If I may, just before I respond, Llywydd, just welcome Jack Sargeant back from paternity leave, and congratulations on the start of your parenting journey. I hope you have plenty of sleep in the bank.
The Welsh Government works closely with our local authorities across Wales and Natural Resources Wales as lead flood risk management authorities. The 2024-25 flood and coastal erosion risk management programme was published on 19 March, and includes £800,000 for NRW to progress construction work at Sandycroft in Flintshire.
Can I thank the First Minister for his warm welcome back to the Senedd Chamber, and extend my thanks, Llywydd, right across the Chamber, to all friends here? My family and I are very grateful for that warm welcome for Noa.
First Minister, I'm delighted that the Welsh Government announced significant funding in Sandycroft, Mancot and Pentre for work that should protect wider communities from flood risk. I've been in regular contact with the local community flood action group there. They've worked hard to keep this issue at the forefront of decision makers' minds. First Minister, I'm really keen to see NRW now ensure the work takes place in a quick and timely manner. As you can imagine, First Minister, every time it rains, residents and I are deeply, deeply concerned. They've been flooded twice in as many years, and their concerns and worries come back to the forefront of their minds. Can I ask you, First Minister, to use your office to encourage NRW to provide regular updates for residents, and to convey a message from residents—from me and them—of their desire for the work to be completed as soon as practically possible? Diolch.
I thank the Member for his follow-up question, and just note that this has been a regular feature in questions from the Member—I think there are six oral questions and three written questions on this issue—making sure that he continues to press the case for his constituents. And I know that Flintshire was particularly affected by storm Babet last October. That's why we are pleased we've been able to allocate £800,000 for construction work to progress at Sandycroft, Pentre and Mancot. Despite all the pressure in the public purse, this is an area that we have allocated resource for because of the risks that exist. The good news is that our officials in the climate change and rural affairs department met NRW and Flintshire County Council in May to discuss the progress of both projects, and, last week, NRW issued letters to local residents in Sandycroft and Pentre to inform them of planned construction works that are due to commence later this summer.
If there is any delay, or any issue with a lack of communication—I'm confident the Member will, but I want to put it on the record—if there are issues, please contact me and the climate change Secretary, and we'll ensure that proper communication is maintained. But the work should be commencing this summer, and I hope residents will see that physically, because I do recognise the worry residents in any part of Wales would have if they have been subject to regular flooding, and this is a scheme that we're proud to support.
There is, I must say, a beautiful symmetry to the fact that Noa's father's first question on his return is on flooding. [Laughter.] Next question, Mark Isherwood.
[Inaudible.]—flooded residents in Broughton, Flintshire in 2021, Flintshire County Council detailed the actions they would take, including that priority would be given to elderly and vulnerable residents in known flooding black spots. After storm Babet last October, a constituent wrote,
'My parents' home in Bretton, Flintshire, near Broughton, was completely destroyed with flood water. My parents are both OAPs'.
They added that despite ringing numerous times, no sandbags were delivered, and they stated,
'although sandbags were delivered to the daughter of a senior Labour county councillor living nearby.'
This case is now with the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, and I appreciate you cannot, therefore, comment. But, responding to me on this and other cases, the council has now stated that no guarantee can be offered to residents, and that they cannot assist with all flooding incidents. What, therefore, is the Welsh Government policy or guidance on the priority distribution of sandbags to older and vulnerable residents in flooding black spots?
Well, these are matters for local authorities to resolve. I'm disturbed about the incident the Member reflects. Obviously, that is not all of the evidence in the issue and the Member stated there's a complaint being raised around it. What we expect is for local authorities to work with NRW on understanding risk alerts and how they can do their best to support residents in the area that they continue to have a responsibility for. This goes, though, to part of our challenge around the realities of climate change, the fact that we can expect to have more extreme weather events—that is both rainfall and, indeed, extreme heat as well. So, what we are looking to do is action across the whole Government, both in what we're doing to try to address issues of flooding, where some of the harder infrastructure works are taking place, as well as the wider work of the Government on addressing the realities of climate change. That is an issue that is on the minds of residents, whether there is an election or not, and we're proud of the fact we've committed to that work. I hope we'll have a partnership in the future that will see a greater priority for this right across the UK and our means to be able to take practical and effective action.
When the funding was announced in March, I received an e-mail from Flintshire County Council. They were so pleased that all the bids they put forward for flood alleviation would be covered by the grant funding, and it would also help with resilience within the drainage department, which has suffered following more than a decade of cuts and austerity. They said it's also important to maintain momentum and continue to work in partnership with Dŵr Cymru and NRW, as Jack Sargeant highlighted. The devastation of flooding can have a huge impact on people's lives, and I was impacted by storm Babet as well. So, I'm really glad that the Welsh Government has made this a priority and has put a lot of funding into this. It's really important. So, would you agree with me, First Minister, this is another positive programme of investment into flood alleviation and public services, which is much needed, being delivered by the Welsh Government, that will help thousands of people with the impact of flooding? Thank you.
The Member's right—there's got to be a partnership, a partnership between the Government, local authorities and residents, and for NRW to play their role within this. We've had real challenges on our capital budgets. Despite that, though, we have been able to provide support for five schemes in the programme this year, to develop the case to make sure that that's available. We've also got two small-scale schemes—one in Broughton, one in Liverpool Road—to try and address some of the issues that the Member mentions around drainage and culvert issues, to make sure those are unblocked and appropriately looked after. So, this is about small-scale improvements, as well as larger work, and it's all being done as a partnership to take account of the real risk to residents where flooding has occurred and is likely to occur in the future without this sort of action being taken. And I thank the Member for pointing out the thanks from Flintshire council for the partnership work with this Government.
Thank you. Our plan for improving the economy across Wales is set out in our economic mission: ensuring a just transition to a green and productive economy, a platform for young people, fair work, skills and success, with stronger partnerships for stronger regions, and, of course, the everyday economy and how we invest for growth.
I thank you for that answer, First Minister. The Welsh Government has, of course, got a proven track record of helping the economy in Mid and West Wales, through its support for micro, small and medium-sized businesses in the region, businesses like LEB Construction Limited in Aberystwyth, which received a grant of £537,000 to help grow its business, and Airflo in Powys, which received £566,000 of funding from the Welsh Government's economy futures fund. These are hugely important investments that help secure jobs in the most rural areas. And help for business, through Business Wales, which has helped countless businesses throughout Wales, and the newly launched futureproofing fund, which will help businesses reduce their running costs and invest in apprenticeships, are further examples of the Welsh Government's commitment to helping the economy in Mid and West Wales. First Minister, do you agree with me that these investments demonstrate the Welsh Government's commitment to helping the economy grow in rural Wales, and that, should we have a UK Government in three days' time, the Welsh Government, in partnership with a Labour UK Government, will be able to provide the much-needed stability that they've all been looking for?
It's a really important point about stability in the economy. It's one of the things that businesses on all sides look for. Whether in the rural economy, the coastal or the urban economy, stability has been lacking not just in the last 14 years, but in particular in the last four to five years. Although there have been some global factors, much of it has been driven by the extraordinary chaos and instability at the UK level. I look forward to a different and a better partnership, depending on how the people of Wales and Britain vote on Thursday. But, more than that, it goes alongside our ambition to make practical investments in the rural economy, and not just the examples the Member has mentioned, but the Marrill Group, the auto parts group in Powys, Atherton Bikes—a real success story, and we've been part of supporting them as well. And, of course, Aber Instruments, if we're talking about rural Wales—really proud of that as they are part of the employee ownership within our economy that we've doubled, meeting a manifesto pledge ahead of time, and it shows values in practical action.
We could do so much more if we had partners in stability—for example, the investment in the high skills that we know we'll need in the rural economy too—and if we could move away from the damaging competition that existed where our current UK Government is more obsessed with taking powers and money away from Wales as opposed to a genuine, stable partner where we work together for Wales and Britain. That's the partnership I look for, and I believe that is what we can persuade the people of Wales to vote for on Thursday.
First Minister, I recently had the pleasure of joining Stephen Crabb in meeting the Tenby chamber of trade, the newly re-established chamber of trade, in the fantastic Qube restaurant in the town. While they shared with us some of their concerns, one of the key takeaways was the Welsh Government's decision to cut business rate relief and the impact that that is having on our economies in our coastal towns, as you've just mentioned. So, that is putting Pembrokeshire and Wales at a competitive disadvantage to other areas across the border in England. So, when will this Welsh Government finally back businesses and reinstate business rate relief, not so that our businesses can thrive and survive together, but so that we can have some economic success in parts of Wales that have not seen it under this Labour Government?
When you met the Tenby chamber of trade—and it's great to know they've been re-established—I hope you were honest with them about the fact that Stephen Crabb has voted for budgets that mean that this Welsh Government has seen its budgets reduced by £700 million in real terms over the last three years. I hope you reminded them of Stephen Crabb proudly voting for austerity for the last 14 years. I hope you pointed out the number of Chief Secretaries to the Treasury that Rebecca Evans has had to contend with—a record number in a relatively small amount of time. They know, as we do, that when our budgets have been reduced, we have to make choices. When we finally have a different partnership available, there is a different vision for Wales and Britain that is possible. I believe those things should happen.
We already back Welsh businesses, with Business Wales, as Joyce Watson has mentioned, and with the Development Bank of Wales, a true Welsh success story. More than that, of course, there's the direct contrast between Haven Waterway—where the UK Government refused to back investment in the Haven Waterway, decided not to back those plans—and the promise that you will see in the Labour manifestos—the Welsh Labour one and the UK Labour one—to quadruple investment in our ports to unlock investment in our economy. That's the contrast. That is what is on the ballot paper on 4 July. I look forward to the voters of Tenby and, indeed, the wider Welsh picture, to see what they have decided and who they are prepared to put their trust in.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. As you were highlighting there, First Minister, there is something happening on Thursday—it's an election, and it'll offer the people of Wales the choice. But, what we have heard from the leader of the Labour Party is complete embarrassment about the Welsh Labour Government's record. He used to go on the record and say, 'For what we would do in Westminster, look to the Welsh Government—this is our blueprint', highlighting the fact that there are record waiting times here in Wales, with one in four people on a waiting list. There's a record number of people waiting for two years or more to have an operation—21,600, which has gone up by 1,600 people. We have seen the decline in education standards as marked by PISA, and we have a stagnant economy that pays the lowest wages in any part of the United Kingdom. Is it any wonder Keir Starmer will not highlight what the Welsh Government are doing, and that's why he's so embarrassed now in this current campaign about what Welsh Labour have delivered for Wales over the last 25 years?
People in Wales have chosen to support Welsh Labour in devolved elections over that period of time because we've never taken them for granted. We now find a situation, after 14 years of the Conservatives, where there is an election. You can have more of the same from the Tories, or you can have change with a UK Labour Party, working in partnership with the Welsh Government that I am proud to lead. Think back to my first few days in office and the three groups of people that I met. With the doctors, we've now resolved the strike action. There are days of strike action taking place in England. There are the farmers, who understood and understand now that, because of a betrayal of manifesto pledges, £250 million, or £0.25 billion, if you like, that should have been invested in the rural economy has not because that money stopped in Westminster—a Tory choice to break their clear manifesto pledges. And think again about where we are with steelworkers. You'll hear a statement later today from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language about the work that we have practically done to make sure there is a possible better deal for steel if we get past Thursday with a Labour Government prepared to invest. That is what partnership looks like, that is what this Government wants to see in the future. The way we have worked with colleagues in our shadow Labour team to make sure we can have real conversations about the future for steel is what is on the ballot paper on 4 July. I'm proud of what we've done and I look forward to working with Keir Starmer if people across Wales and Britain choose to elect a UK Labour Government.
Well, he's not very proud of you, First Minister, because he can't even mention your record here in Wales. You've highlighted things that you believe are positive here in Wales; they are but mirages, at the end of the day, built on sand that will disappear at the first gust of wind. What we know is that change is on the ballot paper on Thursday. You can move away from the economic success that the Conservatives are delivering, which has got real-terms wage growth and cutting inflation from 11 per cent to 2 per cent. We can see the fastest economic growth of any G7 country, or we can move to the uncertainty and the desperation that Labour bring, where every time they have left office, unemployment has been up, the money has gone and taxes are rising. What we want to see is making sure that the people of Wales know what that change is, and that change is moving away from the economic opportunities that are delivering for people the length and breadth of Wales with the failure of Welsh Labour here in Wales to deliver on any of its key pledges, whether that be the economy, whether that be health or whether that be education.
