3 to the Bill, which relate to Senedd constituency boundary reviews.
Amendment 1 clarifies that reference to ‘that section’ in section 2(1) of Part 1 of the Bill means section 49J of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru etc. Act 2013. The amendment seeks to do this in a more concise way.
Amendments 24, 25 and 31 ensure that there is linguistic consistency between the provisions relating to the publishing of representations, following the various periods of representations, required as part of the constituency boundary reviews. They also clarify that, when there is a requirement to publish the representations received, the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru must publish them in a document.
Amendment 26 clarifies that when it publishes any notice as part of the 2026 pairing boundary review, it must be published on the commission’s website. This would include, for example, the notice at the commencement of the review. This provides consistency in the publishing requirements for all documents or reports published by the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru as part of the 2026 pairing review. It mirrors the publishing requirements set out for notices, reports and documents provided for in Schedule 3, which makes provision for subsequent full boundary reviews. Amendment 27 is a consequential amendment required due to amendment 26.
Amendment 30 is another technical amendment, to ensure linguistic consistency with section 49H(3)(d) of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru etc. Act 2013, as inserted by Schedule 3. So, I'd ask all Members to support the, I hope, uncontroversial amendments in this group.
Given that this is my first contribution today, as part of today's debate, I'd like to note my thanks to everyone who has worked hard in advising me through this process and also, of course, the clerks and my fellow Members on the reform committee.
Next week, it will be 25 years since the first elections to this Senedd. A quarter of a century later, it is entirely appropriate that we take the necessary steps towards reforming this Senedd. The need for these reforms has been evident for many years. Although the range of powers held by this Senedd remains far too limited, especially compared to the Scottish Parliament, Wales's devolved competencies have nevertheless increased significantly, both in number and complexity, since 1999, with a resulting increase in the responsibilities of elected Members, together with our ability to legislate.
Despite these developments, the size of the Senedd has not changed, and it is even more apparent that the size of our Senedd does not provide adequately for these powers. As I stated during our Stage 2 debate on this Bill, Wales deserves to have a Senedd of the size required for our democracy. In Scotland, there is one Member for around every 33,000 constituents. In Northern Ireland, there is one Member for around 15,000 constituents. In Wales, there is one Member for around 39,000 constituents. Furthermore, we must also remember that we have lost a number of representatives: Members of the European Parliament as a result of Brexit and, from the next Westminster election, a reduction in MPs from 40 to 32. This leaves Wales with the smallest electoral representation of all UK countries, and by some distance. On this measure alone, the introduction of the Senedd reform Bill is a democratic necessity, and surely no-one who truly believes in a well-functioning, proportional democracy could oppose it.
It is also clear that a larger Senedd facilitates more effective accountability and scrutiny of the Government. The number of policy areas that have now been devolved means that opposition party Members often have multiple portfolios, thereby piling necessary scrutiny responsibilities onto a limited number of individuals. Increasing the number of Members of the Senedd will, therefore, enrich, improve and empower opposition politics in Wales—something that I would hope that even Tory Members of this Senedd would recognise, when not in this Chamber or in front of a camera.
We are also pleased that this Bill will address the obvious need for reform of our voting system, removing, once and for all, the antiquated first-past-the-post system that has been so damaging to voter engagement and enthusiasm in Westminster elections. All Plaid Cymru Members have been clear from the outset that this Bill does not achieve everything that we would like to see in terms of Senedd reform. Our policy as a party remains supportive of the single transferrable vote model rather than the closed list system that will be implemented by this Bill, and we will continue to push for this to be considered as part of the review process in 2030. However, we also recognise that no single party in the Senedd has the two-thirds majority required to deliver reform on its own. Therefore, we have worked pragmatically with the Government to develop a set of proposals that will be able to reach these thresholds.
The Counsel General.
Diolch yn fawr. I'm grateful to Members for their constructive contributions and I ask all Members to support all the amendments in this group. Diolch.
The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 1 is therefore agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
The next group of amendments is group 3. They relate to disqualification of persons convicted of the offence of deception within the previous four years from being a Member of the Senedd or a candidate. Amendment 43 is the lead amendment, and the only amendment in this group, and I call on Adam Price to move the amendment.
Amendment 43 (Adam Price, supported by Jane Dodds and Lee Waters) moved.
Diolch, Llywydd. This is the second opportunity for us to discuss this proposal to make deliberate deception by candidates or Members of the Senedd a specific criminal offence, which, if people are convicted, would result in disqualification from the Senedd. Can I, first of all, thank all of those Members who have engaged in very constructive discussions with me in shaping this new version of the amendment, and, indeed, the constructive discussions that we've had with the Government as well? We now have got to a place where we have Members from all parties supporting the amendment, and an increasing consensus, I think, across the Senedd that this is an area where we want to act, recognising that the backdrop to this in democracies worldwide is falling public trust in politics, in politicians and in our democratic institutions, and we need to do something about that.
In a sense, politics has always had a credibility gap with citizens, but I think what I would say is that in the last few decades that existing gap has become an accountability chasm, and now we're staring into an abyss. We're looking at a future world of deepfakes, post-truth politics and wave after wave of disinformation, so we need to do something and we need to do something urgently. Wales could really lead democracy worldwide in this. If we passed this proposal in some shape or form, using some vehicle—we'll come on to that, I'm sure, in our discussions—we would be a world first.
In the research that we have conducted in the process of developing this amendment, we identified, I think, about half a dozen Parliaments around the world—Austria and about five Commonwealth Parliaments—that do actually make it a criminal offence for politicians to lie to Parliament, but, actually, what you say outside Parliament then is fair game. There are a few other Parliaments: South Australia for 20 years, for example, has made it a criminal offence for you to make false statements during an election campaign, and, actually, that law has functioned very, very effectively. So, there are bits of learning—there are some precedents—that we can draw upon, and we've used a lot of that language in this amendment, so we're not completely starting from scratch. But this amendment brings all of those elements together, and where it does really break new ground is that it's a comprehensive prohibition on deception, not just during election periods but throughout the year, in every year; not just inside Parliament, but outside Parliament as well, online and offline.
Just to run through very, very quickly some of the key elements, its focus at its heart, of course, is false and deceptive statements 'in a material particular'. What does that mean? Well, it means that if you get something wrong, a trivial element, et cetera, then that isn't really what we're addressing here. It's about making a significant or substantial false statement, and doing it, crucially, knowingly. It's not that you made an inadvertent error—we all get things wrong and need to correct ourselves, that's natural—but it's doing it in a deliberate way—that's the key—and with an intent to mislead the Senedd or the public.
And it's about statements of fact. We say explicitly that it's not about statements of opinion or belief; we're not about actually preventing there from being legitimate disagreements that even could constitute different interpretations of the facts. Also, it excludes future intention. There are legitimate reasons, sometimes, where you can sincerely promise something and circumstances beyond your control mean that you haven't been able to deliver that. So, it's not about that; it's about statements of fact that are provable, and it's about those situations where politicians know that what they're saying is false and they're doing it anyway for cynical and opportunistic reasons.
We've tried to set the bar high here, because what we don't want, of course—. The sign of success of this initiative is not a whole series of prosecutions. What we want to do is to create a cultural norm in our politics where we all accept that deliberate deception is never acceptable. Any time a politician then thinks they might be getting close to the line, they just have second thoughts and they step back from that line. And that's the experience, I think, in South Australia with the truth in political advertising law that I referred to.
We allow in the amendment opportunity for people to retract and apologise. So, either after you realise, 'Oh, hang on, I said something and that wasn't correct', or it's pointed out to you, there's a reasonable period of time, 14 days, where you can say, 'Look, I hold my hand up, I got that wrong, and I just want to set the record straight.' This is a reasonable amendment. It doesn't, in any way, inhibit free debate. It's not about opinion, belief, et cetera; it's about actually setting a core principle that I think unites us all—that we want to say in Wales that our democratic culture will have honesty at its heart. With those words of introduction, I look forward to Members' responses.
Can I thank Adam Price for tabling this amendment today and for listening to the feedback from Senedd Members in the debate at Stage 2 on a similar amendment? He agreed, of course, to withdraw that amendment and have some cross-party discussions, which I've been involved with, and I'm very grateful that he's reached out in order to do so. Those discussions were very productive and were held in a very good spirit.
I'm very pleased that we found a consensus on the text in the amendment that is before us, because, as Adam Price has quite eloquently outlined, we have a problem in politics globally about untruths and misinformation, and that is a blight, I'm afraid, on political discourse, and has been particularly an increasing blight in recent years, and it's undermining confidence in our democracies. It's leading to a toxic political discourse and environment that we, unfortunately, all get swamped in.
I recently undertook a visit with the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly's committee B to the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats in Helsinki, and it was fascinating to listen to some of the trends in hybrid threats that are undermining democracies around the world. One of them is the challenge of politicians, sometimes unwittingly, picking up inaccurate, untruthful statements and running with them, and those things proliferating themselves in things like social media. That, then, undermines the trust in democracy and plays into the hands of our international enemies, frankly, in terms of those authoritarian regimes that want to do a disservice to democracy.
It's incumbent upon us all in this Chamber to ensure that honesty and integrity are at the heart of everything that we do, and I know that everyone in this Parliament tries to do what they can to make sure that they uphold those values. We've got a duty to set an example to the public. It's only right, therefore, that we promote, in our own ranks, the values that we want to see flourishing across society, and make it clear that failing to uphold those values by seeking to deliberately mislead people, either in this Senedd or elsewhere, has clear consequences.
We know that legislating on this issue has widespread public support. I understand that a similar piece of legislation was proposed in a Member's Bill in Westminster, and that there was some polling done around that, and that the overwhelming majority—I think it was 75 per cent of people around the whole of the UK—wanted to see some legislation on this front. In fact, in Wales, over 90 per cent of people supported the need for some legislation on this front. So, we're going in step with the public here in terms of them wanting this issue dealt with.
The amendment is proportionate, it is reasonable, it's got those safeguards to prevent people from abusing it if this were made a criminal issue, and, of course, very importantly, it would level the playing field between politics as a profession and the many other professions that politicians have regulated for in the past. It's illegal for a doctor to tell you a lie, and we’ve legislated as politicians, as a whole, to prevent a doctor from misleading a patient. Why should it be any different for us? That’s why I’m proud to be able to support this amendment today. I do hope that Wales is the first nation in the world to be able to lead on this particular issue.
I thank Adam Price for bringing this forward, and Jane Dodds as well for adding her support. I must say, when I heard Adam Price make the arguments the last time we debated this, I was sceptical, but I agreed to debate it with him further and to speak to the team at Compassion in Politics who sponsored the report, and tested the arguments, and I must say I was persuaded that this is a sensible and reasonable step to take. It draws on work done on a cross-party basis on a Westminster private Member’s Bill three years ago. It has public support, and there is precedent, as Darren Millar has just said, from other professions who are also subject to rules about deliberately misleading.