I do admire his wonderful stand-up comic timing in talking about Conservative successes in the economy. The No. 1 issue on doorsteps up and down the country has been the cost-of-living crisis. And it's been actually not just a reiteration of what we thought and what we knew—not just the figures of 31 per cent food inflation in three years, or 58 per cent inflation in energy bills in the last three years—but actually it's been really quite distressing listening to those stories directly on the doorstep from people who are genuinely making choices between feeding their children and putting the heating on. And people are still skipping meals. If you went and spoke to those people and tried to tell them that there was an unalloyed record of success from the Conservatives and that the biggest risk is changing course, I think that you'd get a very robust response.
What we are interested in is not the desperation the Member speaks of—it was a desperate speech. We are looking for a chance to turn the page on the last 14 years, a chance to invest in the economy and public services to have real stability, a chance to turn the page on the shocking incompetence of the last four or five years. Think back to the news from last week: £1.4 billion of PPE that has been wasted and had to be incinerated. That's after the test and trace programme in England—£22 billion—that a former Permanent Secretary in the Treasury described as the biggest waste and the most incompetent public spending programme in the UK's history. That's the record of the Government that he has supported. That's what Andrew R.T. Davies asks people to vote for. I ask people to vote for something better. I ask people to vote for change, a different UK Government that believes in devolution, believes in partnership, to have two Labour Governments working together.
And I have enjoyed all of my campaigning alongside Keir Starmer. I've enjoyed not just appearing on the front of the Welsh manifesto but what we could do together as partners for the future. That is what is on the ballot paper on 4 July, and I look forward to the verdict of voters here in Wales.
It's interesting to note that you weren't on the campaign bus that went to Paul Davies's constituency the other day. I wonder why. Withyhedge, perhaps. But your condescending tone of talking to people about the cost-of-living crisis—. There has been a cost-of-living crisis. We all as elected Members have seen our constituents and looked them in the eye and felt their pain. But you point out to me a western democracy that hasn't had similar economic pressures. Ultimately, what I'm saying to you, First Minister, is that we are coming out of that. We have built an economic model that has delivered record rates of employment, record rates of pay settlements now over inflation—up to 6 per cent as opposed to 2 per cent inflation. And what we are seeing from the Labour Party is the threat of higher taxation, slower economic growth and a following of the Welsh Labour record here in Wales that has delivered record waiting times, falling educational standards and an economy that’s stagnant. That’s the change that’s on the voting paper on Thursday: that you can go backwards with Labour, or forwards with the Conservatives. If you change the narrative economically, every man, woman and child in this country will be worse off, and that’s where I think the good sense of the people of Wales will shine through and ultimately reject Welsh Labour’s record here in Wales and the record of failure to deliver improvements that people deserve here in Wales.
I’ve enjoyed campaigning in Mid and South Pembrokeshire and I look forward to doing so in the coming few days. I also look forward to what the people of Wales do choose. As those ballots are counted through the evening of 4 July and into the morning of 5 July, we’ll see whether people will believe Andrew R.T. Davies’s rosy view on how successful the last four to five years and the last 14 years have been across the UK. There’s nothing condescending about the cost-of-living crisis. It is very real and unavoidable for far too many of our families. I just wish the Member could show a bit more understanding for what far too many Welsh families are going through and recognise the responsibility of the current UK Government in the choices that they have made. No amount of factually challenged claims about what is not in the Labour manifesto is going to change that; people understand how their lives have changed. The figures show that most people are not better off compared to 14 years ago. The figures show this is the only Parliament in history where records have been taken where living standards are lower at the end of the UK Parliament than at the start. The figures show that working people are paying higher taxes now than in the last 70 years, all on the Conservatives’ watch. I admire his bravery in trying to claim that none of these things are true, but I look forward to the verdict of the people. A real change across the UK, two Labour Governments working together for Wales and Britain—that is what is on the ballot paper, and as I say, I look forward to the verdict of the people of Wales at the ballot box.
Thank you, Llywydd. I’m a politician who likes to emphasise the positives in terms of the future of Wales. I say ‘yes’ to a fairer, more prosperous future and we have said ‘yes’ for decades now as a nation.
The political history of Wales for nearly 30 years is one of saying ‘yes’: ‘yes’ to having our own Parliament in 1997, a big ‘yes’ to giving it some proper teeth in 2011. ‘Yes’ because we saw that we can achieve so much more given the tools to do the job. Ahead of Thursday’s general election, Plaid Cymru says ‘yes’ to HS2 consequentials that could transform transport infrastructure in Wales. We say ‘yes’ to devolving policing and justice to give Wales a more effective justice system. It’s ‘yes’ from us on devolving the Crown Estate to make the most of our natural resources. It’s ‘yes’ on all of these, because we have a can-do attitude, a belief that this is not as good as it gets for Wales. But despite, on all of those issues, even Labour Members in Wales in this Parliament agreeing with us, why is Sir Keir Starmer so determined to say ‘no’ to all of them and ‘no’ to Wales in 2024?
I believe we will have a transformed relationship across the UK if there is a UK Labour Government, with clear commitments to ensure that the Prime Minister doesn’t ignore First Ministers across the country, and a council of nations and regions. And not just that; there's the statement you’ll hear from the economy Secretary Jeremy Miles later today on the extraordinary seriousness of what took place last week, the very real anxiety in steel-making communities, not just in Port Talbot. Previously, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, would not pick up the phone to speak to Mark Drakeford. Within a matter of hours, Jeremy Miles, Jo Stevens and I had a conversation with Keir Starmer and Jonathan Reynolds about what we would do to try to move all of us into a better position. That’s real partnership, and it happened. And we believe it’s part of making a difference, of trying to see a different level of ambition for the country and a different partnership. That’s what we could have on 4 July if people vote the right way. I believe that’s what we will have. That’s what I’m working for.
It will also see a manifesto to take devolution forward: fairness on Barnett, properly reviewing and updating the fiscal framework, seeing devolution taken forward with the return of our powers and money from former EU funds, and the devolution of employment support funding. And, I believe, we will make progress on the devolution of youth justice and probation. All of those things are on the ballot paper on 4 July, and I look forward to seeing what the people of Wales vote for. If they do vote for a UK Labour Government on the manifesto we have put forward, we will take that forward, and I believe we can go back to the people and be clear sighted about the promises we have made and that we have kept, in direct contrast to the last 14 years of Tory chaos. It is not inevitable that we will win on Thursday. If people want change, they need to vote for it.
Indeed, the First Minister has spoken many times of his hopes for a more constructive relationship between the Welsh and UK Governments should Labour enter Downing Street on Friday. I'm sure the First Minister would be making an early call to Sir Keir, the Prime Minister, to congratulate him, should that be the case. But Wales is expecting much more than warm words from that conversation. The First Minister will have the luxury of not having to go through the No. 10 switchboard. I'm sure he'll have a direct line. I'm sure he could even text him, though I'd recommend he keeps a record of it. But can the First Minister confirm what Wales could hope for from that initial exchange? After a general election campaign in which UK Labour have said 'no' to HS2 consequentials, 'no' to fair funding, 'no' to scrapping the two-child benefit cap, 'no' to the devolution of justice and policing, as even Labour in Wales have agreed with us on, is the First Minister confident that he can persuade a Labour Prime Minister to change his mind on any of these issues, or will Sir Keir, like his Tory predecessor, be hanging up on Wales's hopes?
Yet again, we don't have the election result yet, but Rhun ap Iorwerth is already disappointed about a Government that has not had a single day in office. We need to win the election first. I can tell him we are absolutely not complacent about the result. That is why we have been going out and working with, listening to and talking to the people of Wales for months and months. It's why this campaign matters so much to us. Because I do remember the last Labour Government. At the start of that, I was a genuinely young man in 1997. I remember how bad the country was then and the loss of hope that had taken place. I remember the fact that that Government saw hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty. I have been part of a Government here in the last 11 years that has done our very best to try to take the heat out of what the Tories have done to us. And yet we know there are more children living in poverty now, because of direct choices made in Downing Street. It shows that the choices at these elections do matter.
I'm proud that Welsh Labour candidates are standing on a manifesto that wants to take action on child poverty and review our benefits system to make sure work pays, to make sure people are supported, to improve the investment we make in the earliest of years, to support people in work, to say 'yes' to taking devolution forward, to say 'yes' to economic stability, to say 'yes' to righting some of the injustices of our past, whether it's the Windrush commissioner, whether it's the action that we're going to take on justice in the miners' pension fund surplus, whether it's the truth on Orgreave. All of those things are on the ballot paper—a positive vision and a positive partnership. I look forward to a constructive relationship with a UK Labour Prime Minister if that is how the country votes. I won't take that for granted. If we do, though, I expect to have a UK Labour Government that meets our manifesto commitments, that keeps our promises, and I look forward to seeing how people in Wales choose to vote.
It's the lack of promises for Wales that stands out so much in this election, if I might say. We know that the failure to deliver on any one of those issues that I mentioned that the First Minister ignored, let alone ignoring all of them, would represent a betrayal of Wales's interests. We can't allow Labour in Government to take Wales for granted.
From the contemptuous attitude, frankly, of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Jo Stevens, to the conspiracy of silence on the billions more cuts to come that will affect a Welsh Government here, let's be honest that, on the issues of more powers and fair funding, Labour offers no real change to the Tories. We're all looking forward to throwing the Conservatives out of power, and Plaid Cymru is in the driving seat to do so, from Ynys Môn to Caerfyrddin, but making the case for Wales, whether it's scrapping the two-child cap to lift children out of poverty or transforming our transport network with HS2 money, has been the work of Plaid Cymru alone in this election. We want the best for Wales, no ifs and no buts.
It was Rhodri Morgan who once said that the Tories' relationship with Wales is based on trust and understanding: we don't trust them and they don't understand us. Well, I'm afraid Sir Keir has also shown a distinct lack of understanding. I and Plaid Cymru MPs will stand up to him and hold him to account; why are Jo Stevens and the First Minister so determined not to do so?
Well, I go back again to the fact that people in this election have a choice about what to do: after 14 years of the Tories, is it more of the same, or is it change? I'm proud to say that my party represents change across the UK. That means that we need to ask people to vote for that change; that means not sending from Wales a minor voice of protest, but sending a government to Wales, to send Welsh Labour champions who will stand up for their communities and our country in wanting to change our country for the better. That is what is on the ballot paper. And if you look at taking things for granted, we take nothing for granted in this election, nothing for granted in our relationship with the electorate. We have a manifesto that looks to provide more powers for Wales, more funding for Wales and an improved partnership, one of respect, built on respect for devolution and the different nations that make up the UK. That is what is on offer on 4 July, and I look forward to seeing how the people of Wales vote. And if they do choose to invest their trust in our party again, I hope the Member will have the good grace to recognise that verdict, and actually to work with other people who want to see progress for Wales. I'm proud to lead a Government that will continue to stand up for Wales, and not be afraid to have the conversations we need to, and equally not be afraid to be proud advocates for the partnership that I believe we could have, with two Labour Governments working for Wales and Britain; not a voice of protest but a voice of government and change. That is what is on the ballot paper on 4 July.
3. Will the First Minister make a statement on the contribution of people from outside Great Britain working in the NHS and social care sector in Wales? OQ61358
Yes. I'm very proud to recognise that we greatly value the contribution of our international workforce in Wales today, but also from the very history, from the start of our national health service, which celebrates yet another birthday on 5 July, and I hope it has an early birthday present with a change in Government at a UK level. The vital work that our workforce do in health and social care, whilst recognising any recruitment from overseas, must be ethical and not to the detriment of services in the countries from which we are recruiting.
Diolch. Last week I visited two care homes in Swansea East, where I met carers from Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago. I've also visited schools and met with children of health workers in Morriston Hospital. I want to stress the importance of overseas workers to health and social care. On leaving the EU, we had a large number of southern and eastern European dentists here, but they left. Whilst welcoming the work being done to train more dentists, what can the Welsh Government do to increase the number of EU dentists practicing in the NHS in Wales back to the number we had before we voted to leave?
Well, I'm not sure, entirely, of all of the numbers on European dentists who continue to work in NHS Wales. The positive news in dentistry, though, is that we still recognise the same qualifications. There are other parts of our health and care system where that is not the case and it makes recruitment much more difficult.
I regret the fact that some people did leave after 2016, and I recognise that one of the things we can do to actually encourage people to stay or to come to work in Wales is actually the way in which we talk about the rest of the world, the nature of our relationships. We can't say to people that we regret the fact that we have to talk with and work with their country and then expect people from those countries to come and work and to feel welcomed and included in our country and our society. So, the change in the tone of our conversations with the rest of the world really does matter, as well as, of course, the direct details on how people can come into the country to work in health and social care services, including dentistry. That goes alongside our plans to increase our ability to train people from Wales. And if you think about what we already have done and the statement last week from the health Secretary about the extra investment we're making in health and care professionals, the extra investment we'll make in the future of doctors here in Wales when we open a brand-new medical school in Bangor this autumn—all things that we are doing, all from budgets that Welsh Labour Members have voted for. And if we have a different UK-wide relationship, I believe we'll be in a much better position to recruit and retain people from around the world in a fair and ethical way, just as the Member suggests.
Coming to the ethical issue, First Minister, as someone born outside Great Britain, who spent their career working in the NHS, I can personally attest to the contributions that overseas doctors, nurses, healthcare professionals and carers make to our health and care system. But I'm also acutely aware of the downsides of our reliance on overseas workers, namely we are denying their country of origin of their talent. As a doctor from Kashmir, one of my biggest regrets is the fact that healthcare in my country of birth has continued to decline, with nowhere near enough medics. It is the same across the Indian sub-continent, the Philippines and large parts of Africa. Their best and brightest come here for better wages and working conditions, while healthcare at home struggles to find staff. First Minister, do you agree that our reliance on overseas staff is doing a disservice to many poorer nations? Will you outline the concrete steps you're taking to train and retain British citizens as doctors and nurses?
I thank the Member for his question. I do want to just recognise that I don't welcome his views on politics—we disagree and we're in different parties—but I do recognise and welcome his public service contribution in our health service. It's part of the success story of our NHS. If anyone goes into an operating theatre in any NHS hospital in Wales or across the UK, they'll see that international success story in front of them. It's part of how our health service was created and how it's sustained. In addition, of course, we do continue to invest even more in training record numbers of staff here in Wales. If you look at nursing numbers, midwifery numbers, physiotherapists—a whole range of areas where we've deliberately increased our investment in training, and the health Secretary set that out last week—. That's in addition to what we're doing in the new medical school that will open in Bangor, and in addition to what we've successfully done in the last five-to-six years in sustainably increasing general practitioner trainee numbers as well.
In addition to that, we do recruit people from other parts of the world, and we do so in a way that is sustainable and ethical. A good example of that is in Kerala, an Indian state where they deliberately overtrain and oversupply health and care professionals. We have an agreement to recruit 250 nurses and doctors from Kerala because we have an ethical partnership with them, and this is a deliberate choice where people want to work in other parts of the world, where they still have family links to go back, and we're proud of the duality in that. I'm someone who was born in a different country as well. I'm here and I'm perfectly capable and able to celebrate my mother's heritage—the place of my birth—and my father's birth in Ogmore-by-Sea. That's who I am and part of the story of our country, and the success of our country, moving forward. So, we'll continue to train and recruit within Wales and the UK. We'll also continue to undertake ethical recruitment from other parts of the world, and the Kerala agreement that the health Secretary signed with the Chief Minister of Kerala is a good example of that.
Mike Hedges is quite right to point out the importance of foreign workers in the care sector. Mike referred to people from Guyana and Trinidad, for example; I am aware of a number of people from Nigeria working in north Wales at the moment and appreciate the work that they do. But, of course, the current Conservative Government brought in a ban on visas for partners and families of many of these people who come to work in our care sector, which, in turn, causes difficulties, not only in the care sector but also in the health sector. Now, very recently—around a month ago, I believe—Wes Streeting from the Labour Party, who is going to be health Minister in Westminster, said that Labour didn't have any intention to scrap that proposal to ban visas for the families of workers in the care sector. Is Wes Streeting right in saying that and do you agree with him?
I think we need to look at how we recruit people sustainably from other parts of the world, and what that means for them to be recruited here. We also have a wider issue about, actually, having a rational conversation around immigration, which has not taken place in the last 14 years. I believe we need to look at the whole picture when doing that successfully and sustainably. We also need to balance our ability not just to recruit from other parts of the world for the care sector in particular—. If I may, Llywydd, it's worth pointing out that the care sector isn't just there to help the NHS—it's a crucial part of how flow takes place in our NHS and getting people out of an NHS bed when they don't need to be there, but it's also a place of real value of and for itself; I know that in my own family, and other Members here will do as well.
So, what we also need to do, alongside recruiting people from other parts of the world, is to raise the aspirations and the image of people in the care sector. It is too often seen as work that does not count for the same value as others, and it should not be the case. That's why I'm really proud that in the manifesto that is going before people on 4 July, there is a commitment to look at social care, to look at how we fund it properly, and as the first area within the new deal for working people to have a fair pay agreement, it's social care that is being targeted. Having proper pay within the social care sector would make a really big difference for people to go into it, as well as the qualifications alongside it, and that's part of the rational debate around the future to ensure we have the people we need in all aspects—the people that we need—whether that's international recruitment, or, indeed, how we train and sustain a workforce here for ourselves.
Diolch, Prif Weinidog. I'm sure we've all seen here today the contribution at first-hand that people born outside the UK make to social and healthcare here in Wales. As Mike Hedges indicated, over the past few years, I saw a decrease of workers in care homes from eastern Europe and an increase of workers from the Indian sub-continent—from India and Bangladesh, in particular. And I'll be eternally grateful for the care they have given, often, as Mabon indicated, leaving their own family members, their loved ones, behind. I remember speaking to one individual who was in her tears—an individual from Bangladesh—who couldn't go to her mother's funeral because she was working in a care home here in Cardiff Bay. As you said in your first answer, a change of tone in the conversation is needed, and you'll be more than aware that comments said last week by the leader of the Labour Party were very hurtful indeed to members of the Bangladeshi community—a large section live in your constituency. Will the Prif Weinidog take this opportunity to say that the Bangladeshi community in Cardiff and throughout Wales is valued, and to thank them for their incredible contribution to Wales, to our nation? Diolch yn fawr.
I think it's important to reflect that, following the on-stage question and answer that took place, the leader of the Labour Party quickly reflected on some of the phrasing used in responses, recognising he'd misspoken at one point, and actually reiterating the long-standing relationship we have with Bangladesh and its people, around a whole range of areas of activity, not just in health and social care, but in the economy, too, as well.
I'm very proud to represent Cardiff and Penarth Bangladeshis in this Parliament. I'm very proud of what they have brought to the story of Wales. And if you think about what Wales is today, there are many parts of Wales that just wouldn't be Wales without that international story, from food to art to culture, and how we see ourselves and our place in the world. I'm really keen that Wales continues to be an outward-looking, positive international partner. We've done a great deal more of that in the last decade, and I'm very proud of the fact we've done that. I hope that Britain too can be a much better member of the family of nations in the future, standing up for our interests, but being a genuine partner that wants friendship and partnership with the rest of the world, rather than conflict and deflecting of our own challenges here. I believe we could see that after 4 July.
Thank you for the question. In addition to investing in excess of £115 million to protect bus services this financial year, we work in close partnership with local authorities, and continue to work at pace to bring forward new legislation to transform the way bus services are delivered right across Wales.
I was recently very pleased to learn that the 86 bus route, which runs through Heath, Lisvane, Thornhill and Llanishen in my constituency, and also runs in the Caerphilly constituency of my neighbour Hefin David, has been saved, thanks to a successful bid to the Welsh Government's bus network grant. This service was very important to members of my constituency, particularly people who are older and vulnerable. There's been a huge lobby to all the elected Members in Cardiff North, and I know that my colleague Hefin David had a surgery where this was raised very strongly with him, so it's fantastic it's been saved. The money from the Welsh Government will keep the service running until March next year, and I very much hope it will continue after that. So, would the First Minister agree that this is a good example of the Welsh Government supporting vital public transport in Wales, and what more can be done to improve and spread the bus services?
Thank you. It's very good to hear a genuine success story and partnership between Julie Morgan and one of her constituency neighbours, Hefin David, and, of course, the 86 service is due to restart from Lisvane, the Heath and Thornhill in early September. Good news. The £39 million bus network grant has been part of how that's been helped, again with work with the local authority. It's a good example of what we can do within our current powers now. And of course it's also an example of a service that will go to the opened Cardiff bus interchange next to Cardiff Central rail station. There's a good story to be told here about how that deliberate investment is bringing together interconnected transport.
More than that, though, this is about how we have reform and a revision of the regulations we currently have. It's why the bus Bill is going to be so important, to make sure there's a much more rational way to spend money to support the bus industry, to make sure it's a real choice for people in different communities across the country, exactly as it is in this example that the Member gave us from Cardiff North. I think all Members can be proud of what we are going to choose to do in introducing that Bill. I hope people will scrutinise it and then ultimately support it, and then the investment we will continue to make will be in a rational way of joining up public transport and making sure we get better value for the public money we invest, and a better service for the people we're here to represent.
Thank you. Current performance at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd in a number of areas is not where I, the public or the staff would expect it to be. The Welsh Government continues to work closely with the health board to drive sustainable improvement that enables patients to access safe and timely health and care services, and we have set clear expectations for improvement.
First Minister, you'll be aware that Glan Clwyd Hospital unfortunately has one of the worst-performing emergency departments in the whole of the United Kingdom, with one in four people at the moment waiting more than 12 hours in accident and emergency. Recently I've been contacted by constituents whose family members have spent as long as 48 and even 72 hours waiting for a bed in the hospital. These sorts of times are completely unacceptable, and it seems to be very plain to me that, no matter how hard the staff at that hospital work, Glan Clwyd simply does not have the capacity to be able to cope with the needs of the local population.
So, I'm going to ask you again, First Minister: where's the new hospital in Rhyl? We were promised one more than 11 years ago. It was designed to alleviate some of these problems at our emergency department and at Glan Clwyd. You've been building new hospitals in south Wales, yet we in north Wales are the health board with the biggest problem when it comes to our emergency department. We need our fair share of investment in the north in order to cut these issues down and address them. Don't tell us that you haven't got the money. You've got money to burn on more politicians, more speed limit changes, and you’ve sent £155 million back to the Treasury in recent years. So, can we, for once, have a clear answer from you on the timetable for the delivery of this important piece of infrastructure in north Wales in the town of Rhyl?
There are a couple of things to respond to. The first is that, as the Member knows, the investment for the Alex has been prioritised. It's a partnership looking not just with the health board, but with others too, and different sources of funding. We need to see the revised business case to come back to us for us to approve it.
It's also the case, and let's just make this point clear, that the reason why we could not spend all the money we had during the pandemic was because the Conservative Chief Secretary to the Treasury, at a time of extraordinary crisis with dealing with the pandemic, chose to take money back in a way that was quite extraordinary. And it was because of what UK Government departments were not able to do at the time. Because we had been prudent with the way we had managed our money, it meant that we could not roll over money in a way that was entirely normal for UK Government departments. If he's angry about this, he should take it out on Steve Barclay for the choices he made as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It's another example where fairness in the way money works across the UK will mean a much better deal for us here in Wales.
And the final point, just to go back to the conversation we're having about social care, social care is a profession of choice for a number of people. We need more people who want to work in that sector of and for itself. There is a relationship with the health service, and part of the reason why Ysbyty Glan Clwyd has such a challenge in its front-door performance for emergency admissions is not just the really good work that's taking—. The average triage time in Glan Clwyd is actually 20 minutes, so you're seen and triaged really quite quickly. The challenge is, for people who aren't urgent, they need to wait a long time; the biggest reason for that is there are far too many people in an NHS bed when it's no longer the right place for their care. That is a risk for the person who is in an NHS bed to get deconditioned. There's also the potential for healthcare-acquired infections, and, actually, they need to be in a different part of our health and care system for their almost always ongoing care, treatment and support. If we can unlock that with partners across social care, it'll make a big difference for people in the wrong place for their care, in a hospital bed when they shouldn't be, as well as those people at the front door of a hospital and, much more importantly, people in the community who we can't get to because we don't have enough flow going through our hospitals. It's part of what we need, it's part of what investment and reform for the future mean. That's why I'm very proud we're standing on a manifesto to not just put more money into the health service, but to continue on the never-ending journey of reform and improvement right across our health and care system.
Whilst we work closely with the police on matters relating to policing in Wales, firearms licensing is a reserved matter. The police are the licensing authority for firearms and use both local information and Home Office guidance to inform their judgment.
First Minister, as you will know, when people renew or apply for a new licence, it is now a legal requirement for them to attain a mental health record from their general practitioner to submit their application; for the record, I'm a licence holder. In England, GP and police records are now linked, so, if a licence holder experiences a mental health crisis or a terminal diagnosis, for example, outside of the renewal process, the police are automatically notified when this is added to the licensee's medical file, and the relevant pastoral checks can be made. This is part of ongoing activity by the police to prevent gun-related suicide and murder.
However, this is not the case in Wales. GP and police records are not linked, because of the limitations of the Welsh NHS information technology system. This not only means that police aren't notified if there is a change in the health of the licensee, but it also means that the four chief constables in Wales cannot comply with the statutory firearms guidance. Therefore, First Minister, what commitment will the Welsh Government make to ensure that police forces in Wales will be properly monitored if a firearm or a shotgun licence holder suffers from a mental or health crisis in the five years in between the licence renewals, and what commitment will you make to upgrade Welsh NHS IT systems to allow for medical markers? Thank you.