Just to be clear, and to reassure those who might be concerned, this is not about censuring political knockabout, nor is it about preventing people expressing their opinions or their values. That’s already protected in human rights laws. And you can read in the standards commissioner’s most recent report on the complaint on the way the description of the blanket ban of 20 mph has been used that there’s a debate about the interpretation of human rights laws, and a defence of that can be made in practice. It shows that the tools already there and the precedent already there are not used bluntly. There is nuance. This is not something I think we should fear.
The amendment is explicitly about preventing someone presenting as fact something they know to be false and deceptive, and it would bring politics in line, as I said, with other professions where deliberate misrepresentation is prohibited. And I don’t really see a strong argument against it, to be honest.
Let me just try and test this with one contemporary example that I think would fall within scope. At the moment, there is a claim that our road-building policy represents a ban on road building. That’s not an interpretation of a fact. It’s not legitimate opinion. It’s simply untrue. And it can be shown to be so, which is the test that has been mentioned. And yes, of course, there has been a change in criteria. There’s a policy debate to be had around that, but new roads are being developed and will be delivered, so there is not a ban. The Conservatives know that, they persist in saying it, but it is false, deceptive and is wilfully and knowingly intended to mislead.
The bar for prosecution would rightly be high, and there are defences listed in the amendment that can be legitimately made against the charge. It’s also clear that individuals cannot bring charges against other individuals. And as Adam Price has said, a Member can withdraw the statement and apologise within 14 days of making it as a safety valve.
I know the Government has some technical concerns about the amendment, and it’s unlikely to move forward today, but it’s important to note the bipartisan support for bringing politics in line with the other professions, and the Counsel General’s interest in working together to develop something that could be brought forward. Diolch.
I wish to add my support so that we have cross-party representatives who are supporting this amendment. And thank you to Adam Price as well for bringing this amendment forward.
While numerous amendments have been proposed in prior stages in an attempt to enhance the Senedd and further the objectives of the reform Bill, this amendment in particular goes to the very heart of preserving the rule of law and upholding the integrity of the Welsh democratic system going forwards. As has been said, we cannot deny the reality that truth and transparency are facing significant challenges in our current times. The proliferation of misinformation, fake news and deceptive narratives has become increasingly prevalent, and that has eroded public trust in the political sphere. Whilst as a Welsh liberal Democrat I believe we must remain vigilant in protecting the principles of free speech and open discourse, we also bear a clear responsibility to uphold the highest standards of honesty when it comes to facts in our conduct as public servants.
This amendment seeks to establish a clear framework for holding those who hold public office accountable for intentionally misleading statements made in their official capacity. It recognises the importance of deterring the deliberate dissemination of falsehoods while providing safeguards against frivolous claims or overreach. By supporting this measure, we have an opportunity to send a powerful message to the people of Wales and the world—a message that confirms our commitment to conducting ourselves with dignity, integrity and transparency. This amendment can serve as a step towards restoring public trust in the political process, and setting an example for others to follow.
It is no secret that there has been a concerning rise in public scepticism regarding politicians' ability to act with honesty and competence. We need not delve into the numerous scandals and instances of deception that have contributed to this erosion of trust over time, but the numbers do speak for themselves. A 2021 Institute for Public Policy Research study found that 63 per cent of voters now view politicians as being out for themselves, a stark contrast to the statistic seven years earlier, which was 48 per cent.
A survey by Compassion in Politics at a national level in Wales found cross-party support for new laws to prevent lying in politics, with 71 per cent of Conservative voters and 79 per cent of Labour supporters backing the idea. This amendment therefore represents a balanced approach, ensuring that legitimate discourse and freedom of expression are not unduly curtailed. It provides robust safeguards against frivolous or vexatious claims, and ensuring only public authorities can prosecute the offence.
With this amendment, Wales can once again take a pioneering stance, setting an example for ethical governance not just within the United Kingdom, but on the global stage as well. Ultimately, our goal should be to strengthen the bonds of trust between the people of Wales and their elected representatives, fostering a political culture that values honesty, integrity and an unwavering commitment to serving the best interests of our constituents. I very much hope that this amendment will be accepted by the Senedd today. Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd.
The Counsel General.
Diolch, Llywydd. As I indicated at Stage 2, I support the general principle underpinning the proposals to increase the accountability of Members. Honesty is an overarching principle in the code of conduct for Members, and the truthfulness of Members sits at the heart of the standards by which I think we must be held. Trust is fundamental to the proper functioning of democracy in Wales.
The issue of what's true, what isn't true, what is a fact and what isn't, of course, isn't something new. It was Aneurin Bevan all those years ago who said, 'I'll tell you my truth, you tell me yours'. However, it is important that a detailed analysis of the policy and legal implications of a disqualifying offence of wilful deception is undertaken prior to any legislation or implementation.
I remain of the view that consideration of this issue is best done by the Standards of Conduct Committee. That committee has agreed to undertake such an inquiry in response to a recommendation from the Reform Bill Committee. I have also written to the Standards of Conduct Committee in support of its proposed work on accountability, and, indeed, the First Minister has written to the leader of Plaid Cymru, copying in other parties as well. Therefore, whilst I am unable to support this amendment today, I do look forward to engaging with the committee in relation to its work in this area.
Now, for a system such as the one introduced by this amendment, I am cautious in jumping to a conclusion before the Standards of Conduct Committee has had a chance to consider the wider issue and also to consult with the standards commissioner. The need for trust in our politics is vital, but we must be careful about potential unintended consequences, including in relation to Members' ability to speak freely on matters that concern their constituents in this Senedd. Careful consideration would also need to be given to potential competence risks in respect of this amendment. The Senedd cannot legislate to create offences of a kind dealt with by the Perjury Act 1911, which includes knowingly and wilfully making false statements.
Now, throughout the development of this legislation, I've taken great care to ensure that any potential risk to the Bill are minimised, particularly in the light of the extremely short implementation timescales, in advance of the 2026 election. Including this amendment at this stage could risk delivery of the package as a whole. Now, this is an important area for further discussion, and I certainly support the ambition to improve our politics. More work is essential and, as such, I urge Members to oppose—
Would you take an intervention—
Certainly.
—if that's all right, Llywydd? Thank you for allowing the intervention. You talk about more work needing to be done, but you've heard that we've waited a long time to get to this stage, and I wondered if you had in your head an idea of how long you would be looking at, in terms of bringing forward further legislation in this area. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Well, can I say the first thing is, I think, legislate at haste—? And this is a matter that does need very, very careful attention, and we do need to protect the privilege that exists in this Senedd, in terms of being able to speak freely and openly, so we need to be very careful about how we do legislate in this particular area. I have spoken to the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, not just in relation to this, but also in relation to another amendment that's coming, and that is the issue of recall, and I think these things are actually connected, in a way. There was an interreaction between them that is really important to understand. Certainly, as far as Welsh Government is concerned, we will work with a committee that might be appointed—and I think the Standards of Conduct Committee is probably the appropriate one, because of the importance of the role of the standards commissioner in being engaged as well—and I believe that a committee that works at pace and takes this seriously and puts the work into it, we will engage and support in that, in order to achieve the drafting of legislation that would be workable and, I think, also, acceptable, but also legislation that also protects the freedoms that are important within the operation of this Parliament as well.
Adam—
I think I'd finished there, Llywydd.
Good, and thank you for clarifying that.
Adam Price to reply.
I think it's been a very constructive debate on this Stage 3, and we, I think, have witnessed a growing consensus now, haven't we, across the whole of the Senedd, across all parties, and a willingness for us to move forward and to legislate. I should say—and I welcome the support from all sides—I should say, in relation to some of the competence issues and legal issues that the Counsel General raised, the legal analysis that I received suggests that they wouldn't raise any competence issues. But I can understand the Government's position that further detail, legal and policy analysis needs to be done, but the important thing, I think, from my perspective, is that we cannot wait until the next Senedd. I mean, the wave of populist, unscrupulous politicians, the purveyors of post-truth politics—you know, we're not immune from that. That's coming in our direction, and it would be too late to act by the next Senedd; we need to act in this Senedd.
So, I think it is important for us to move forward, wherever possible, on a cross-party and all-party basis. Democracy is best defended when all democrats work together. And I think that we've made progress—important progress, I think, significant progress—in the emerging consensus, and having heard what has been said across the Siambr, I don't want to fracture that consensus, I want to actually get us to work together, but on the basis that we legislate in this Senedd, working with all parties. And I think that it's possible that we could do that at pace through the conduct committee, but I could also see an argument for the Reform Bill Committee. If the Standards of Conduct Committee, because it has a lot of capacity issues, says, 'Well, we can't look at this', then maybe there's an alternative with the Reform Bill Committee to bring a committee Bill forward. We're one of only, I think, five Parliaments in Europe that have the capacity to bring committee Bills forward. We've done it once, let's do it with this, bringing everyone together. And if that doesn't work, then I've checked, Counsel General, and an amendment on this would be within the scope of—. You don't want to hear this, Mick, probably: it would be within the scope of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill, so it could be groundhog day three and four. There are different ways that we could do it.
But with the political will across this Chamber, let's get it done together. On that basis, in that spirit, then based on what I've heard, I won't be pressing this to a vote now, but we need the opportunity to legislate in this Senedd, and we will find it because there is consensus across all sides of the Siambr. I won't be pressing to the vote. I would ask, respectfully, all supporters, at this stage—. I don't want to put—. I know there are many Labour Members that actually want to vote with this amendment, but they can't, for understandable reasons. I don't want to put them in a position whereby they are conflicted; I want us all to work together. So, at this stage, I won't be pressing it to a vote, I ask that other supporters don't, but let's get this legislated now, in this Senedd, so we can create that new chapter for our democracy.
If I've understood that correctly, Adam Price is seeking to withdraw the amendment, and it not be voted upon. As the amendment has been moved, I would need all Members to support not having a vote on this amendment. Does any Member object to that? No.
Therefore, no objections, and therefore the amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment 43 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12.27.
We'll move now to group 4, a group of amendments relating to voting systems at Senedd general elections and allocation of seats. The lead amendment is amendment 32, and I call on Darren Millar to move the amendment.
Amendment 32 (Darren Millar) moved.
Diolch, Llywydd. I rise to move amendments 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 39, all of which have been tabled in my name. These amendments seek to change the voting system proposed by the Bill from a closed list voting system to a flexible list voting system.