Look, I think there are a couple of different points here. One is about making sure that appropriate healthcare information is available. It's also, if that means extra work for the health service, that that's recognised. And there's a funding flow issue there, because if healthcare staff are undertaking that they're not doing something else, but it's an important marker for how licensing should work. In fact, before the election, the UK Government were looking at full-cost recovery for licensing, and this could be part of that. There's a manifesto commitment in the UK Labour manifesto to take that forward, and I think that's a positive step.
How you link up IT systems is rather more complicated than that. I'm interested in how we do this practically, but if it means there's extra NHS investment required we're going to need to understand how that's done and how that's prioritised as well. There is, though, already—. Work has been done on a very simple pro forma that police forces across Wales use to have a mental health report from local health services when there are licensing applications that are made. So, there is work that's already being done practically. There is legislative reform that I'd like to place around the licensing, and, of course, we'll retain an interest in how we meet our obligations and, at the same time, that costs aren't deliberately shifted from one part of the Government to another. It's in all of our interests that the system works and works well in what is, fundamentally, a reserved area of responsibility.
During this financial year alone, we are proud of the investment of in excess of £115 million that we have made to support bus services through schemes such as concessionary fares and the bus network grant.
Diolch, Prif Weinidog. The 86X that Julie Morgan mentioned is also being supplemented with the 26, which will now travel south-westerly out of my constituency into Mick Antoniw's constituency, covering Taff's Well and Nantgarw too. Now, where this came from was a bus surgery that we held on 1 March in Bedwas Workmen's Hall, and I've got to say my community support officer, Laura Green, was instrumental in setting this up, and she's watching in the gallery today. But what happened was we had a huge number of residents attend that bus surgery, to the extent that we were standing room only, and they told us about these services. And there were people who worked at the Heath hospital who wanted that restored, and people who wanted a restored service to the Velindre cancer centre. It is Welsh Government funding that has enabled that to happen through Caerphilly County Borough Council interacting with Stagecoach.
I think the model of interaction is one, I think, that needs to be included and considered in the way the bus Bill will operate in practice. We have to have community voices, bus users' voices and those who would otherwise travel by car, their voices, in the operation of the bus Bill. So, how will the First Minister achieve that?
Well, the Member sets out part of what we're trying to do with the bus Bill that we'll bring forward. It is both a rational way to invest in the future of the service to achieve the aims that he is setting out—people who work in different locations, people need to access the locations, either as visitors or patients or otherwise—and how to give people a real choice not to have to get into their car.
There's also, of course, the point that lots of our constituencies have large communities where car ownership is not common. I have it in my own constituency as well in east Cardiff; car ownership is very low as a proportion. So, it's to make it a real choice, and, actually, to do that, we've got to look again at the way that we currently don't regulate buses—we're allowing people to compete on profitable routes, not on socially viable routes—to have a much better way of franchising and to understand how a whole block of travel can make the biggest possible difference. That's the work I am delighted that the Cabinet Secretary for North Wales and Transport is leading on, and I look forward to the scrutiny of Members, as we bring that Bill forward, to achieve the aims that the Member rightly sets out. I expect he'll continue to have busy surgeries on this issue until our reform is delivered, and then we can actually have a framework to properly invest in for the future. I'm sure there'll be lots of interest in what we might promise to people in future manifestos.
Thank you, Llywydd. There is one change to this week's Plenary business. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language will make a statement on Tata Steel immediately after this business statement. Draft business for the remainder of the summer term and the first week of the autumn term is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found among meeting papers available to Members electronically.
Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you, Trefnydd. Can I call for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for the armed forces? We all marked, of course, Armed Forces Day across the UK, over the weekend, and many of us took a keen interest in activities in our own constituencies. We've been very pleased, of course, to work on a collaborative basis across the Senedd Chamber over the years on supporting our veterans and support for our armed forces families, and one of the initiatives that we have been delighted to see blossoming in Wales is the armed forces friendly schools programme. But the cross-party group on the armed forces and cadets recently undertook a visit to the Royal British Legion's Battle Back Centre in Lilleshall, and we heard there first-hand how important it is that sports clubs are also armed forces friendly. So, I wonder what discussions the Cabinet Secretary might be able to have with the different sporting bodies, in addition to members of the cross-party group, in trying to develop an armed forces friendly sports club programme here in Wales, in order that we once again can take a lead across the UK in providing the very best support for our armed forces families and veterans across this great nation.
Diolch yn fawr, Darren Millar, and thank you for drawing attention again to the all-important occasion and remembrance that we all brought together last week on Armed Forces Day. And I'm sure, like you, many of us were involved in events in our constituencies. The Cabinet Secretary who has responsibility for the armed forces, of course, also was very active, not just in north Wales, with the initiatives he was taking in terms of support for veterans, but I'm sure will be very willing to come to the cross-party group in due course, and I understand that he would be very happy to discuss this opportunity to develop armed forces friendly sports clubs. Thank you for raising it.
Trefnydd, I'd like to request a statement, please, from the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice. Now, I know, in terms of Royal Mail, that that is not devolved, but the Cabinet Secretary does have the lead responsibility for monitoring the Post Office and Royal Mail matters in Wales.
I've been contacted by a number of constituents regarding fake stamps and the fact that they're being charged £5 to receive a letter, if someone has used a fake stamp. I'm told that some of these stamps aren't actually fake, from what I—. Some people have sent letters from the same book of stamps and some of the intended receivers had to pay, but others didn't. Speaking to postmen—we've all been out and about recently, so we've seen a number of our postmen and postwomen—they've been saying that they think that there's an issue with how the barcode is scanned, and if something isn't quite straight, or there's an issue, that people are being charged and they're not actually fake.
I'd like to establish, if possible, how this is impacting people, because, obviously, there could be really crucial mail that they're missing. So, please, can we actually have a discussion with the Cabinet Secretary to establish what's being done? Because there was a period of purdah on this, where they weren't charging, but that's not the case anymore. Royal Mail is supposed to be introducing a new fake stamp scanner on their apps. They haven't done so. So, this is of concern to residents who are being charged £5 and they don't know what they're being charged for, because they don't know which letter, obviously, hasn't reached them.
I think we're fortunate again that the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice is sitting here and heard that important question, which, of course, is something that we would be very concerned about in terms of our constituents and the impact it has, and our postal workers, as you say, as well. So, could I request that the Member, Heledd Fychan, actually writes now to the Cabinet Secretary, so that we can ensure that this is taken forward, and there will be a response forthcoming?
As the swift species champion, I'm delighted to highlight that this week is Swift Awareness Week, and I know there's a lot of events taking place across Wales to celebrate these incredible birds. But, nevertheless, there is cause for concern, as the UK has lost more than half of its population of breeding swifts, and, unfortunately, that's because when older buildings are renovated or destroyed, obviously the traditional nests that swifts use disappear with them.
I was very grateful last year that Julie James made it mandatory for new buildings over a certain size to include swift bricks in their eaves, but it's unclear by whom or how this compliance is being tracked. So, I wondered if we could have a statement from the housing and local government Cabinet Secretary to identify how this new building regulation is going to make a difference in improving the future for swifts in our country.
Thank you very much, Jenny Rathbone, our species champion—the swift species champion. It's really important that you've raised this during Swift Awareness Week, as you said, and, of course, there are lots of events going on, talks, raising awareness, particularly with swift experts and enthusiasts like yourself. But, also, just to recognise that we have to protect and support the swift, and the loss—the figures you gave—is so distressing in terms of the loss of the swift.
I think the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, Local Government and Planning, as you know, last October, importantly updated 'Planning Policy Wales' on distinctive and natural places—in chapter 6 of 'Planning Policy Wales'. And that was about the green infrastructure. I will check with her as well, obviously, in terms of where this fits in with the particular important development in terms of building safety and responsibilities in relation to the nesting of swifts, and ask her to update you on this point.
But I think it's also really important to recognise that this is important as part of the global biodiversity framework, which was agreed at COP15, and also Welsh Government's own biodiversity deep-dive recommendations. And the planning system is key, as you say, in securing positive diversity outcomes.
For the fifth time, I'd like to call for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for local government regarding the ongoing non-collection of recycling since the new waste model was introduced a month ago by the Labour-led Denbighshire County Council. Despite the numerous times I've raised this matter with you, Trefnydd, in five consecutive business statements, I'm yet to receive an informed and comprehensive response from you or the Cabinet Secretary.
People in my constituency are seeing waste piling up in the streets, aggressive seagulls, more rodents and more jeopardy to public health and the environment. This is very much starting to look like the scenes from the late 1970s during the three-day week under Harold Wilson, and later, Jim Callaghan. I don't know if these past figures are role models for the current leadership of Denbighshire, but if they were trying to follow their lead on purpose they couldn't have done much worse than they currently are, unfortunately. So, can you tell me what discussions the Welsh Government are having with Denbighshire regarding this ongoing matter, to make sure that they can sort this out once and for all and get to the 70 per cent recycling target, which you require of them?
Diolch yn fawr, Gareth Davies. And we are, again, fortunate that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs is here in the Chamber today, as you will see. And I think it is important. I understand that you bring this back to the business statement each week, and it does provide an opportunity for us to reassure you, as a Government, that we are addressing this effectively, in partnership, of course, with Denbighshire County Council. So, again, I can reassure you that Welsh Government has expert advisers who are actively working with Denbighshire to help deal with those early problems since the service change was implemented.
Also, just to reassure you and, of course, the people of Denbighshire, there is action to deal with that backlog of collections. It's being resolved by Denbighshire on a daily basis, in terms of resolving that, and we also understand that there was an improvement in the amount and quality of materials collected for recycling. And, of course, this will move to Denbighshire, actually, aligning with the collections blueprint, the best practice recommended by the Welsh Government. It's that expert support and, indeed, working with local authorities—and I've mentioned this before—on the north Wales coast who are already implementing this. And I hope that we can, actually, see that these problems are short-lived and it's a successful transition as already delivered by other local authorities.
Could I request a statement, again, from the Cabinet Secretary for climate change, but this time regarding industrial pollution from the Kronospan site in Chirk in my region? Now, in recent months, long-standing problems with emissions from the site have intensified. Clouds of microfibres from the plant blight hundreds of homes on a regular basis, and that, in turn, clearly raises concerns amongst local people about any impact that's having on their health. Now, a recent public meeting in the town heard that, despite acknowledging that the problem existed, the company's management was unable to pinpoint the source of the pollution. Clearly that should be a further cause of concern, particularly for the public body charged with monitoring the plant, Natural Resources Wales, but they don't appear to be responding effectively either to local concerns, in particular in terms, again, of the impact on health.
I'm asking for a statement from the Government, outlining what steps you will take to help resolve this situation and how you will step in and protect the health of those living near the site. In fact, I'd call for a health assessment maybe to measure the long-term impact of this ongoing pollution on people's well-being. The long-suffering citizens of Chirk need to know what practical steps this Government is now going to take to make sure that industrial pollution at Chirk is minimised, and that public health and public safety are maximised.
Well, thank you to the Member for raising this issue, and thank you very much, because this is something—again, we have the Cabinet Secretary here—where we need to know about these concerns from local residents, particularly in terms of industrial pollution and the impact this site is having in Chirk. So, again, it would be helpful if you could write to the Cabinet Secretary, but he's already here to note and to follow it up, not just with his officials, but clearly with the regulator, NRW.
Trefnydd, can I, please, ask for a statement on what the Welsh Government is doing to support and promote Welsh fair-trade businesses? Ultimately, Trefnydd, you are well aware of the fair-trade movement in Wales, but recent conversations that I have had have highlighted to me the need for the Welsh Government to improve consumer understanding of purchasing sustainable products and the support that Welsh fair-trade businesses can receive. One of the major issues that exists is the confusion about which products come from sustainable sources and how spending more on fair-trade products has such a positive impact on farmers around the world. I believe wholeheartedly that we are still at the beginning of this journey, and awareness of why fair trade is important is needed now more than ever. With this in mind, can we have a statement, oral or otherwise? Thank you.
Diolch yn fawr, Joel James. This is very much a cross-Government issue in terms of responsibility, but I'm very glad that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs actually did make a statement relating to this last week. We've been very proud this year, and around Easter we had a celebration here in the Senedd of the fact that we were the first Fairtrade Nation. We want to make that a reality. Many of us are involved with fair-trade groups, towns, cities and counties across Wales because it is crucial that we enable those businesses to thrive. I would also always draw attention to the pioneering work of Jenipher's Coffi. We know that we can source that, not just from the business in Porthcawl, but also online. Jenipher's Coffi is a fair-trade coffee woman grower who has taken us forward in terms of learning about the supply chain and the importance of the supply chain and the support we've given in terms of getting the most effective roasting for those coffee beans. But, yes, thank you for raising that today.