Llywydd, 'democracy' is a word in ancient Greek, and it literally means 'rule of the people', so it would be natural, therefore, to conclude that when this Senedd considers a Bill that we're told will strengthen democracy, that that is what it would do, that it would give more power, more choice, and more voice to the people of Wales, yet, unfortunately, this Bill does none of those things. In fact, perplexingly, it will do precisely the opposite because it will scrap the current first-past-the-post voting system by which two thirds of the Members of this Senedd are currently elected, and extend the closed list voting system to 100 per cent of Senedd Members. That closed list voting system is a system that will prevent voters from being able to vote for an individual candidate of their choice.
Llywydd, a closed list voting system will take power away from the people and put it into the hands of political parties. It amounts to a power grab by political parties from the public. Members of the Senedd will become more responsive to the views of their party elites and members who have the control over the electoral lists and the ranking of candidates than the views of the people we are here to serve. Now, when people have the opportunity to vote for an individual candidate, there's a strong relationship of accountability between the public and their elected representatives. Voters can reward Members of the Senedd who represent them well, and they can also punish those Members of the Senedd who don't. And we see already the difference that that makes at Senedd elections already, don't we, because we see the differential in the votes for parties and people on the two-list systems that we currently have, because people can vote for a constituency representative and a regional party. And we see the difference that that makes.
Now, I'm genuinely open to hearing anybody in this Senedd make a compelling argument that the electoral system currently proposed by the Bill will make Senedd Members more accountable to their constituents than the current arrangements, because I can't think of a single argument for it, and I haven't heard anybody make it to me either. In fact, I challenged people at Stage 2 to make a compelling argument as to why this closed list system was better than a flexible list system, which could still achieve all of the aims of the proponents of this Bill in ensuring that there's proportionality in the Senedd, but still protect that fundamental opportunity that people want to be able to vote for an individual person and hold that individual person to account. And this is why the Reform Bill Committee, when it was considering this matter, in its Stage 1 report, called for measures, and I quote,
'to ensure the electoral system provides greater voter choice and improved accountability for future Members to their electorates.'
Because we recognised that the big flaw in the current package of reform was this lack of accountability and this lack of voter choice that is presented to them in this particular Bill. And that recommendation in the Senedd reform committee report at Stage 1 reflected not just my views, but the views of all of the members of that committee that contributed to its work and shaped that recommendation. It was a cross-party report that sought to make a serious improvement to the Bill. So, I was very disappointed to see the negative response of the Welsh Government to that recommendation, and I was particularly disappointed to see that Labour and Plaid voted against amendments that I tabled in order to bring that recommendation into effect at Stage 2. And it was difficult to comprehend particularly why Plaid voted against them given that the flexible list system is much closer to a single transferable vote system, which does allow people to vote for an individual candidate of their choice.
Now, I'm no less certain now of the damage that will be wrought to Welsh democracy if this aspect of the Bill goes through unamended. That's why I've tabled a series of amendments that seek to overcome this most important shortcoming in this Bill. And if my amendments are agreed, they will strengthen the Bill by ensuring that voters can retain the power to vote for an individual candidate of their choice whilst accepting the Government's position in terms of wanting to ensure that there is proportional representation in a way where candidates can be listed on the face of the Bill, but still giving that choice to individual voters to reorganise those lists. Now, I appreciate that the previous First Minister and the previous Welsh Government seemed wedded to the closed lists ideal, and I've still heard nobody make an argument for closed lists, by the way, and I hope, in the absence of no good reason for them and no good reason for not changing to a flexible list system, that the current First Minister and his new Government, albeit the same Member in charge, might take a different view.
I am surprised to hear Darren Millar say that he doesn't know why Plaid Cymru is voting like this, because I don't think it's been a secret at all as to Plaid Cymru's view on this issue, and I would hope that, during every stage of this process, I have been clear in saying that this kind of electoral system has been a contentious issue. This, in itself, is something that we should welcome; it shows the strength of feeling that clearly exists regarding the nature of our democracy, the fact that we're having a conversation about the voting system and that people feel very passionately about it.
In terms of my party, to be entirely unambiguous, we have been clear from the outset that the STV system, or open or flexible proportional lists, is the system that we would prefer, and that's the one that represents the most progressive option for the electorate of Wales. It is disappointing that the Government has not seen the value of this option, but, as a party that puts the interests of the nation first, we have worked pragmatically to develop an option that will, hopefully, be able to pass through the Senedd with the necessary support of two thirds of Members.
And it should be no surprise to anyone that this system is a compromise. That is often the nature of democracy. But, despite its shortcomings, there is no doubt that these changes will be a significant improvement on the current system, ensuring that the number of seats won will be a fair reflection of the votes cast, and bringing to an end, completely, the first-past-the-post model, which has been so harmful to democratic vitality.
Our priority is, therefore, to ensure that a bold package of reforms is in place by 2026, which is only two years away now, with further reviews able to take place as a result of the review mechanism that is facilitated by this Bill.
And while we recognize the entirely valid concerns that have been expressed about closed lists, the idea that presenting a list of candidates somehow impairs voters' ability to understand who they are voting for is entirely at odds with the reality of our history of devolved elections in Wales, where closed lists have been an element of the elections for regional seats from the outset. It is also worth emphasising that the Westminster system, which continues to enjoy the enthusiastic support of the Tories, is itself a version of a closed list, where electors choose the preferred candidate of the parties standing. That's a closed list of one.
For all of these reasons, we are unable to support amendments 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 or 39 in the name of Darren Millar, which will reopen the debate about the electoral system and will undo the work that has been done to get us to this point.
I'd like to make a brief intervention to respond to some of the points Darren Millar made. It was a fair and reasonable speech, and I'm sure we'll have sympathy for elements of it across the Chamber. But, of course, as we know, electoral systems are famously an alphabet soup. There are so many of them, and everybody has their own preference, and I'm sure, around this Chamber, if we were to give people a free vote on preference of which system they would like, we would have a range of options put forward, but there needs to be a consensus found. We already have, as Heledd Fychan has noted, a tradition of closed lists in our devolved Parliament, so this is not outwith our tradition. The advantage of it—. He asked for an argument to be made in its favour, and, in truth, I'm ambivalent about it, but I'm ambivalent about all voting systems, because they all have flaws; they all have pros and they all have cons. The advantage of this system is that it is easy to understand, which is one of the tests that is made for first-past-the-post; it gives every voter an equal weighted vote; and, subject to the threshold, allows all opinions in the constituency to be represented. That is a huge advantage on first-past-the-post, and it is a variation of our current system. The names of the candidates will be on the ballot. And it is a way for us as a Senedd to create a consensus and move forward with Senedd reform, which I appreciate is not something he wants to see. But none of this is set in stone; if we find there are flaws, and if we find that there are unsatisfactory results from this, just as we have changed our voting system over the last 25 years and tweaked it, we'd be able to do the same again. So, though his arguments are attractive, I don't think there are any knockout blows there for this, and the larger prize of Senedd reform is one that I'm prepared to hold my nose on some of my doubts over, recognising, as I said, every single voting system has its flaws, and, whatever system he came up with, we could all point out the flaws in them too.
Counsel General.
Diolch, Llywydd. There is, I think, a genuine, a constructive, difference of views on this, but I can confirm I will not be supporting amendments 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 or 39, which would give effect to a flexible list system and a mechanism for subsequently reviewing the associated threshold for a candidate to be moved up a party list.
It is necessary that the proposals in this Bill can command a supermajority in the Senedd. I remain confident that it is the case for the provisions currently in the Bill, including those relating to a closed list system. So, having debated this amendment at Stage 2, I know I'm at the risk of repeating some of the same points, but they remain important. The proposed closed list system removes the disproportionality of first-past-the-post in our current electoral system, meaning results will better reflect votes cast. The proposals provide for a simple single route to election, with votes requiring only one ballot paper, instead of two. A closed list system is familiar to voters in Wales from the current regional list ballots. A closed list system also facilitates candidates being accountable to the public for the national manifestos of their political parties, while still retaining a need for candidates to cultivate a local personal vote to boost their party's electoral prospects. It also provides a mechanism for improving diversity, which flexible lists do not. It also ensures that, in Senedd elections in future, every vote will count.
Whilst some may argue that such a system does not provide the same level of voter choice as flexible or open lists, I'm clear that it does not remove from voters a choice that they currently have. Under the first-past-the-post system, parties select their candidates, they control the selection mechanism, as they will do in a list-based system—a list, in fact, of one, under the first-past-the-post system. The choice for the voter remains as one where they vote for the candidates selected by a party or for an independent candidate.
And of course, at Stage 2, the Committee of the Whole Senedd agreed to Jane Dodds's amendment to the Bill that ensures that the conduct Order will require the ballot paper used at a general election in a Senedd constituency to include the names of all the candidates. It was always the Welsh Government's intention that that would be the case—
Will you take an intervention?
Certainly.
Thank you so much. I wasn't going to speak on this. I virtually had to chain myself to the chair in order not to say anything on the voting system. However, thank you for referring to me. I suppose my question, really, is that you do say that the amendment has now been included, in terms of the names being next to the party, but is it not the case that those names are decided by the party, not by the public? Diolch.
Well, in exactly the same way as, under the first-past-the-post system, candidates are selected by the parties. It is exactly the same, but this is a system that has far greater proportionality, and I think is far more democratic than anything we have at the moment. Of course, the Bill does provide also for a post-legislative review by a committee of the next Senedd to consider the operation and effect of this legislation. Whilst the exact scope of that review will be a matter for the next Senedd, the experience of closed lists would seem to be a very relevant consideration. Diolch, Llywydd.
Darren Millar to reply.
Diolch, Llywydd. Obviously, I'm disappointed to hear the responses. Everybody in this Chamber knows that a flexible list system is a better option than a closed list system. I'm still yet to hear a reason why the Government thinks that a closed list system is preferable. All of the arguments you seem to make were actually against the first-past-the-post system, which I haven't even attempted to defend, although it's obviously got a very strong accountability framework within it. Of course, you make the comparison—. I think both Heledd and the Member in charge made reference to, effectively, that being being a closed list system of one. Well, it may well be, but at least you can reject the candidate by voting for somebody else, can't you? You can't do that in quite the same way by rejecting an individual candidate if you have a closed list system with a list of names before you.
If I can just go through the benefits that you say there are to a closed list system, so, you talked about that it addresses proportionality. Well, so does a flexible list. It's simple to understand. Well, so is a flexible list—you vote for a person or a party. There's one ballot paper. So is the case with a flexible list. You hold people to account for national manifestos. Well, that's the job of individual parties when putting candidates on that list, no matter what ranking they're placed at in the first place. Addressing diversity. Well, we've got another Bill going on in the Senedd at the moment that would allow for a quota system, or a zipping system. You can still do that even on a flexible list system, and, if anybody has read the expert panel report from 2017, it made it quite clear that you can still deal with the diversity issue through a flexible list system. You say every vote will count under the closed list system. It won't, actually, because, of course, if your candidate gets less than 12 per cent of the threshold in your particular seat, they're unlikely to get a single seat. So, it's not as proportionate, in some respects, as it is currently with our regional situation. But a flexible list system would be exactly the same, just as proportional as your closed list system. So, I'm still waiting for the argument as to why.
Now, the other argument you threw about was, 'Well, this is the only thing—the only possible solution—that can get us to a two-thirds majority.' I'm not sure it is, actually. I'm sure that, if there was discussion on the matter and people were given a free hand to be able to vote, particularly on the Labour benches, then we might arrive at a completely different solution. But it seems to me that you're just wedded to it, for whatever reason I do not know. Presumably, you've had an instruction from somewhere that you can't possibly deviate. You've heard from the Plaid Cymru benches that they would prefer a flexible list system, so they're being forced, effectively, by you lot over here to support a system that is inferior to a flexible list system, which we all have the opportunity to introduce right now by supporting these amendments. I just don't get it.
Yes, I would like an intervention, and it's important that we have this discussion. Of course, it will be very clear on the ballot paper who is standing. People will be able to make a choice about who is on the top of the list and who is likely to be expected. It's up to us to explain to people across this party that this a democratic system, it's not some made-up, non-democratic system; it is a robust system that all of us will be in a position to explain to the people of Wales as their system, which we hope we can change and strengthen for the future, but this is the majority that we can get here to drive this important reform forward.
Well, it's the majority that you're accepting, frankly. I mean, I frankly think you should've driven a harder bargain from your Labour masters in order to get the package of reforms through that was actually going to deliver the sort of direct accountability that we're now going to lose if this Bill goes through unamended in terms of the way that we'll be able to deal with these lists.
So, look, of course I accept that people can look down a list and say, 'Oh, I don't like that person', or 'I don't like that person, therefore, I'm going to vote for another party', but don't you think it would be better to have that direct accountability, where members of the public can vote for an individual candidate on a party list to say, 'You know what? I don't particularly like that person, but I think that person does a better job for me locally and I want to be able to reward that person with my vote'? We know that that happens already, okay, within the current system, where people can vote and express a view for an individual candidate on a first-past-the-post basis and then do something on the closed lists, regional lists, as well. And, by and large, local people who work hard for their constituents are rewarded in that first-past-the-post vote. They'll still be able to reward those individuals if you have a flexible list system. So, we're making a big mistake here, Member in charge, and a big mistake on the part of the Labour Party. It's a retrograde step; it could take decades to sort out in the future. We're never sure if we're ever going to get a two-thirds majority in the future, so we need to seize this opportunity; get it nailed and don't make a mistake.
The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 32. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 32 is not agreed.
Amendment 32: For: 15, Against: 38, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejected
Amendment 33. Is it moved, Darren Millar?
Amendment 33 (Darren Millar) moved.
Move.
It's moved. Is there any objection? [Objection.] There is. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 33. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 33 is not agreed.
Amendment 33: For: 15, Against: 38, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejected
Amendment 34—is it moved?
Amendment 34 (Darren Millar) moved.
It is moved by Darren Millar. If amendment 34 is not agreed, amendment 39 falls. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 34. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 34 is not agreed and amendment 39 falls.
Amendment 34: For: 15, Against: 38, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejected
Amendment 39 fell.
Amendment 35, Darren Millar, is it moved?
Amendment 35 (Darren Millar) moved.
It is. Is there any objection to amendment 35? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. A vote on amendment 35. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 35 is not agreed.
Amendment 35: For: 15, Against: 38, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejected
Amendment 36—is it moved?
Amendment 36 (Darren Millar) moved.
Move.
It is. Is there any objection to amendment 36? [Objection.] There is. A vote, therefore, on amendment 36. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions and 38 against. Therefore, amendment 36 is not agreed.
Amendment 36: For: 15, Against: 38, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejected
Group 5 is next, and the amendments relate to related amendments for the purposes of Part 2 of the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill. Amendment 2 is the lead amendment. The Counsel General to move the amendment. Mick Antoniw.
Amendment 2 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Diolch, Llywydd. Amendment 2 will insert an additional amendment into section 10 of the Bill. This is a technical amendment to remove terms from the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 that are redundant as a consequence of this Bill. The omission of entries in the Bill includes the expressions 'Senedd constituency Member', 'Senedd electoral region' and 'Senedd regional Member'. Diolch, Llywydd.
I have no speakers in this group. I assume that the Counsel General doesn't want to contribute again. So, the question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Amendment 2 is, therefore, agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Group 6 is the next group of amendments, and these relate to the recall of Members of the Senedd. Amendment 40 is the lead amendment. Darren Millar to move that amendment.
Amendment 40 (Darren Millar) moved.
Diolch, Llywydd. I rise to move amendments 40 and 42, which have both been tabled in my name. These amendments seek to introduce a system of recall for future Members of the Senedd. A system of recall for Members is an important accountability mechanism that has, regrettably, been lacking in the Senedd so far in our first quarter of a century's history. Recall systems are used in legislatures around the world, and they serve to promote high standards amongst elected representatives by making it possible for them to lose their seats between elections.
Now, we know that Members of the Senedd have, in the past, expressed their full public support for introducing such a system; so, indeed, has the Member in charge of the Bill. At the Reform Bill Committee, when it considered the issue at Stage 1, we found many contributors who also supported the need for a recall system. So, faced as we are with a package of changes to the Senedd's structure and the way that we are elected, I think we've got an opportune moment to be able to introduce a system of recall for Members.
As I've previously said with regard to the proposed new electoral system, this Bill, in its unamended form, risks drastically limiting the direct accountability of individual Members of the Senedd to the people they represent, even more so now that the flexible list amendments have been defeated. It's all the more important, therefore, that we look at ways of maintaining that crucial relationship of accountability between elected representatives and the public, as was recommended by the Reform Bill Committee in its Stage 1 report.
Now, introducing a system of recall would do just that. It would empower voters to be able to pass judgment on their Members of the Senedd in cases where they failed to meet the very high standards expected of those in public office, so it would ensure that trust and accountability are at the heart of everything that we do, not just at election time but throughout the time that Members are in office.
Turning to the amendments, amendment 40 would insert a new section onto the face of the Bill. It would reflect our unique context here in the Senedd and it would mean that Members of the Senedd would be required or subject to a recall petition if they are either convicted of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained, or suspended from Senedd proceedings for a period of 10 sitting days or more by the Senedd's Standards of Conduct Committee.
I did bring similar amendments forward at Stage 2, but I reflected on some of the feedback and the comments in the debates, and I made changes to address some of the concerns that were raised. So, rather than simply replicating all of the provisions in the Recall of MPs Act 2015, in recognition of the fact that things are different here in Wales I've adapted it to reflect our circumstances. In recognition of the limited time to scrutinise what is a significant amendment, I've also made some parts of the original amendment that I tabled subject to Welsh Ministers tabling regulations in the future, which would then be subject to debate and would have to require an affirmative vote here in the Senedd.
Another important difference in the amendments before us today is that whilst my previous amendments would have resulted in a by-election in the event of a successful recall petition, these revised amendments will not. Instead, they will result in a vacancy being filled in the usual way—i.e. the usual way that a vacancy will be filled under the new arrangements—i.e. the next person on the list would fill that vacant post. That means that when 10 per cent or more of electors in the constituency have signed a recall petition, the Member who is the subject of that petition would be unseated, and the next candidate on the party's electoral list would take the vacated seat.
This change has been made because I understand that the prospect of holding a by-election could have sat uneasily with the new electoral system, because it would have led to a dual mandate—different mandates for individual candidates. Someone being amongst their peers all elected in a different way than somebody elected through a by-election would, obviously, not be something that would necessarily be good, but it was the only way I thought that it should happen. But I have reflected on that feedback, and that's why I'm saying, 'Let's fill those vacancies now via the list system, in order to overcome that challenge.'
The other difference in amendment 40 to take note of is an additional section that would allow Welsh Ministers to make provisions in the area of petition expenditure with regard to any campaigning around those petitions and loans—so, campaign financing, effectively. But, again, those would be subject to regulations that would require an affirmative vote. Finally, amendment 42 is consequential to amendment 40.
It was disappointing that other parties chose not to support my previous amendments at Stage 2, despite supporting the principle of the need for a recall mechanism and the support that that has commanded. But having made these changes, the changes that I've outlined, to make sure that the amendment reflects the context in the Senedd—the different arrangements in the Senedd than there are in another place in the UK in terms of our UK Parliament—I think we've been able to address some of those concerns, and we've given the opportunity for further scrutiny to take place as a result of regulations being subject to discussion and debate here, and requiring a two-thirds majority vote.
I know what the Member in charge will say, as he has said previously in response to the discussion that we had on the debate around the deception amendment, that he wants to see a system of recall, but that he thinks it's better for the committee on standards of conduct to be able to consider this in the round and bring forward something in the future. I am just concerned that we won't have time for that to happen between now and the next election, and that we could lose this opportunity. So, I'm saying again: let's try and seize it. Let's take this opportunity, make sure that we have a recall petition. These are matters of live public interest, and have been in recent weeks, since our Stage 2 committee debate. This is an opportunity to be able to lance that boil, to be able to deal with the situation in a way that maintains that accountability, given that we're losing it through the introduction of a closed list system for all future elections. I think it's a sensible way forward that is proportionate, and I hope that Members will give it their support.
I'm contributing today in my capacity as Chair of the Senedd Standards of Conduct Committee. As Members will be aware, the Reform Bill Committee recommended that the issue of recall was consulted on by the Standards of Conduct Committee as part of a wider consideration of individual Member accountability. I'm pleased to say that the Standards of Conduct Committee met yesterday to discuss and agree a scope on this work. We intend to take evidence from key witnesses who can help the committee to identify an effective and proportionate recall machinery that works for Wales and our electoral system. The committee noted correspondence from the Petitions Committee and the Counsel General on this issue, which highlighted the wide-ranging support, both inside and outside the Senedd, to introduce a recall system. I'm looking forward to working with colleagues across this Chamber, and in Welsh Government, to introduce a system that works for Wales, a system that strengthens our democracy and our accountability to the public.
I'm very pleased to hear that contribution from Vikki Howells on behalf of the committee. I think that we do all agree that we need some sort of recall system. It is something that is sensible and something that has cross-party support in the Senedd. But, as I said during Stage 2, we believe that a period is needed to scrutinise this proposal and ensure a system that works in this new context. Since Stage 2, we have been considering possible solutions, and we do welcome the fact that the First Minister has committed in correspondence that the standards committee, as we've just heard, will work on recommendations to establish a suitable recall process, taking into account input from all Senedd parties.