I'd like to raise a very serious issue with you this afternoon. Neil Foden has been sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment after being found guilty of terrible crimes against children in his care at Friars School in Bangor, in my constituency. The children and their families are in our thoughts. We have to now give priority to ensuring that no child—no child—suffers like this ever again. I do hope that the child practice review that is being undertaken by the north Wales safeguarding board will go some of the way towards reaching that aim, but there are increasing calls for a statutory inquiry. In my opinion, that is the only way to learn all of the lessons in order to prevent these terrible crimes from happening in future. So, will you ensure a statement by the Government before the summer recess, outlining the response by the Government to these calls for a statutory inquiry? This is the second time now for me to raise this in the Chamber.
It is a shocking and concerning case, and you have raised this with me, as you said, before in the Chamber. Our thoughts have to go to everyone who has been impacted by Neil Foden's criminal, controlling and abusive behaviour. As you say, the impact upon children and young people and those who gave evidence in this case—the courage they showed to help bring this abusive person who had that position of trust and power to justice. We want to pay tribute to their bravery. I'm glad that the Cabinet Secretary for Education is here as well this afternoon.
The criminal process has ended. The regional safeguarding board is undertaking a child practice review. This is an independent review, so it'll consider the involvement of relevant agencies, identify learning, and make recommendations to improve future safeguarding practice. We need to make sure that, as you would respect, I know, the process can run its course and listen to what people giving evidence have to say before making any decisions about what other actions may need to be taken.
I ask for an urgent statement from the health and social care Secretary on care home fees. On 6 June, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board wrote to care providers in north Wales, setting out a care home fee uplift of just 3.71 per cent for 2024-25, failing to match local authority increases and lower even than Flintishire's average fee increase of 5.33 per cent, which was the lowest in Wales until then. It means that providers would receive less for providing continuing healthcare than funded nursing care, despite the continuing healthcare cases being higher in complexity and having additional nursing requirements.
Last Friday, Gareth Davies MS and I met Care Forum Wales to discuss their concerns about this. We heard that north Wales now has the lowest care home fees in Wales, putting pressure on providers to stop accepting new continuing healthcare patients and to give notice to their current continuing healthcare-funded residents, a distressing outcome that nobody wants to see at the very time when need has never been greater and health boards so desperately need these care home beds. Urgent intervention is therefore required to ensure both a sustainable settlement and a national approach to fee setting to provide a baseline figure. I call for an urgent statement accordingly.
Thank you very much, Mark Isherwood, for that very important question, and I know that's something that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is actively addressing, but it's also not a question for just the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care; obviously, it's a question for the Minister for Social Care and it is a question for the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, Local Government and Planning. All of these cross-Government responsibilities, Cabinet responsibilities, are key to addressing this issue. And, indeed, the Minister for Social Care, Dawn Bowden, recently made a statement on social care. So, thank you for putting this again on the record in terms of giving me the opportunity to respond on the Government taking this responsibility very seriously.
Business Minister, over the weekend, I was travelling on a train from Whitland in Carmarthenshire to Newport, a journey that I've been informed should take less than two and a half hours. Instead, it took just short of four hours. The train stopped at Carmarthen for around two hours because a driver due to take over the train was stuck in traffic. Passengers, including wheelchair users, elderly people, those with children in prams were told that they could get a different train from platform 1. They all rushed over there, only to be sent back to the original train. Now, it was a particularly hot day, and despite being reassured after my rant on Twitter, also known as X, that water would be available to passengers on the train in Swansea, sadly, nothing materialised and, quite frankly, it was beyond a joke. Now, there were people on this train with serious health conditions, so I'd like to know who would have taken responsibility for this if, indeed, something had happened to one of those passengers. Improvements must be made by Transport for Wales, and other operators should take note, to ensure that the well-being of passengers is at the absolute forefront of their priority list, firstly by ensuring that trains are stocked with water bottles that can be handed to passengers who are caught up in unforeseeable circumstances. That's why I've actually written to all rail providers across Wales to get provisions in place if none are in place at present. A statement from the Cabinet Secretary for transport outlining what steps the Welsh Government will be taking to ensure that this is achieved would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Natasha Asghar. Of course you recounted an experience on a very hot day, and I think we could all recognise the difficulty for passengers at that time and, indeed, the staff supporting those passengers. So, that particular point in that request, obviously, we'll draw to the attention of the Cabinet Secretary for transport. I do think it's important, though, to recognise that Transport for Wales had the biggest improvement in punctuality across every single franchise in Great Britain in the first three months of this year, 2024, compared to last year—the second biggest improvement in reliability. We hope that that was a one-off for reasons I can't account for myself, but I think we've shown that those statistics show that we have turned the corner with our Transport for Wales, which we're very proud of. We're consistently seeing improvements for passengers, carrying more passengers, running more services and performing at significantly higher levels. So, your particular experience we will take back. But I think also, just in terms of Pembrokeshire, passengers on the Pembroke Dock line are now benefiting from brand-new class 197 trains, which started running from Monday 10 June. So, yes, incidents like that are regrettable and unfortunate, but we will look at it in terms of access to those all-important refreshments, but also recognise the good developments in the provision of our rail services.
The next item is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language on Tata Steel. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make that statement.
Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language
Thank you, Llywydd. As Members will be aware, the news last week that Tata Steel could switch off both blast furnaces 4 and 5 at Port Talbot this week due to industrial action caused considerable anxiety for all parties, especially workers and the wider community. I am very pleased that all involved have now found a way forward to de-escalate the situation and that talks between the unions and the company will now continue.
The importance of this cannot be overestimated, and I would like to thank all those who have worked tirelessly to find this way forward. The First Minister and I have been in regular dialogue with partners since the news was announced last week, including with the CEO of Tata Steel UK, Unite, Community and GMB. We are relieved that everyone will now come together to continue discussions, and we will continue to make the case for close co-operation and communication over the coming days and weeks.
Since Tata's proposals were originally announced last year, Ministers have raised concerns about the speed of the proposed transition. All along, we have said that we believe that the consultation between the company and unions could have secured a longer, fairer transition that would have minimised job losses.
Formal consultation between Tata Steel UK and the UK steel committee, which, as Members know, is made up of the three steel unions, Community, Unite and GMB, concluded in April. Discussions have since been ongoing between the company and the UK steel committee over voluntary redundancy packages, which Tata state are the best severance terms that they have offered to employees.
The company confirmed in April its timeline to decommission blast furnace 5 at the end of June, followed by decommissioning of blast furnace 4 by the end of September. Tata reiterated publicly in June that it intends to continue with the announced closure of the heavy-end assets and restructuring programme at Port Talbot in the coming months. They've also said that the current heavy-end assets are nearing their end of life, are operationally unstable and are resulting in what they describe as unsustainable financial losses. The coke ovens, a critical facility for primary steel making, were closed in March, as operations became infeasible and unsafe. Our understanding is that Tata will continue with its plans to decommission blast furnace 5 this week, by 7 July. We believe the prospect of the election of a new UK Government later this week changes completely the context for steel production in the UK, with specific funding for steel and broader commitments to invest in infrastructure.
Tata has already said that, as part of the £1.25 billion plan, 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, it will be reliant on imports from overseas. The transition's full impact on volumes across all Tata sites in Wales, not only at Port Talbot, but the downstream plants based at Llanwern, Trostre, Shotton and Caerphilly, are still unclear, and clarity must be given as soon as possible. Going forward, 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. Tata has previously announced that up to 2,800 jobs are expected to be lost as part of its transition plan, with the first redundancies expected in September. We will continue our work with the Tata transition board to swiftly put in place the mechanisms that will allow Tata employees and businesses within its supply chain, families and communities to access all available support. I am committing to doing all I can to ensure that the work of the transition board is as flexible as possible and fit for purpose to support the needs of workers, the supply chain and the wider community at this time.
The transition board has agreed five priority areas for support. These cover job matching, skills and employability, the establishment of a supply chain transition fund, as well as a business growth and start-up fund, and, crucially, support for mental health and well-being, and for regeneration projects. The Welsh Government is already making available support through its employability and upskilling programmes, ReAct+ and Communities for Work+, which can provide support for training and mentoring to Tata and its supply chain for employees who wish to remain in the labour market. Business Wales and the Development Bank of Wales can provide support for individuals facing redundancy should they wish to consider self-employment or to start their own business, and can provide information, advice and guidance on starting a business, as well as accessing business finance. Drop-in sessions take place in Port Talbot twice a week, 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. Job fairs are under way, with the latest held on 12 June, and workshops are planned for Tata workers throughout July. In addition, a webpage is now available on the Neath Port Talbot Council website, which provides a one-stop shop, single point of contact for everyone seeking help and advice. The webpage signposts links for both individuals and businesses to all available support. It is important that those who need to access the support can do so swiftly, and I will work in earnest with any new, incoming UK Government and all local stakeholders to ensure that support is accessible to those who need it.
We certainly welcome the de-escalation and the goodwill shown by both Tata Steel and the steelworkers' unions over the last few days, and we are thankful that Tata have decided not to close the second blast furnace early, following the news that Unite have called off their strike action. An early closure would clearly have been bad news for Welsh steel production, for the workers and for the communities. We also, naturally, welcome any discussions that bring both the steelworkers and Tata to the table to safeguard how jobs can be supported in the short and medium terms, as early closure of the blast furnaces would bring additional distress to families already dealing with increased anxiety. The impact that this turbulence in Port Talbot will have had on individuals, families and the wider communities cannot be underestimated. Our position remains clear: we wish to see Tata continue to operate a blast furnace as they justly transition to an electric arc furnace, allowing for skills to be retained in the area and for jobs to be kept. So, while blast furnace 5 will be producing its last steel by the end of this week, we can hope that these most recent talks can lead to strengthened transitionary arrangements.
With one furnace closing, we need to focus now on what's next for Welsh steelworkers. Cabinet Secretary, you've confirmed to me via a written question that the total value of the Tata Steel skills support programme 2016-19 was £11.7 million—very welcome. But can you offer any clarity on whether the skills acquired via training paid for via this fund are skills that have wider accreditation, or are these skills that are nontransferable and can only be used at Tata's facilities? We can have some hope that the transition to an electric arc furnace, alongside the developments of the Celtic free port, can provide much-needed employment for those who may lose their jobs at Tata, whether it be in construction, in operations or in maintenance. You mentioned in your statement the voluntary redundancy offers given to workers, but I'd ask you, Cabinet Secretary, if you have any idea on the numbers of people that will, or potentially, accept this offer?
A common theme brought forward during the discussion around the future of steel making in Port Talbot is, 'Let's wait for a UK Labour Government. Let's rely on a, potentially, incoming UK Labour Government to help save the day.' You say in your statement that you believe the prospect of the election and a new UK Government later this week changes the context for steel production in the UK, with specific funding for steel and broader commitments to invest in infrastructure. We already know that UK Labour are already counting the UK Conservatives' £500 million investment in Tata in their £3 billion green steel plan. So, from the remaining £2.5 billion, can you confirm how much more is going to go to Port Talbot, should Labour win on Thursday? Otherwise, aren't you just giving false hope to these workers, their families and these communities?
I thank Sam Kurtz for the welcome that he has given to the developments in the last few days. I just would say I don't think it's helpful to talk at this point in terms of false hope. It's a very difficult situation for many thousands of people. I know this will not have been his intention, but I just think we need to have that very much in the centre of our thoughts as we all grapple with what is a very complex and difficult situation, not least from the human perspective.
On the specific questions that he put to me, in relation to skills support, over the years when we have been approached to support skills development at Tata, we've been able to work with Tata to make available the sorts of figures that he has talked about, and indeed other sums in addition to that. They have been a mix of skills support in a more general sense, but also ones that have led to specific accredited qualifications. One of the really important tasks under way at the moment—and I alluded to the five priority areas the transition board has designated as categories for support—is that process of ensuring that those who have developed often very high-level skills within the workplace but don't have a specific accreditation that makes them portable in other contexts are in fact accredited. There is work already under way with further education colleges across south Wales to do that work. So, that process is already in hand, and I think it's a very important part of that process.
In relation to the voluntary redundancy, I don't have that information. That is information that is being worked through, obviously, with the company. Obviously there have been discussions in relation to the terms of voluntary redundancy, but those discussions haven't been concluded. It's part of the discussions that Tata have said they will continue to have with the unions as a consequence of the announcements in the last few days.
He makes the point about the funds available. I do think it is important to say that of that £500 million, of course none of that has actually been spent yet, and so it is important to bear that in mind. The nature of the overall commitment that the Labour Party has made, which, taking that sum into account, is a £3 billion commitment, is a matter for negotiation with steel companies. It's not a matter for the Government to dictate how that is spent. We're in a very changed landscape, with the election of a new Labour Government—if that's what we see at the end of the week—with new levels of commitment to infrastructure investment, and so that will need to be a matter for discussion between an incoming Government and Tata and others. The Member shakes his head. I don't think I'm in a position to be lectured about the terms and conditions attached to funding from a Government. I think we are seeing very clearly that more could have been done by the outgoing—I hope—Government in relation to the funding that it has been talking about so loudly for a number of months.
I welcome the news that Tata is stepping back from its threat to close those blast furnaces early. Had the decision gone ahead, it would have been disastrous. I also would refer to something that the Cabinet Secretary for the economy said in the economy committee last week about making the reinstatement of the transition board and its work a priority once this new UK Labour Government get into place. I have to say I am quite concerned about the progress of the work of the transition board. We've lost time. It's important now that we get back onto that as soon as possible. I do think it's important to remember that the negotiations offered by Tata now going forward are not renegotiations of the proposals on the table. It’s a negotiation on future investment, so the fight to retain those blast furnaces is still ongoing.
Looking at what the Government has said in response, there’s a very valid question here, I think, and that is whether the Government has given up on keeping blast furnace capability at Port Talbot. This statement seems to indicate that that is the case, because there remains this line from Government about the need for negotiation, the need to wait for the UK Labour Government with specific funding for steel. I think Sam Kurtz was right to raise the lack of detail around that £3 billion. I wouldn’t have gone down the route of saying that it’s providing false hope, but what I would say is that giving some security and some indication of what portion of the £3 billion would be allocated to Tata in Port Talbot would provide more hope and provide more security, so some detail on that would be very welcome.
But Tata have made it clear they won’t renegotiate. The Government talk about the need for good-faith negotiations; well, you can’t have good-faith negotiations if one of the partners isn’t acting in good faith and doesn't meet you in the middle to negotiate, evident by Tata’s statement and how they have treated workers throughout this industrial dispute. Is that why the Cabinet Secretary was unable to answer my question in the economy committee about what the backstop is if negotiations didn’t succeed? Is it because the Government had already given up on renegotiating the proposals on the table for the blast furnaces at Port Talbot?
And let’s remember how Tata treated their workers during this dispute. First, they threatened to pull redundancy packages for those who went on strike. They threatened to accelerate closures because workers have stood up for themselves. Unite have told us that the company had called workers into a room for a briefing, only then to attempt to stop them from leaving the room unless they indicated if they were going on strike. That’s not a good-faith actor, and neither it is the actions of a responsible company. I would go as far as to ask the question is that the sort of company we want operating in Wales. Where does Tata fit into the Welsh Government’s fair work and social partnership agenda? Because I’m struggling to see how Tata fits into the Government’s vision on this.
I take the rhetorical force of the Member’s argument, but I think in reality we’ve got to engage with the situation that workers are facing on the ground. I get the point that he makes a number of times about alternatives, but they are at the level of political statements, and not real plans. What we are bringing forward as part of a UK Labour manifesto is a concrete commitment to investment in the economy and specifically in steel making. I do think people expect ambition and they don’t expect, in this particular context, the kind of party political attacks that the Member was making in his statement.
Let’s try and look at what’s happening on the ground. We have an incoming Government with a significant commitment of £3 billion to the sector. That is a transformative level of commitment. It will make a difference to the context in which steel is being produced in the UK. It is clear to me that there are very fundamentally different expectations that an incoming Labour Government will have in relation to that funding, and it's clear to me that that is understood much more widely in the sector as well. I think that is a good basis for having the kind of conversations that need to be had, and that, frankly, ought to have been had by the UK Government before now in order to put that sustainable basis for steel production. We've been very clear as a Government: we think that a better future and a better deal have been available for steel for some time, and I'm confident that a UK Labour Government will be able to bring that to bear in discussions with Tata and with the sector more broadly.
He makes a point about social partnership and fair work. It is important that large employers apply those principles in dealing with their workforce—absolutely critical. That's why I'm pleased to say that in the last few days we've been able to—working together with unions, working together with Tata—de-escalate the tensions that had arisen in relation to the plans. I think it's really important now that that space is used to have those discussions, to have the kind of continued discussions that are going to be so important, and that have, in the short term, enabled this immediate crisis to be resolved.
Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement. Before I start, can I reassure the spokesperson for Plaid Cymru I have not given up on primary steel making in Port Talbot?
The news last Thursday, let's be honest about it, was devastating to families, steelworkers and communities in Port Talbot and around the wider area. They were left shattered by that news. They didn't know whether they'd have a wage coming in next week and what would be their incomes for the years ahead, even the weeks ahead and the days ahead. What would their lifestyles be? That was fearful for them. I think, to be honest, whilst I recognise the safety arguments, it was reprehensible behaviour by Tata in doing that on the eve of a weekend when people didn't have an opportunity to actually go about, 'How do we get to talk to the unions or talk to people?' It was disgraceful behaviour, to be honest. As I say, we can only imagine the stress those people went through. We know the difficulties those families face, and the impact it might have had on these people's mental health, at a time when they're already facing uncertainty, to be told that, in fact, it's not October, it's next week. That's frightening for them.
I want to thank you and the First Minister for the efforts I know you put in over the weekend to try and resolve this. I'm very pleased that all parties are now coming back to the table to actually have those discussions. It's critical. I'm conscious that I haven't got as much time to talk about some of the issues as others. So, two quick questions. The transition board, you mentioned it. In my view, it's been eight months and not a penny has been spent. This week actually highlighted how that money needs to be spent to get people in place and supported. So, will you ensure that the transition board not only meets urgently, but we actually get some action out of it and get some money out of it so we can get things going? People can't wait until next year, another six months, for things to happen; they need them happening now. Secondly, I welcome the possible investment of a steel income from the UK Government coming in, and I do hope it's a Labour Government coming in, because they have a commitment to steel. But will you and the First Minister please ensure you have an urgent meeting in the first few days with the next Government to talk about steel's future, and make sure that Port Talbot and steel in Wales are at the top of that agenda in steel's future?
I thank David Rees for the points he's made. I absolutely agree with him. Primary steel-making capacity is at the heart of what we want to see as investment right across the UK economy with a new Government—in steel specifically, but also in our infrastructure, in our renewables infrastructure. Having that primary steel-making capacity is absolutely critical for that.
On the points he makes around the transition board, I agree with him. What we need to see is the transition board able to actually make use of the funds that people have earmarked. Welsh Government programmes are already being used by workers, and that is what we want to see. We want to see people being able to draw on those funds to develop different skills, for them to have options. But, actually, what we have not seen is the transition board being able to operate in a way that has moved that forward quickly enough. I completely agree with him that that is what we must see. I'm confident that if, as I hope, we have a new Government in place at the end of this week, we will have a shared vision with the UK Government about that, and I can assure him that the First Minister and I will be seeking to put in place that meeting at the very, very earliest opportunity with counterparts in the UK Government. The experience in the last few days—. The First Minister mentioned in First Minister's questions earlier the meeting that we had with Keir Starmer, but also with Jonathan Reynolds and Jo Stevens, which I think showed a level of joint working, collaborative working, which is exactly what we need in order to be able to put in place a future for steel making in Wales and in the UK.
You said in your statement that the tensions over the last days have highlighted the high stakes that are at play. What it highlighted for me was a shocking attitude to the legitimate and hard-won rights of workers. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, given Tata's despicable threats over the last month, so rightly highlighted by my colleague Luke Fletcher. There always seems to be plenty of money with these companies when it comes to trying to undermine the right to strike. Do you agree that the workforce, the skilled, loyal workforce that have served the steel industry in Port Talbot for generations, deserve better from their employer? And given that the talks with the unions are now resuming and we know that there will almost certainly be a change of Government in Westminster, how will the Welsh Government play its part, with the new UK Government, in ensuring that the voices of workers and the wider community are heard and that they are treated justly, and also that their futures are not held to ransom by a company that seemingly cares so little for the well-being of the people that have served it so well?
I thank Sioned Williams for those questions. Yes, what we want to see now is proper engagement and discussions between Tata and the three trade unions. That is what we have the prospect of happening now, with the consequence of the decisions taken on Sunday and Monday of this week. I think having discussions under way between Tata and the UK steel committee to work through the future investment and to work through the terms—. You know, you talked about the best possible commitment from Tata—we want to see that as part of the discussions, the redundancy process, the voluntary terms; we want to see the best possible terms put on the table for the workforce, but also that broader support, and critically, investment for the future. We know that there is a sustainable future for steel production in Wales and in the UK. We want to see that investment in place that makes that a reality, so that we can—. You talked about the loyal and the skilled workforce and I could not agree with you more; it's an incredibly skilled and incredibly loyal workforce that have contributed hugely to the Welsh economy and to the UK economy for decades and we want to see a future in which they have a critical part to play contributing to the economy and contributing to the communities of south Wales and the rest of Wales so wonderfully, as they have for decades.
I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for his statement today and his work on this issue and the Welsh Government's work, not only over the previous days but over the years in supporting the Welsh steel industry. I'm proud to represent a steel community in Shotton; the links between my community there and Port Talbot are strong and I echo the comments of David Rees. The ability to produce virgin steel in Port Talbot is crucial to the industry, it's crucial to our country and having a long-term supply of good-quality steel is crucial to the Shotton site in Alyn and Deeside.
Cabinet Secretary, can I ask you: will you continue to work with partners, which will include, I hope, a Labour Westminster Government after Thursday's election, to stress that very need to make joined-up decisions to protect the industry and protect well-paid unionised jobs in Cymru? Diolch.
I thank Jack Sargeant for that question. He's right: the primary steel-making capacity is absolutely critical for that ambitious future that we all have. And I think he is right to say as well that it's that kind of partnership working, clear channels of communication and engaged discussions that are going to get us to that sustainable future for steel. He has my assurance that we as a Government will play our full part in that, working, as we hope, with a new Labour Government at the end of this week, but also with Tata and unions to make sure that that long-term, sustainable future for steel production in Wales is a reality.
Cabinet Secretary, it seems clear to me that people readily understand the case for primary steel making and for steel as a strategic industry for defence and manufacturing in general, and for the infrastructure that we're going to need, and they understand that need to transition to green steel because of the challenge of climate change. So, I very much hope that with a new UK Labour Government working with our Welsh Government here, the unions—the steel unions—and Tata, I would hope, that recognition that we're then in a different situation, with a new Government with that sort of commitment, and an industrial strategy that, you know, actually looks at how we make that transition and how to achieve it—that we're then in a very different situation. That will be transformative for the prospects of our steel communities, for Llanwern and other downstream operations, Cabinet Secretary—that we see that investment that's needed for decarbonisation and a transition to green steel also being available at that downstream level, which, obviously, is so important for Llanwern and many other of our steel communities here in Wales.
I agree with John Griffiths on that. I think the point he makes about the contribution that steel makes in the industrial strategy is absolutely fundamental. We know of the opportunities there are in Wales around decarbonising our energy supply and making sure we invest in our renewables—the floating offshore wind opportunity. Those are only opportunities that we can take full advantage of if we have that capacity to create steel that works for those construction projects. That's why it's so critical to be able to join up, if you like, the various elements of that industrial strategy in the way that John Griffiths is describing.
Secondly, it is important to see investment in all sites for steel making in Wales, downstream as well as the primary capacity. I touched in my statement on the importance of understanding the supply of product for downstream sites, and we are working to identify and to get a clearer picture than we have today of that position. But he's right to say that we want to see investment in all sites in Wales so that all sites can play their part in that green steel future.
Cabinet Secretary, thank you for your statement today updating the Senedd on the latest de-escalating situation regarding Tata Steel. As a Gwent Member of the Senedd, I welcome that you have emphasised that these decisions impact downstream on plants, including those at Llanwern, and the secondary supply chains. But the situation for the workforce, as you've stated, has been and remains very difficult, and they have been treated appallingly. Unite, the trade union, and Tata are to be recognised for the flexibility shown during these difficult days.
Cabinet Secretary, the people of the UK will be going to the polls on Thursday, with a new UK Government forming by Friday morning. Therefore, what actions will the Welsh Government take later this week, if a new party of Government and Prime Minister are elected, to call on the new UK Government to look again at this, and to look again at energy security for Wales and, indeed, the entire United Kingdom? Can you assure me that the Welsh Government will reiterate that all must be done to save skilled jobs and our country's critical ability to be a primary steel-making producer?