I would therefore be grateful if the Counsel General could confirm this on the record in his response to this group, and perhaps give us an idea of the possible timescale for introducing any appropriate legislation to bring a system of this type into effect. I think the message is very clear from a number of Members in the Senedd: we need a system, and we need it urgently, but it's a question of how we do it to ensure that it works.
I think I'm just going to say half of what I was going to say, because it’s great to hear that your committee will be looking at this. Diolch yn fawr iawn. And I’m really pleased to support Darren’s amendment. Thank you for the work that you’ve done on this; it’s really important. Just to say we all agree that there are particular issues facing us as politicians around trust and legitimacy, and this is one process where we can actually start to restore that trust from the public.
In 2023, citizen assembly groups convened concluded that there exists an embarrassing political culture of dishonesty and lack of serious consequences for bad behaviours. As one participant said, ‘They get away with it, there is no reprimand’. Therefore this amendment represents a pivotal step forward to address this issue of eroding public trust. While the power of recall should be exercised judiciously, with proper safeguards against potential misuse, it does remain a critical mechanism for upholding the integrity of our democratic institutions, and so I’m really pleased to hear that steps will be taken to look into how this can work. I would urge it to be as quickly as possible.
Just to finish on a very personal note, several politicians have gained and lost from a system of recall. We’ll start with one who’s not in this Siambr: we must remember that Prime Minister Boris Johnson resigned at the threat of a recall petition after he was found to have deliberately misled Parliament. And I myself was elected for a very short period of time on the back of a recall petition. There are many, many other examples, and there are very recent examples as well, but that’s about the public being able to take the decisions that they feel are right in terms of democracy. I very much hope that, as we move this forward, we’ll see that that will be strengthened in terms of the steps that are taken. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Counsel General.
Diolch, Llywydd. I firstly thank Darren Millar for taking on board some of what was said in response to the similar amendment at Stage 2 and bringing forward a revised amendment that may fit more naturally within the electoral system proposed by the Bill, specifically that vacancies arising from a successful recall petition will be filled in the same way as those arising due to other reasons. It is, in fact, not so much an amendment on a recall system, but a removal system. The replacement would obviously come through the list system. Can I also say that I remain very strongly supportive, and the Welsh Government does as well, of the general proposal to enhance Member accountability? I believe that there is a consensus that a process is needed as part of that work, and I see it as an important area for further exploration.
I have, since Stage 2, as has already been said, written to the Standards of Conduct Committee to express my views on the importance of this work, as well as those conveyed during Stage 2 proceedings. The First Minister has also written to the leader of Plaid Cymru and shared the letter with the leaders of the other parties in the Senedd, to make clear that the Government stands ready to support the practical implementation of any recommendations made by the standards committee and subsequently endorsed by the Senedd. There is now some momentum behind this work, and I’m very pleased to hear the comments that were made by the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee that this work that is about to start has already been scoped. It’s important that we maintain that momentum. As such, I won’t be supporting these amendments today, because I remain of the view that the approach recommended by the Reform Bill Committee is the right one.
In recognising the complexities of implementing a system—we note that even this amendment amounts to 27 pages of legislation that needs to be scrutnised and needs to be considered in terms of interaction with other conduct matters, and we had the discussion earlier on the deception issue, and so on—it called on the Standards of Conduct Committee to work with the standards commissioner. The standards commissioner has also expressed views. He actually doesn't agree with this. It's very important that we understand what those particular reasons are, or how that engagement might impact on the considerations that the committee would have. It is important that due consideration is given to those views. We have to look at developing options for the strengthening of individual Members' accountability, and the Standards of Conduct Committee, as I've already said, has answered that call and is going to be taking up that work.
In fact, the length and complexity of this amendment helps to, I think, emphasise, as I've said, the need for careful consideration, as well as highlighting some of the areas the committee will, I’m sure, wish to consider. This includes the key questions of what the appropriate steps should be within the procedure, what the triggers would be and how that would relate to the disqualification regime for Members, and what the threshold should be for a successful petition to be valid. I think that is an extremely important point, especially bearing in mind that this is a removal amendment rather than a recall amendment, in that sense. So, it is different and needs to be different to reflect the different system that we have in Wales, particularly when the effect is that a Member loses their seat.
Darren Millar to reply.
Diolch, Llywydd. I'm very pleased to hear the consensus around the Chamber. I did see the exchange of correspondence between the First Minister and the leader of the opposition last week, and I know that assurances have been given that the Welsh Government wants to use its resources in order to try and help bring something forward as a result of the Standards of Conduct Committee's work. The one thing that I think we haven't had answered is the timescales for the completion of that work. I listened very carefully to what Vikki Howells said about the scoping piece of work that is being done, but, obviously, trying to get some sort of indication of a timescale, given how close we are to the next Senedd election and given that there is a desire to try to introduce some legislation before that election, I think is a bit of a challenge.
Will you take an intervention?
Yes, very happy to.
I apologise for not commenting on that. I think that is really a matter for the committee and for the Senedd, and I'm sure that the urgency there is recognised and that those points are taken on board.
Given that there is a consensus across the Chamber, given that there is a cross-party committee that's prepared to look at this with some urgency, I hope, with a bid to try and get something done this side of the next election, in the spirit of that, I'm very happy to withdraw these amendments and have further discussions on a collaborative basis to try and get something that we can all agree on and support.
Darren Millar proposes that amendment 40 is withdrawn. If there is no objection to that, we will consider that amendment withdrawn.
Amendment 40 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12.27.
Amendment 42 fell.
We now move to votes on amendments 45 to 48 and 53 to 114. The proposal is that we dispose of these amendments en bloc. Does any Member object to that en bloc disposal? If there is no objection to that, I wish to ask Adam Price whether he moves amendments 45 to 48 and 53 to 114.
No, they are not moved.
All those amendments, around 60 of them, are not moved. I will not, therefore, call for a vote on those amendments.
Amendments 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114 (Adam Price) not moved.
Group 7 is next. This group of amendments relates to the appointment and disqualification of members, the chief executive and assistant commissioners of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru. Amendment 3 is the lead amendment. The Counsel General to move the amendment.
Amendment 3 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to open the debate on this group of amendments that relate to appointments and disqualifications from the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru. I'll be supporting all the amendments in this group. These amendments, by and large, are a consequence of consideration of the comments that were made during Stage 2.
Amendment 3 clarifies that members of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru may not hold any of the offices listed in section 4(3) of the retitled Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru etc. Act 2013 during their term of office. Concerns were expressed during Stage 2 that the exclusion list would only apply on appointment. Whilst the intention behind the existing provisions in the 2013 Act was that the list would apply throughout a commissioner’s term, the amendment removes any doubt on this matter. Amendment 17 makes an equivalent change in relation to the assistant commissioners of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru.
Turning to amendment 4, it is worth highlighting that existing provisions in the 2013 Act already exclude Members of the Senedd and Members of Parliament from being members of the commission. This amendment, when read with amendment 12, clarifies that both Members of the House of Commons and Members of the House of Lords are excluded from being members of the commission, and also adds Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly to the list. The reason for bringing forward this amendment is partly, as I've said, in response to comments that were made by Members during Stage 2 proceedings in relation to adding support staff of other Parliaments to the list of persons excluded. I think Members will remember that particular debate. If support staff of MSPs and MLAs are to be added to the list, then it's appropriate that the Members themselves are also added. As with other changes made to the exclusion list by the Bill, the amendment also ensures there is no politicisation or perception of politicisation in appointments of members to the commission.
Amendments 8 and 18 make the same change to the lists of persons excluded from being chief executive and assistant commissioners of the DBCC respectively. Amendments 5, 9 and 19 are technical amendments relating to how the 2013 Act, which the Bill is amending, is structured.
Members will recall that amendments were made to the Bill at Stage 2 that excluded persons engaged by a Member of the Senedd under a contract of services or a contract of services in connection with the carrying out of a Member’s functions from being a member of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru. Amendment 6 expands on this and makes provision in relation to equivalent persons engaged by Members of the House of Commons, Members of the House of Lords, Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Amendments 10 and 20 make the same change to the lists of persons excluded from being chief executive and assistant commissioners of the DBCC respectively.
The Bill, as amended at Stage 2, also provided that a special adviser appointed to assist the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers or a Minister of the Crown would be excluded from being a member of the DBCC. Amendment 7 changes the way special advisers are described, by simply referring to a special adviser. Amendment 14 then adds interpretive provision into the Bill to ensure this description now additionally captures special advisers of the Northern Ireland Executive. Amendments 11 and 21 make the same change to the lists of persons excluded from being chief executive and assistant commissioners of the DBCC respectively.
Amendment 12 sets out how the term 'Member of a UK legislature’ should be interpreted and is necessary in consequence of the approach taken with amendments 4, 6, 8, 10, 18 and 20, which overall ensure the provision is set out in a clear and concrete manner. I'm getting towards the end.
Amendment 13 is required as a consequence of how the amendments refer to special advisers and ensures that those references will be interpreted correctly. Amendment 15 is another technical amendment that inserts the term 'Member of a UK legislature' into the index of defined expressions table in Schedule 3 of the 2013 Act, as a consequence of the amendments made to the Bill. Similarly, amendment 16 updates the wording used in the entry relating to special advisers, in the same index of defined expressions. These amendments provide clear and coherent provision in relation to the disqualification of commissioners, assistant commissioners and the chief executive of the DBCC, and I ask Members to support them. Diolch.
We're very pleased that these amendments address the concerns raised during Stage 2 about the need for a more comprehensive definition of the kinds of individuals who should be disqualified from being a member of the boundary commission. As we pointed out at the time, there was a weakness in the original legislation, as there were no regulations to prevent the staff of Westminster MPs from being members of the commission, as they may have a political interest in trying to keep the Senedd boundaries as close as possible to those of Westminster. These amendments therefore ensure satisfactory consistency in terms of the membership of the commission, and we also welcome the measures to include special advisers to the list of individuals who should be disqualified from being members of the commission, so we'll be supporting these amendments.
Counsel General, any comment in reply?
Only to say that, obviously, maintaining the independence and the perceived independence and impartiality is vital, and I hope these amendments have actually achieved that to the satisfaction of the whole of the Senedd. Diolch.
The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to? Does any Member object? No. Amendment 3 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 4—is it moved, Counsel General?
Amendment 4 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to? Does any Member object? No.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 5, Counsel General.
Amendment 5 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Is there any objection to amendment 5? No. Amendment 5 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 6, Counsel General.