I thank Rhianon Passmore for those questions. I know, in the discussions the First Minister and I have had with colleagues in the shadow Cabinet, which we very much hope will be the Cabinet at the end of this week, that the commitments that she is seeking are ones that will readily be given. That shared vision for high-skilled, high-investment, sustainable green steel production is one that the Welsh Government shares with the UK Labour Party, and I think there is a real opportunity to work hand in hand in partnership to bring that about. That is what we want to see; I know that is what colleagues in the UK Labour Party want to see. That will only come about if people make choices on Thursday that bring that about. That investment isn't going to be there whatever the outcome on Thursday. That investment is there where there's a Government that has a vision that commits not just to the broader industrial strategy we're talking about now, but specifically as well to supporting steel production.
I thank you very much for all of the work that you and others are doing to bring people together at this incredibly difficult time, because it cannot be overemphasised how important steel is to our economy and to the whole of the future decarbonisation of our economy. We need to secure supplies of steel to build the green energy solutions to the climate emergency that we want to be leading on. I note in your statement that Tata says it will be reliant on imports from overseas for the next three years until it's built this new electric arc furnace. However, Celsa, in a letter to the Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, was arguing—they, obviously, have an electric arc furnace reproducing steel from recycled old cars and other machinery that have reached the end of their life—for regulations to restrict the export of scrap steel to countries with lower environmental standards in order to retain high-quality scrap within the UK, and I wondered what discussions you might be thinking of having in order to secure our ability to source the steel that we desperately need to build all these wind turbines that we need to build across Wales.
Those discussions are under way and the Member Jenny Rathbone is right to say that we want to make sure, for environmental reasons, that we are able to use scrap steel from within the UK, as far as that is possible, in production in other parts of the UK. I think the point she makes highlights, doesn't it, the risk of exporting carbon to other parts of the UK by some of the choices that lie ahead. What we want to see, obviously, is a green steel future for Wales and for the rest of the UK, and part of that will mean changing how the scrap market operates in order for that to be more readily available within the UK. Critically, I think there's a real opportunity for us now, with the new level of investment that we'll see coming into the sector, to make some of those better choices for green steel.
The next item is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education on the progress on the roll-out of curriculum reform and next steps. I call on Lynne Neagle to make that statement.
Diolch, Llywydd. Since becoming Cabinet Secretary for Education, I have been privileged to visit a number of schools and see the Curriculum for Wales in action. More and more of our leaders and teachers are seizing this generational opportunity to develop learning with clear purpose, which engages and challenges every child and young person. And by putting their well-being at the heart of learning, we are ensuring that every child is ready to learn. Not only through our whole-school approach to mental health, not only by making health and well-being a mandatory area of learning, or through our guidance on enabling learning for all, but by putting the needs of every child first.
We want children to reach their full potential. We want them to thrive as learners, citizens, confident individuals and contributors to society, not just during their time in school, but for the rest of their lives. We achieve that through learning that is challenging, but also inspiring; academically rigorous, but with clear practical application in the real world; responsive to learners, while setting high, stretching expectations.
Overwhelmingly, headteachers tell me they are supportive of the Curriculum for Wales. They see these opportunities, and they want to get it right. But it is clear to me, following the impact of the pandemic and the continued challenges facing the sector, that leaders and practitioners need additional detail and support to help them make the most of those opportunities, particularly in areas like progression and assessment. I want to be clear: I have listened to this and I will provide that support.
We continue to make significant progress. I want to praise the leaders, teachers and other practitioners whose personal commitment to their learners is driving this change. Every day, I see more and more outstanding examples of schools and settings using the curriculum to inspire and challenge their children. In our Curriculum for Wales annual report, published later this week, we set out that funded non-maintained nursery settings, special schools and most primary schools are continuing to make good progress enacting Curriculum for Wales. We also know there is more variability in secondary schools and pupil referral units. However, these are long-term reforms, and we know there is still a way to go as we move towards roll-out for all year groups in September 2026, and the first awarding of our new, made-for-Wales GCSEs in summer 2027.
This year I published draft guidance for learning between 14 and 16, and my officials continue to work closely with partners as we develop these new qualifications.
I am determined that every child benefits from the vast opportunities offered by this curriculum. Across the remainder of the Senedd term, this Government, in collaboration with partners and the sector, will put in place a national package of support for the Curriculum for Wales. We will ensure a common foundation of expectations and support, allowing every school to seize the opportunities of the curriculum for their learners.
First, we will provide clear detail and approaches for curriculum design, progression and assessment, where leaders have most consistently voiced the need for further clarity. We will work with partners to develop intensive, nationally-available collaborative support for curriculum design, progression and assessment. This programme will build on the lessons from the curriculum design pilot programme, the huge strides made by teachers, and existing effective support in the system. This will start this autumn, and expand over the academic year and into 2025-26.
We will publish specific tools and templates to give schools a clear process for developing and enhancing their curriculum, regardless of their starting point. This includes further detail on approaches to progression and assessment, including evaluating and communicating the progress learners are making. We will publish the first of these next spring and build on these into the following academic year. We will also help schools see examples of curriculum design, progression and assessment, by promoting and sharing effective practice developed through school-to-school collaboration.
I have spoken before about my commitment to literacy and numeracy. These are fundamental gateways to learning, alongside digital competence, and are mandatory cross-curricular skills. A school’s curriculum is at its best when it allows learners to use, develop and hone these skills, transferring and using them in new, meaningful contexts. This is key to raising standards, so, secondly, we will focus on developing these skills. We will work with partners to develop intensive, nationally-available collaborative support to help embed literacy and numeracy across all areas of the Curriculum for Wales. Again, this will be developed with leaders and teachers, building on what is working well. This will be trialled next academic year and expanded in the following year. We will strengthen our national expectations for these skills by updating the literacy, numeracy and digital competence frameworks and publishing them as statutory guidance. That statutory guidance status will help to support more consistent approaches across Wales.
We will consult on a revised and strengthened literacy and numeracy framework next year, to be finalised in early 2026, followed later that year by the digital competence framework. We will provide clear national principles about teaching and learning in literacy, numeracy and digital competence, being clear about the building blocks for stronger learning and the high-quality resources that support this. This must follow the evidence. On literacy, for example, that means a clear recognition of the critical importance of phonics, as well as the other essential building blocks of reading.
Thank you, Cabinet Secretary for your statement today. There have been many worrying reports recently about teachers in Wales experiencing high levels of violence and verbal abuse in schools from their pupils and subsequent feelings of abandonment from local authorities when this is raised. The NASUWT's 'Behaviour in Schools' survey has revealed that in the last 12 months nearly 40 per cent of teachers in Wales reported experiencing violence or physical abuse in the classroom; 95 per cent have experienced verbal abuse in the classroom; and 91 per cent claimed that they've been sworn at by pupils. Teachers have also made allegations that they have been shoved or barged, hit or punched, kicked, spat at and headbutted, and some have reported having chairs thrown at them. Firstly, Cabinet Secretary, why do you think this is happening? What, in your mind, has changed so significantly that pupils are acting in this way?
Curriculum reform is all very well, but it's pointless if teachers are experiencing violence from students that is not being dealt with. Anecdotal evidence I have received from several constituents, who work in schools across my region, suggests that one of the major problems secondary schools are facing is the high number of children vaping, and that some children are consuming a whole disposable device a day, which, as you will be aware, can contain up to 20 mg of nicotine, roughly the same amount of nicotine as seen in a packet of strong cigarettes. These constituents have told me how they've observed children becoming very aggressive if the vapes are confiscated, most probably from withdrawal symptoms of nicotine. But, with this in mind, what is being done to investigate this as a problem? The Welsh Government has said that there is a duty on local authorities and schools to ensure schools are a safe environment for all. But, clearly, they are failing. I understand that this problem is not going to go away overnight, but what are your plans for dealing with this?
You are tinkering with the curriculum, when there are other massive issues that seem to be ignored. You will be aware, Cabinet Secretary, that, in the year ending 2022, 1,175 teachers left the profession in Wales, where only 125 of these were of retirement age. The highest numbers leaving were in science and English, two areas that Wales is really struggling in. Sadly, the number of teachers in Wales has declined by around 2,000 since 2014, the equivalent of around 5 per cent, and we're seeing a decline in the number of teachers teaching subjects that they're actually trained in. For instance, in 2023, only 35 per cent of science teachers were trained in science. And this means, Cabinet Secretary, however you look at it, and despite the best efforts by teachers, that there are many who will lack the fundamental understanding of the subjects that they teach. However, how are you going to account for this in your curriculum reform, when schools are clearly already struggling to teach core subjects now?
Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. You are removing triple science as an option from schools and this will more than likely compound the educational inequality for Welsh pupils in STEM, compared to the rest of the UK. It seems that everyone can see this curriculum reform is a mistake. Cabinet Secretary, why is the Welsh Government so determined to put Welsh children at such a disadvantage compared to others in the UK? Thank you.
Thank you very much, Joel, for those comments. I'll do my best to answer what was quite a wide range of remarks. If I can start by saying that, obviously, we want all our schools to be safe, welcoming places for all children and young people and our staff. Local authorities and schools have a responsibility to ensure that schools are safe places for people to work. I'm aware of the NASUWT research that you've referred to, and indeed I discussed school behaviour with them recently, and have also discussed it with other trade unions. It is an area of concern, in terms of—. You're asking me why this is happening. I think that's a really complex question. What is clear to me as Cabinet Secretary is a whole range of societal problems are now playing out in our schools, and that has become worse since the pandemic. I certainly don't think that the curriculum is any cause of that, and indeed I believe that a purpose-driven, engaging curriculum is something that will actually help engage children and young people and improve behaviour in schools.
You referred specifically to vaping. Obviously, that's a problem that's very much on Welsh Government's radar and we were, prior to the election, working with the UK Government on UK-wide legislation on tobacco and vaping. Unfortunately, that legislation was lost due to the election, although we are committed to banning single-use vapes in Wales. If I can also add that part of our curriculum includes a mandatory area of learning on health and well-being, and we would expect that to cover areas like vaping. We've developed, through Public Health Wales, a vaping toolkit for schools, which has been used in our schools, which I hope is helping with that. I definitely don't think that you can put things like that at the door of tinkering with the curriculum, because what we are doing is certainly not tinkering; it's a very radical reform that develops a purposeful curriculum that helps young people to understand why what they're learning is important and gives them the transferrable skills to apply in other settings and for the rest of their lives.
In terms of the retention of teachers issue that you raised, clearly, that's a challenge across the UK. That's why we're working so hard on teacher recruitment and retention, why we've got such a strong focus on mental health support for our education workforce, why we have a series of incentives in shortage subjects to attract people to the profession. But I also believe that our new Curriculum for Wales is making teaching in Wales a much more attractive profession for educators. It is next-level teaching and learning. It was teachers who were keen to have that agency in developing the new curriculum that their learners needed, and we are delivering that for them in Wales, along with the support required to do that.
Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement today. Certainly, there is widespread support in the education sector for the main principles of the new curriculum, and that includes clear support from Plaid Cymru. And, in that sense, we're very eager to work cross-party in this Chamber to ensure that the curriculum is effective and works for children and young people across Wales, because there is nothing more important than their future and their education.
I do welcome today's announcement about more support for our teachers in rolling out the curriculum, and I look forward to receiving more details about that, and I know that the unions also are looking forward to receiving more information. But I must also say that I still have some questions about the curriculum, about the workforce and the content of the curriculum specifically.
On the workforce, can I ask where and how what you are outlining today overlaps with your strategy on recruitment and retention? The teaching unions have stressed to me the impact of the new curriculum roll-out on an already overstretched and under-resourced workforce. Now, one of your party's key election pledges, of course, is the recruitment of more teachers. It's something the Welsh Government is already responsible for, and I must be honest, you do have quite a poor track record on this. The measures outlined today don't address this critical issue, so I'd like to ask, please, for more details on how you propose to do this.
In terms of content, I would like to highlight a recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, by Luke Sibieta, and I'm sure that you'll agree that it is a cause for concern. In particular, I'd like to draw attention to a section in the report that highlights the fact that Wales should be learning important lessons from the process of rolling out the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence. Now, Sibieta has raised in particular the risk and the possibility that a skills-based curriculum may not, in fact, be effective in developing those key skills. Could I ask you, therefore, how is the Government expecting to learn lessons from the errors made in Scotland and avoid repeating them here in Wales?
And finally, also on the issue of the curriculum's content, can I also ask for a more specific update on how the Welsh Government is working to deliver the commitment that all pupils in Wales will learn Welsh history as a compulsory part of this curriculum? Because it is a commitment that I'm proud that Plaid Cymru was able to deliver through the co-operation agreement, and I would like an update from you on this most welcome development. Diolch yn fawr.