Amendment 6 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Move formally.
Are there any objections to amendment 6? No. Amendment 6 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 7, Counsel General.
Amendment 7 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
It's Moved. Is there any objection to amendment 7? There is none. Amendment 7 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 8, Counsel General.
Amendment 8 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
It's moved. Is there any objection to amendment 8? No. Amendment 8 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 9, Counsel General.
Amendment 9 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Amendment 9 is moved. Any objection to amendment 9? No. Amendment 9 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 10, Counsel General.
Amendment 10 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Any objection to amendment 10? No. Amendment 10 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 11, Counsel General.
Amendment 11 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Any objection to amendment 11? No. Therefore, amendment 11 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 12, Counsel General.
Amendment 12 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Any objection to amendment 12? No. Amendment 12 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 13, Counsel General.
Amendment 13 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Any objection to amendment 13? No. The amendment is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 14, Counsel General.
Amendment 14 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Is there any objection to amendment 14? No. Amendment 14 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 15, Counsel General.
Amendment 15 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Any objection to amendment 15? No. The amendment is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 16, Counsel General.
Amendment 16 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Is there any objection to amendment 16? No. Amendment 16 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 17—is it being moved by the Counsel General?
Amendment 17 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
It is. Is there any objection to amendment 17? There is none. Therefore, amendment 17 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 18, Counsel General.
Amendment 18 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Is there any objection to amendment 18? None. Therefore, amendment 18 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 19, Counsel General.
Amendment 19 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Is there any objection to amendment 19? No. Therefore, amendment 19 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 20, Counsel General.
Amendment 20 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Is there any objection to amendment 20? No. Amendment 20 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 21, Counsel General.
Amendment 21 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Is there any objection to amendment 21? No. Amendment 21 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Adam Price, amendment 49. Is it moved?
Not moved.
It is not moved. So, there will be no vote necessary on amendment 49.
Amendment 49 (Adam Price) not moved.
Amendment 50.
Not moved.
It's not moved, and therefore there will be no vote on amendment 50.
Amendment 50 (Adam Price) not moved.
That brings us to group 8. This group of amendments relates to annual reports of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru. Amendment 41 is the lead amendment and I call on Darren Millar to speak to it.
Amendment 41 (Darren Millar) moved.
Diolch, Llywydd. I rise to move amendment 41. If the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill is passed, then the renamed Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru will have a very important task of reviewing the boundaries of Senedd constituencies, alongside all of the other responsibilities it is going to acquire. So, the work of the commission is going to be very important to us all as Members of the Senedd, and indeed to many others as well, and with its decisions and recommendations impacting us all, it's obviously very important that we take a great deal of interest in its work.
Now, the Local Government and Housing Committee produced a Stage 1 report in respect of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill, which made a recommendation in respect of this Senedd reform bill, which we are considering. It recommended that the Welsh Government should amend the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill to strengthen the accountability of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru to the Senedd, by requiring the commission's annual report to be debated by the Senedd. Now, the Welsh Government hasn't to date brought forward an amendment to bring about that particular change, which is why I'm tabling it at this stage.
Now, it's only reasonable to expect the Government to pay attention to the recommendations of that cross-party committee that scrutinises legislation, and I very much hope that it will be happy to support this particular recommendation. It's not a contentious one. It's one that I think we all agree should happen, to make sure that these things see the light of day and have the proper scrutiny—particularly, as I say, with the much wider remit and responsibilities that the new Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru will actually have. And, of course, the amendment will also ensure that Welsh Ministers have to make arrangements for the Senedd to be able to consider these things within 12 weeks of the report being published, which I think is a perfectly reasonable amount of time. It gives time for the Government, and indeed Members of the Senedd, to digest the report before it's debated on the floor of the Senedd or by a Senedd committee, and it ensures that there is that accountability between the commission and the Senedd, which it serves, and democracy, which it serves. So, I commend the recommendation and the amendment, which I've tabled to the Senedd.
The Counsel General to contribute to this debate.
Diolch, Llywydd. I thank the Member for those comments. The amendment is similar to a recommendation included in the Local Government and Housing Committee's Stage 1 report on the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill, that there be a requirement for the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru's annual report to be debated by the Senedd. Just of course to remind Members that there is already provision in respect of submission of a report to Welsh Members and for publication. But for these reasons, I set out in my written response to that report that I will not be supporting the amendment.
Whilst I accepted the recommendation in principle, the Reform Bill Committee separately recommended that the Business Committee consider the DBCC's accountability arrangements as part of its procedural review prior to the 2026 election. So, I do not wish, therefore, to pre-empt the outcome of that review, so I will not seek to amend the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill for that particular reason. Diolch, Llywydd,
Darren Millar to reply.
Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you, Minister, for at least explaining your position on this particular amendment. Obviously, I'm disappointed. I think this is a straightforward amendment. I don't think it's controversial at all. And even if there were some accountability arrangements within a Senedd committee, and the Business Committee, of which I am a member, of course, considers it appropriate for a particular committee to take on this role, it shouldn't stop the report being laid before the Senedd more formally for consideration. So, I'm going to push it to a vote. I think it fulfils and ticks the box in terms of the recommendation that was made by the Local Government and Housing Committee, and, as I say, I think it does what it needs to do, which is to ensure that we shine a light on the important work of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru in the future, on an annual basis, to make sure that all Members are aware of its work on their behalf, and indeed the wider democratic institutions across Wales.
The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 41. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 37 against. And therefore amendment 41 is not agreed.
Amendment 41: For: 15, Against: 37, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejected
Amendment 51, is it moved by Adam Price?
No, I won't be moving it.
No, amendment 51 is not moved, so we do not need a vote.
Amendment 51 (Adam Price) not moved.
Amendment 115, is it moved, Adam Price? No, and we will therefore not vote on that.
Amendment 115 (Adam Price) not moved.
That brings us to group 9. This next group of amendments relates to matters the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru may take into account for the purposes of Senedd constituency boundary reviews. Amendment 22 is the lead amendment. The Counsel General to move that amendment. Mick Antoniw.
Amendment 22 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Diolch, Llywydd. The amendments in this group are made in response to recommendation 27 of the Reform Bill Committee’s Stage 1 report. The committee recommended that the impact on the Welsh language is one of the local ties that should be taken into account by the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru when determining the Senedd’s constituency boundaries. Amendment 22 specifies local ties connected to the use of the Welsh language as being one of the local ties that the DBCC may take into account when considering the possible combinations of UK parliamentary constituencies as part of the boundary review to take place ahead of the 2026 election.
Similarly, amendment 28 specifies local ties connected to the use of the Welsh language as one of the local ties that the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru may have regard to when considering whether there should be changes to Senedd constituencies, and what those changes should be as part of the boundary review to take place ahead of the 2030 election and subsequent boundary reviews.
Following detailed consideration, I am confident that these amendments are the most appropriate way of giving effect to the objective of the recommendation. Diolch, Llywydd.
I'm very pleased to see these amendments appear before us. As the Counsel General has said, there was a strong feeling in the committee and among the witnesses, and this confirms that the use of the Welsh language will be a factor that the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru needs to consider when making changes to Senedd electoral boundaries. So, we're very content to support these amendments.
Does the Counsel General wish to reply?
Formally.
The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 22 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Group 10 relates to minor drafting changes in the Welsh language. Amendment 23 is the lead amendment. The Counsel General to move these amendments.
Amendment 23 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Diolch, Llywydd. This pair of technical amendments corrects an issue identified in the equivalence of the Welsh text of the Bill to its English language counterpart. They do not have policy effect. I'd ask Members to support them to help us ensure that the bilingual statute book remains accurate, accessible and consistent. Diolch.
I have no speakers. I assume that we don't need a reply. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 23 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 24—is it moved, Counsel General?
Amendment 24 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
It is moved. Is there any objection to amendment 24? No. Amendment 24 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 25, is it moved, Counsel General?
Amendment 25 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Yes. Is there any objection to amendment 25? No. Amendment 25 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 26—is it moved, Counsel General?
Amendment 26 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Yes. Any objection to amendment 26? No. Amendment 26 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 27, Counsel General.
Amendment 27 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Is there any objection to amendment 27? No. Amendment 27 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 52, Adam Price, is it being moved? It is not moved, therefore we will not vote.
Amendment 52 (Adam Price) not moved.
Amendment 28, Counsel General, is it moved?
Amendment 28 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Yes. Is there any objection to amendment 28? No.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 29, Counsel General.
Amendment 29 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Amendment 29 is moved. Any objections? No. Amendment 29 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 30, Counsel General.
Amendment 30 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
Any objections to amendment 30? No. Amendment 30 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Amendment 31, Counsel General.
Amendment 31 (Mick Antoniw) moved.
Moved.
It is moved. Are there any objections? There are none. Amendment 31 is agreed.
Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
Group 11 is the final group of amendments, and relate to a referendum on the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024. Amendment 37 is the lead amendment. I call on Darren Millar.
Amendment 37 (Darren Millar) moved.
Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendments 37 and 38, both of which have been tabled in my name, and, of course, we’ve reached Stage 3, towards the end of Stage 3, of the proceedings for this Bill, but we all know that an increase in the size of the Senedd and a change in the voting system are no more popular now amongst the public than they were when we started earlier this afternoon, or indeed, many, many weeks ago, on this journey. And there’s no reason to think that the public mood doesn’t still reflect the findings of the Reform Bill Committee’s consultation on the Bill, because that showed that there was overwhelming opposition from the public to these proposals.
Now, I know that Labour and Plaid have claimed many, many times that their manifestos from the last Senedd election give them a mandate to push through these particular measures. I’ve read your manifestos out to you, reminding you of what you put in there, and it is very, very clear from those quotes that I have read that none of the proposals that are before us stack up with the clear commitments that were in the Plaid manifesto for STV, or the commitments from the Labour Party, which were so unclear that it wouldn’t be fair to say that that amounted to any kind of mandate from the public to bring forward the proposals before us. We had one pledge to implement a programme of electoral reform, which didn’t say or state what that electoral reform was. It didn’t say that they’d take away some elements of voter choice. It didn’t say what the cost of those changes would be. It didn’t say that there’d be an increase in the number of Members of the Senedd, on the Labour side. We did have a pledge from Plaid Cymru to increase the number of Members of the Senedd, but to implement this entirely different electoral system than the one which is before us.
And of course, both parties are assuming that, even if there were clear commitments—which they weren’t, as I’ve just explained—that they would have been read by the electorate, right. I told you, like an Arthur Daley trying to sell a dodgy car and, in the small print somewhere, someone signing up and saying, ‘Yes, yes, yes, I agree with all of the terms and conditions that you haven’t given to me in detail.’ That is what we find Labour and Plaid Cymru being in the position of.
So, the passages in your manifestos that refer to Senedd reform are not a clear mandate to increase the number of Senedd Members, to change the Senedd voting system, or to spend what amounts to tens of millions of pounds every single year when these changes are implemented. Now, I’m not convinced, and nor are any of my colleagues in the Conservative Party, that these amount to anything that would go down well with the public if they were given the opportunity to speak on them. Now, we know that, back in 2011, the UK Conservative-led Government held a referendum on potential changes to the UK Parliament’s voting system. They suggested that we should have an AV voting system—alternative vote—scrap the first-past-the-post system, which everybody says is horrible in this Chamber, by the way, on those benches, and say it’s very unpopular, and the public don’t like it, and we need to change it, yet, overwhelmingly, the public wanted to keep first-past-the-post in that referendum back in 2011. That’s what they voted to keep. Why? Because it’s clear, it’s easy to understand, it makes you directly accountable to the electorate, and the electorate want people who are directly accountable to them.
There was also a referendum on more Senedd powers in 2011. I remember that referendum; I was campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote in that referendum, as were many of my colleagues here and many people on the other benches. And that was because there was a significant change in the arrangements of the Senedd that we wanted to put to the people, right, okay. We’ve already set a precedent, then, haven’t we, on significant change to the voting system, whereby you are removing some of the accountability and where you're changing the Senedd's responsibilities in a significant way. That, in my view, sets a precedent for us here now, which is why I believe we need to have a referendum on these major changes, giving the public their say so that there's a direct mandate to implement any of the changes. That's why I've tabled amendments 37 and 38.
So, amendment 37 very simply will insert a new section into the Bill. It will require a referendum to be held before any reforms around extra Members of the Senedd or changes to the voting system can be implemented. Amendment 38 is a consequential amendment to 37. Now, we've heard a lot—[Interruption.] I'll happily take an intervention, yes, of course.
Thank you. Just on the question of when a referendum is appropriate or not, and he cited the 2011 referendum, after that, the House of Lords Constitution Committee issued a very weighty report that said, in their view, that we should set the bar much higher. It hasn't escaped my notice that, every time there's a proposal to change the devolution settlement, the Conservatives always suggest a referendum. They didn't suggest a referendum for creating new mayors in England, they haven't suggested a referendum for significantly increasing the size of the House of Lords, where people make laws and aren't accountable. That all seems fine. But it's very strange that, every time devolution wants to be changed or advanced, up pops the call for a referendum, and, as I say, the House of Lords think they've been held too trivially.
So, when there are clear commitments in a manifesto, you have a mandate—[Interruption.] I've just demonstrated to you that you didn't make a clear commitment in your manifesto to take forward this particular package of changes. I can see the former First Minister, and I'll happily take an intervention from you, First Minister, but I don't recall you making any comments on the campaign trail about any of the details that are in this package of reforms. I'll happily take the intervention.
Let me just assure the Member that the fact that he doesn't recall something is no evidence of it not having happened. [Laughter.] Time after time during the election I made it clear in interviews, in broadcasts, in debates, that my party stood for a reform of this Senedd along the lines that are now in front of it. No referendum of any sort is required.
Well, you'll have to—. If I don't follow your words, and I'm a person with a keen interest in politics, including what the First Minister was saying during the election campaign, how do you think a member of the public—? How do you think a member of the public would know and believe everything you've said on the campaign trail about making changes? I don't recall it ever being mentioned that there would be 96 Members of the Senedd. I don't recall it ever being mentioned that they would be elected on a closed list system. I don't recall it ever being—[Interruption.] I don't recall it ever being mentioned. You say you're losing this one. What are you afraid of losing? You're afraid of losing a referendum, Rhun ap Iorwerth, because you know—[Interruption.] Because you know that these proposals—[Interruption.] You know that these proposals go down like a cold cup of sick with anybody you discuss them with on the doorstep. That is the reality. People don't want these reforms, they would vote them down if there was a referendum, and you well know it. So, let's have a referendum and see who's right. I'll take you first, and then I'll come to you. Mike Hedges.
I was going to say about referendums that we had the alternative vote brought in for mayors and for police and crime commissioners, then we had the alternative vote removed for mayors and police and crime commissioners, without one vote at all. It was just that the Conservative Party saw that the alternative vote wasn't doing them a lot of good.
This was a clear manifesto commitment. Would you like to make—?
There's a police and crime commissioner election taking place this week with a new voting system. I missed that promise in a manifesto to change the voting for this time. I also missed the referendum. Tell me when it was.
It was a clear manifesto commitment.
Well, I didn't see it. I didn't see it.
At least I read your manifesto. [Interruption.] At least I read your manifesto. Where's the STV?
I don't recall it.
It was a clear commitment.
I don't recall it.
It was a clear commitment to change. [Interruption.] It was a clear commitment given by the leadership of the party during the last election campaign. I'll happily take an intervention.
I literally read out the section—. After you made the exact same point at Stage 2, I literally read out the section from your Conservative manifesto, which had no clear commitment. Don't you remember that?
Look, I've made it clear that if you gave clear commitments on your campaign trails, which you did not, about a closed list system, about 96 Members, about scrapping first-past-the-post, then I would have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments that you represent. But you didn't. You didn't make those clear commitments. You said, 'Let's have STV and more Members', and this party said, 'We'll implement some Senedd reforms.' The First Minister says that he made more detailed, elaborate comments on the—. I'd like to know precisely what they were, because I don't recall ever seeing you mention closed lists, 96 Members, tens of millions of pounds. And that's why I think that it's incumbent upon us all to say that the public deserve a say, right. What are we afraid of in allowing the public to have their say? The reason that you're afraid of allowing the public to have their say is because they will tell you what they think, and they think this: they don't want more politicians, they want more doctors, dentists, nurses and teachers. That's what they want. And if there's money spare down the back of your sofa, they want it spending on the NHS and our schools, they don't want it spent on more luxury offices and they don't want it spent on increasing the number of Members of the Senedd. That's the truth. So, let's have a referendum, support these amendments, give people the opportunity to speak their mind, and, if they vote 'yes', I will back these changes.
That's your social media clip sorted, then. It's really disappointing to see democracy turned into a pantomime. I don't want you to be threatening things or saying, well, things that aren't truthful or based on fact, as we heard from my colleague, Adam Price. You're trying to dismiss manifestos; you're saying that they're small print. I'm sorry; these arguments are extremely weak. And please do not say that you speak for the whole of the people of Wales. I speak to people and they want to know when there will be a UK general election because of the damage done by consecutive Tory policies that don't fund Wales properly. You're trying to contain Wales into this box where you want to control us rather than actually base the argument on fact, where, time and time again, this has been put to people, we've had a majority in terms of parties represented here in the Senedd who want to see changes, who believe in devolution. So, I am disappointed by the tone and the way that you are engaging with this, because I don't think it actually reflects your personal views, as individuals here in the Senedd.
We have to look at the substance of the amendments in the group. As I said, over 63 per cent of the total votes cast during the last election to this Senedd went to parties that had specific manifesto commitments to reform this Senedd. It's also worth noting that this Bill is, in part, a response to the result of the 2011 referendum, when a similar proportion of the votes were in favour of reinforcing the devolved powers of Wales. It is therefore beyond any reasonable doubt that there is an overwhelming democratic mandate for the measures contained in this Bill. Therefore, we won't support amendments 36 and 37, which would override the established will of the Welsh electorate. Furthermore, when we consider your record as the Tory group on constitutional issues affecting Wales, it is clear that you don't have any credibility at all.
We have yet to hear you propose a referendum on the decision to cut the number of Welsh parliamentarians in Westminster from 40 to 32, and you resisted all calls for a public vote on the terms of the disastrous hard Brexit deal, which did not, unlike the proposals outlined in this Bill, appear on any ballot paper or manifesto. And every time the voice and stance of Wales is diminished as a result of decisions in Westminster, the Tory Members are conspicuous in their silence. And yet when it comes to a historic Bill that will strengthen the foundations of our democracy, the Tories are on their feet, trying to hold our democracy back. It is also very striking that a Bill designed primarily to boost parliamentary scrutiny—something that any opposition party would be desperate to see—is causing so much concern among the Tory ranks.
I would encourage Tory Members here to engage constructively with the measures before us today, and to reconcile themselves to the reality that, after two referenda and six elections, devolution in Wales is here to stay. Focus your energy on making devolution work for the people of Wales, rather than focusing your energy on soundbites for your profiles on social media platforms. Wales and the people of Wales will benefit from having a reformed Senedd, and that is why I and my fellow Members support the steps being taken to reform this Senedd.
The Counsel General.
Diolch, Llywydd. Well, Darren, things had been going so well up until now—[Laughter.]—and you've managed to provoke a scrap. You must remind me never to go with you to a soccer match, that's all I can say. As this is the final debate in the Stage 3 proceedings, can I just firstly thank all Members who've contributed to them, in what is historic legislation? In particular, as I referred to earlier, I'm grateful for the constructive engagement, and there has been a considerable amount of constructive engagement with you, but also with other Members, throughout the scrutiny of this Bill. This is a significant, generational piece of legislation, and one that I firmly believe has been improved by the scrutiny of all Members.
Just turning to the amendments, it will come as no surprise to you, Llywydd, that I will not be supporting the amendments in this group. The majority of Members returned at the most recent Senedd elections, in 2021—those from Welsh Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Liberal Democrats—stood on manifestos that committed to Senedd reform. This followed the Wales Act 2017 providing powers to the Senedd to change its size without being subject to a referendum. If Westminster had intended that in order to exercise this power a referendum was necessary, then it would have contained that within the legislation. It is not there—it was never the intention of Westminster that that would be the case.
A referendum is also not required for the reduction of Wales's MPs from 40 to 32, one of the most historic and major changes to Welsh representation in Westminster in a century, as a result of boundary reform changes that were introduced in Westminster that will take place in this forthcoming general election, or, indeed, for the change to the electoral system used for the police and crime commissioners, or, indeed, for changes in the electoral reform system for the election of English mayors, which was changed in order to change the outcome of those elections without any referendum, or to increase the number of members of the House of Lords.
Llywydd, the case for Senedd reform has been made in a succession of expert reports and it is compelling. It has also been voted for by a majority of Members of the Senedd. The changes put forward by this Bill will create a modern Senedd better able to represent the people of Wales, with increased capacity to scrutinise, to make laws, and to hold the Government to account. It will improve democracy in Wales. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.
Darren Millar to reply.
Well, I was disappointed to hear Heledd Fychan's remarks, suggesting that I was a person trying to undermine devolution in some way. I just explained to you earlier, Heledd, that I proudly stood on a platform back in 2011 to give more powers to this Senedd. I'm a committed devolutionist, as are the Welsh Conservative Members of this Senedd and the party more widely. That is our position, and I do not regard—. You might regard this Senedd as being a bit of a pantomime, but I certainly don't. I take this Senedd very, very seriously.
I said that your comments made it into a pantomime. I did not call this Senedd, which I hold in very high regard, a pantomime; I would never do so.
And I would never regard your comments as a pantomime, and I'm disappointed that you regarded my comments as being pantomime-esque, as they were not; they were very serious. I think that the public deserve to have their opportunity to have their say on these very serious, this very detailed package of changes to our electoral system and to the size of this Senedd, because they haven't had the opportunity to have that say. You can't hide behind a line about Senedd reform in a manifesto that gives no detail or that proposes a completely different package of reforms, as yours did on page 117 of the very weighty tome that you decided to publish in advance of the last Senedd elections.
I heard what the Member in charge said about the PCC elections and changes to the English mayoral systems, but, of course, that was all about first-past-the-post. We're talking about scrapping first-past-the post. That's the difference here: you're scrapping first-past-the-post. Whenever that has been proposed in the past, there's always been a referendum. You complain about Wales losing seats as a result of the change in the population and demographics here. I'm afraid that that's what being an equal voice is all about; you've got to have fairness in your democracy and in your system. And I'm surprised that you, therefore, didn't support my amendments at Stage 2 to make sure that there's fair representation within Wales, with equal numbers of voters in each constituency, because you actually voted to protect one area from that so that they could have up to 30,000 fewer in the electorate in that particular constituency than elsewhere, which also seems grossly unfair.
I heard Heledd railing against the Brexit referendum. Well, look, I know you would want to continue to hold as many referendums as possible to get the result that you want, but the people of Wales voted to leave the EU. I know you can't get over that still, and you keep going back to it like a dog returning to its vomit, but that's the reality. Wales voted to leave the EU. The Government implemented their decision. You don't like it, I accept that. I accept that the country was split, that there are many people who are unhappy with that decision, but it's a decision that the country made, and it's a decision that the UK Government followed through on, unlike the Welsh Government, which did everything it could to fight against the will of the Welsh people. [Interruption.] Yes.
Following the 1975 referendum, which voted to stay in the European Union, or the European Communities, as it was then, you then had another referendum to change it. I'm not complaining about that, but that was something that was done. Can I just say that the movement to how police commissioners and mayors were first elected using AV was not first-past-the-post?
So, we have a party that supports first-past-the-post and it's always expressed its position—that that is the position of the Conservative Party. I've explained that to you in the past. We've not been arguing about first-past-the-post today; as it happens, we've been arguing about the proposals that are on the face of this particular Bill, which are deficient. And that's why we need to make sure that we give the people of Wales the opportunity to have their say, via a referendum. Let them make the choice. What are you afraid of? You're afraid of them speaking their voice, which will put a stop on this whole messy system that you want to introduce. That's the reality of it. So, therefore, I move these amendments, and I hope that they can command your support.
The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. If amendment 37 is not agreed, amendment 38 will fall. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 37. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 37 is not agreed.
Amendment 37: For: 14, Against: 39, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejected
Amendment 38 fell.
That means that there are no remaining amendments, and we have reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill. I declare that all sections of the Bill and all Schedules to it are deemed agreed. That concludes our Stage 3 proceedings today. Good afternoon to you all.
All sections of the Bill deemed agreed.
The meeting ended at 18:08.
We will work with the Tata transition board to swiftly put in place the mechanisms that will allow Tata employees, businesses within its supply chain, families and communities to access all available support. The support will include reskilling and training, health and well-being support, entrepreneurship and business advice, financial advice and guidance as well as future job opportunities. Through the work of the transition board sub-groups and work streams, drop-in sessions are already up and running in Port Talbot, with advisers from the Department for Work and Pensions, Careers Wales, Business Wales, Citizens Advice, Neath Port Talbot Council and NPTC group of colleges on hand to answer concerns and questions. More organisations will attend future sessions, expanding the range of advice available, and job fairs will be arranged when the time is appropriate. Similarly, a web page is available on the Neath Port Talbot Council website that provides a one-stop-shop single point of contact for everyone seeking help and advice. The web page will have continued increase in its content and will signpost links for both individuals and businesses to all available support and guidance.
The Tata transition board has commissioned a local economic action plan to estimate the economic impact on the local and regional economy, to identify interventions to mitigate impacts on individuals, families, businesses and the wider community, and to provide a pipeline of opportunities to regenerate the local economy over the short, medium and longer terms. The plan will be used as a tool by the transition board when recommending how the £100 million support fund should be spent.
The three steel unions, Community, GMB and Unite, have or are in the process of balloting their members on industrial action. Unite members have already returned a vote in favour of industrial action. Community and GMB ballots close on 9 May. In response to these ballots on industrial action, Tata have put conditions around the elements of the voluntary redundancy package they intend to offer. We believe Tata should offer the best possible package to their workforce. Although formal consultations have finished, the company and the unions' discussions will continue during the next two weeks on a potential memorandum of understanding on future investments in the business and the impact of the restructuring on employees. A voluntary redundancy process will be launched across Tata Steel UK from 15 May.
The Welsh Government believes that steel making is a fundamental part of our future as a nation, and we will continue to support those working in the steel industry in all ways that we can.
My final question, Cabinet Secretary, knowing I've raised quite a few detailed points this afternoon, is on the importance of, and impact on, the supply chain, which you've mentioned in your statement. Has any assessment been made as to who in the supply chain will be affected by Tata's proposals, and what jobs, if any, will be lost to those companies in Wales? Now, while we all hope that job losses from Tata can be absorbed by new job creation from the free port and elsewhere, job losses from the supply chain may not be so readily transferred, depending on their location. In your statement, the transition board is mentioned quite readily, and it seems to be doing a lot of the heavy lifting. Now that the Welsh Government is sitting on that transition board, I think it's also time that the Welsh Government contributed to the running of that transition board financially too. Diolch, Llywydd.
He makes an important point in relation to the Celtic free port, but also makes the point that there is a significant time lag between the loss of the jobs at Tata and those employment opportunities becoming available. It’s really important that we maintain the confidence of those people who would invest in those future opportunities in the free port, by making sure that everything we do in the short term supports workers, and supports them to upskill or to have their skills recognised.
There are no guarantees that Tata have provided, but there is absolutely a recognition, I would say, that they will do all that they can to make sure those employees who can take roles in the decommissioning and the construction work are offered those roles. So, that has been raised in discussions. No guarantees have been given, but that is recognised as something that they will want to do. We would certainly want to see that happen. There will be specialist roles that are required for those tasks for which the skills may not be available, but wherever we can, that’s what we would want to see.
He makes a point, finally, about the financial contribution to the transition board. What we have seen is a commitment of headline figures. There hasn’t yet been a commitment to spend any individual penny within that headline figure at this point, so I think it’s worth bearing that in mind, and we all want to see that happen quickly. All parties want to see that happen quickly. The contributions we have made have been consistent over a number of years when Tata has needed support, whether that’s around skills, whether it’s around innovation, whether it’s around capital investment, which represents a significant proportion of our overall budget, and the capacity of any devolved Government to intervene in relation to an economic event such as this is obviously very, very much more constrained than that of the UK Government, not least because the impact will be felt across the entire UK economy of what we are seeing in Port Talbot. I think that needs to be recognised.
Turning to the substance of this group, we accept the Government's rationale for seeking clarity on the duties of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru to publish reports on constituency boundary reviews, and to advertise the information in appropriate places. Therefore, we will support amendments 1, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31.
I think we have an opportunity with this Bill that we ought to seize in order to get this deception issue dealt with and addressed. I don’t want us to see the can kicked down the road for another six months, nine months, five years or 10 years. In fact, remember, it has taken 25 years for this Senedd reform Bill to come forward. Can we wait that long to deal with this issue? I don’t think so, and that’s why I hope that Members will support this amendment today.
So, amendment 32 would allow voters to cast a vote for either a political party or an individual candidate on that party's list. Amendment 33 would ensure that any votes cast for individual party candidates are included in the overall party vote totals for the purposes of seat allocations. And amendment 34 stipulates that candidates receiving more than 10 per cent of the votes cast for their party would go to the top of the party list. And if more than one candidate gets more than 10 per cent of the vote, then they would be ranked in accordance with the percentage that they get at the top of those lists. Now, why 10 per cent? It's because 10 per cent was the percentage recommended by the expert panel when it looked at these matters back in 2017. Amendment 35 would require returning officers to use the reordered party lists to notify the Presiding Officer if a Senedd vacancy arises, and amendment 36 is consequential to amendment 35.
And finally, amendment 39 is to provide for a review mechanism, okay. So, that would allow—would require—Welsh Ministers to conduct a review within 12 months of each election to report on the voting system and any proposed changes to the 10 per cent threshold for the reordering of party lists. And where a change is proposed, it would require that change to be put to the whole Senedd and to be supported by at least two thirds of Members of this Senedd in order to change the threshold.
Now, Llywydd, open or flexible lists of this kind are the norm across many European democracies—Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Slovakia and many, many more. Voting for a flexible list system in the way that I am proposing will allow for the proportionality of election outcomes that is sought by the Welsh Government while protecting the principles of voter choice and direct accountability in our democracy. It would keep them at the heart of our voting system and truly strengthen our democracy in a way that the current Bill doesn't, and actually undermines. That's why I commend these amendments to the Siambr, and I implore Members to think very carefully when casting your votes on these amendments, because we are making a serious mistake, in my view, by chopping off this direct accountability to the public by introducing a closed list system—an exclusively closed list system—and not having that direct accountability. It would be a big step backwards.
The other argument you make, of course, is it's not set in stone, I think Lee Waters said. It's not set in stone. There'll be reviews. These things can change, just like we're making changes now. It's taken 25 years to get this far. How long are going to make changes? Is it once every 25 years, like a comet coming round? Is it only like that? Is that the way we make changes here, once every 25 years? Look, let's seize the opportunity now. Let's nail this thing, improve the Bill, make sure there's some direct accountability, which is a benefit that your closed list system doesn't bring, and make sure that we get it right for our democracy, because I fear we'll actually see a lower turnout in future, because people can't vote for a person and they'll think they have even less of a say and opportunity to make change, because that's what your system is going to do. [Interruption.] Sorry, did you want to make an intervention?
So, Darren, I thank you for the work in that area. I thank all the other Members for what I think are constructive comments. I see there is a very high degree of consensus here. I do think we have to maintain the momentum. The committee, I'm sure, will do that, and I look forward to engaging with the committee in its work. Diolch.