Thank you very much, Cefin, and thank you in particular for your welcome and your support for the new curriculum, and for your statement of Plaid Cymru's support. There's nothing more important than working together to advance children and young people in Wales, so I do really appreciate that.
I've set out some of the things that we're planning to do in terms of additional support. I've talked about the nationally available collaborative support, building on existing programmes and the commitments made in the maths and numeracy plan last year. Literacy and numeracy are top priorities for me, and I want to ensure that those are consistent across the country. We're also looking at support and tools to help teachers, and I should be clear about this, that some schools are absolutely flying with the curriculum, and this isn't about clipping the wings of those schools. We want those schools to get on with the wonderful work that they're doing. This is about providing additional support to those schools who feel that they need it.
So, some of the things we're looking at are: schools have said they'd like more examples of what the curriculum can and should look like in practice, so this support will provide clear, simple examples and approaches to guide schools through the curriculum design process. I already mentioned putting the literacy and numeracy framework on a statutory footing. We also know that some schools would welcome more detail to help their understanding of progression in different areas of the curriculum, so we'll be looking to help with that too, but of course it is important that we do this work in partnership with practitioners.
You referred to the unions, and obviously I meet the unions regularly. We also have a schools partnership council. I do recognise the concerns that trade unions have raised about workload in schools. That's why I took the difficult decision to postpone the actual implementation of reform of the school year into the next Senedd, because I wanted to listen to those concerns and recognise that not only are they grappling with curriculum reform, ALN, but they're also still recovering from the pandemic. And we are working really hard to minimise workload strain on the workforce. We've got a strategic workload group that some of the unions are involved in chairing and we're developing a digital workload tool for heads, so that is very much a high priority for us in the Government.
You referred to the IFS report, and I've been clear several times in the Chamber that I am concerned about some of the messages in the IFS report, particularly around the attainment gap between England and Wales. I do think it is important, though, to emphasise again that the children who did the PISA tests were not subject to the new curriculum, and also to repeat what I said to Joel. I think it is a misunderstanding to say that this is just a skills-based curriculum, because it is also a curriculum that is rich in knowledge. But what we want to do is make sure that young people can take that knowledge and apply it to different settings.
As you say, well-being is at the heart of learning, and the well-being of each child is absolutely crucial, and also that we're not trying to put people in a straitjacket. Every child is different. Every child has a different learning style and brings different experiences from outside the school that they have to grapple with, as do their teachers. So, I'm completely behind what you're doing.
I note that many schools are struggling to implement the Curriculum for Wales because it is a very, very difficult moment, both in terms of lack of resources, shortage of resources financially, and also the emotional well-being of pupils is a major concern. So, there's no point in reinventing the wheel. If some schools have already got good plans in place, let's be sharing them. We're not trying to have a league table of competition between schools; we're trying to ensure that every single child in Wales is getting the best possible education. So, I completely applaud that move.
I want to explore with you how we are using the multimillion pound investment in universal free school meals not just to feed hungry children, but also to change our relationship with food, because, as you know, it's also about the culture. And so, how are we using the liberation of the curriculum to enable pedagogues to use that universal provision to understand where food comes from, what it costs to produce, who takes the profit from it, and how we're doing it responsibly in line with our carbon footprint?
As I hear that the uptake of universal free school meals is suffering from the inverse care law, with the poorest schools having the least-good uptake, I wondered whether you'd be prepared to publish the data that you have, so we could all grapple with that real challenge, to ensure that all schools are really engaging with children to understand that what they eat is what they're going to become in terms of their lifelong health.
Thank you, Jenny, and I think your recognition that every child is unique is very important because our curriculum is designed to be person centred and community centred, and based on the cynefin that children and young people recognise around them, and that is incredibly important and is really closely linked to their mental health. As you've highlighted, there is a really strong emphasis in the curriculum on health and well-being; it's a mandatory area of learning and experience. And linked to that, we've got the whole-school approach to mental health. There's also a legal duty in the curriculum that we should probably talk about more. In constructing the curriculum, schools have to have due regard to mental health. I think we are probably the first nation anywhere to have put that in the curriculum, so that's a really positive step forward, I think.
I know how passionate you are about healthy food and encouraging schools to be sustainable. It's been a big endeavour, rolling out the free school meals. I'm very happy to provide you with the data that we've got. All primary schools will have completed their roll-out now by the autumn, which is really positive. Obviously, that's involved a lot of investment, including a lot of capital investment for things like kitchens. I was at a school in Barry recently, where the children and young people were enjoying the most marvellous school-cooked meals. I met the school cook there, and the teachers were telling me how brilliant she was at getting the kids to try different things, and how they were all really enjoying their food, so you could see it very much in action.
Lots of education settings are also using the curriculum to use their outdoor spaces to provide learners with enrichment activities, including growing fruit and vegetables. We've also, through schools, supported the development of the Big Bocs Bwyd initiative in more than 60 primary schools, many of which grow their own fruit and vegetables. The health and well-being area of learning is obviously about helping kids to lead healthy and active lives, but we also want the curriculum to cover things like perspectives on informed decisions about sourcing local nutritious food, food production and sustainability, and for developing their practical cooking skills, which I know is something that you also feel really strongly about.
My daughter is a teacher across the border in England. She teaches a class of 30 four to five-year-olds; two are non-verbal, four she thinks need one-to-one, but she has one part-time classroom assistant. She sees what's happening over here and she thinks it's wonderful. Those pupils are taught in a sedate position. She would love to move over here. I have lots of teachers who are friends who are welcoming this new curriculum. I know teacher retention is a big issue right across the UK, with a 1 per cent uplift for a long time for teachers, doctors and nurses—that's austerity happening, and we need to have a change in that.
I visited a school in Wrexham—a wonderful school; they've been here on the Senedd steps as well. They were learning about literacy, maths and creativity by going outside. They gave a display through dance, through music, creative writing and art. They talked about what they were doing. They were engaged, they were happy and they were good community citizens as well. And children don't just learn maths and English; if they learn through music, through dance, that opens up another part of their brain that helps them to learn maths and physics more. So, my question to you is do you believe that the Programme for International Student Assessment is not the only measure of how well our children are doing in education.
Thank you very much, Carolyn, for those positive comments. As I've said to Joel and Cefin, the challenges of retention and recruitment are real, and that's why we're putting such a focus on having such an exciting curriculum and supporting the mental health of our workforce as well as our children and young people. Thank you for the examples you gave of outdoor learning. There's a really strong focus in the curriculum on outdoor learning, and that's going really well. You do make an important point about assessment. We will continue to participate in PISA, and, obviously, we publish things like our GCSE results, but a really key part of the curriculum, and one that practitioners have asked for more support on, is around assessment, and that can take many forms. That's about an individual child and making sure that they're achieving to the best of their ability and making sure that they are stretched. As part of the work that we're doing with the school improvement partnership programme, which has a really strong focus on schools working together to share good practice, we're also developing an information ecosystem that will help us get a better understanding of how the school system is performing. But we want that to be done in a way that supports the progress of individual learners, rather than as an accountability measure.
Item 5 is next, a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs: a partnership approach to the new compulsory bovine viral diarrhoea scheme. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Huw Irranca-Davies.
Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs
Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Today, I want to talk about how industry and the Government can tackle a challenging, cross-cutting issue together: the eradication of bovine viral diarrhoea, or BVD.
BVD seriously impacts animal health, welfare standards, and food production. It weakens our national herd, reduces milk yields, and it slows down growth. While not a public health or a food safety risk, BVD is a costly disease for farmers at a time when many farmers and farming communities are feeling under pressure. Losses are estimated in the millions of pounds each year because of decreased productivity, higher veterinary costs, and the loss of livestock. Eradicating BVD means a financial boost for the entire industry and a win for the environment. It's not just about happy, healthy cows; stamping it out also strengthens our reputation as a leader in sustainable agriculture, it opens doors to exciting new markets, and it means more opportunities, more growth, and a more prosperous future for our rural communities.
The good news is that BVD is entirely preventable. Working together, we can eradicate it from Wales. In addition to the gains for farmers, eradicating BVD will help Wales as a whole achieve our net-zero targets sooner. The average Welsh herd is made up of 40 cattle. BVD increases the carbon footprint of that herd by around 70 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent every year. When you multiply this by 11,000 herds in Wales, eradicating BVD is a welcome contribution to achieving net zero. Recognising the range of benefits, our current animal health and welfare framework implementation plan outlines our intention to introduce a compulsory programme of BVD screening, underpinned by legislation.
From 2017 to 2022, with support through our rural development programme, industry and Government together made great strides with the voluntary screening programme. Over 80 per cent of cattle herds in Wales took part, of which 28 per cent tested positive for BVD. Within those herds, 940 persistently infected—PI—animals were identified. This is why the new compulsory programme is so important. BVD spreads mainly through persistently infected, or PI, cattle. These cattle are born with the disease, having come into contact with the BVD virus in the womb. They shed the BVD virus and they spread it to native cattle within the herd, leading to illness, reproduction losses, or the birth of more persistently infected animals. So, identifying and then removing PI cattle from the national herd eliminates the source of the disease. This is critical to the success of any BVD eradication programme.
Eradicating BVD in Wales is a long-standing commitment, and I fully support industry and Government working together in close partnership to achieve this. Eighty-nine per cent of respondents during the consultation phase demonstrated the industry's strong support for introducing BVD legislation in Wales. This encouraged the Welsh Government to co-design and to facilitate a compulsory BVD eradication programme alongside cattle sector representatives. I'm very pleased to announce the Welsh Government made the Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (Wales) Order 2024 on 1 July. This pioneering piece of legislation addresses the challenge of eradicating BVD holistically. Its development was driven by dedicated representatives in the cattle, veterinary, and knowledge transfer domains of the industry, and it represents a natural evolution from the voluntary scheme, Gwaredu BVD.
Embarking on this next phase of the BVD eradication programme in Wales is a proud and important step for Wales. I would like to take just a moment and acknowledge our cattle industry’s efforts in paving the way on this. We can achieve BVD eradication through the ongoing efforts of all cattle farmers, working closely with their vets, to screen and protect their herds. So, starting from 1 July 2024, all animals identified as persistently infected are to be restricted on farm for the remainder of their lives and kept separate from the rest of the herd. Under this new legislation, herds in Wales, regardless of their size, type, or location, must undergo annual screening tests for BVD. Cattle keepers will have until 1 July 2025 to complete their first test, which is estimated at £100 per year for the required annual herd testing.
Depending on farm type, eradicating BVD can boost farm profits by £20 to £70 per cow per year. This translates to an additional £2,000 to £14,000 each year per herd. This is a sensible investment in improving the health and productivity of their herd. Farms should invest in protecting the health of their animals, helping to make their businesses more sustainable and more resilient. If herds are not tested by this date, they will be placed under movement restrictions until they receive a BVD-negative antibody test and there is evidence that there are no BVD-infected animals in the herd.
Dirprwy Lywydd, through partnership, the Welsh Government has also developed a BVD database system that will seamlessly integrate with the multispecies Wales livestock tracing system. The database will record the annual test results and will assign BVD statuses for herds and for individual cattle. This will enable farmers to safely source incoming animals and allow industry and the Welsh Government to monitor the progress of BVD eradication across Wales. We are also working in collaboration with cattle industry, veterinary, and knowledge-transfer representatives to establish a BVD governance body. This body will provide advice and support to farmers and vets as well as providing feedback to the Welsh Government to help co-develop any legislative changes needed during the delivery of the programme. The governance body will also be empowered to make decisions to solve operational issues and to design and implement policies within the existing legislation. I'm confident that this innovative partnership approach, with industry leading the charge on BVD eradication, will ensure a successful outcome.
By working together, with the new legislation as our road map, we will stop the spread of BVD, safeguard animal welfare, and maintain a healthy, sustainable cattle industry in Wales. This action will help make our rural communities more prosperous and help Wales as a whole to cut our emissions and tackle the climate emergency. As proud stewards of our land and livestock, we all have a moral responsibility to protect the well-being of our animals and our environment by working together. Farmers, veterinarians, educators and the Welsh Government are making huge strides to make Wales BVD-free.
Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd like to re-emphasise that the Welsh Government is listening to our rural communities and we will continue to listen. Eradicating BVD from Wales is certainly well within our reach. It bears testament to the dedication, collaboration and the shared vision between our farmers, vets, disease experts and our Welsh Government to create a healthier, greener and more prosperous Wales for future generations. To me, Dirprwy Lywydd, that's something worth celebrating. Thank you.
I'd like to thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement this afternoon outlining the Welsh Government's plan to eradicate bovine viral diarrhoea, BVD, from Wales. While I acknowledge the aspiration that the Government has, there are some significant concerns that need to be addressed before I can wholly support the programme that this Government is pursuing.
I think, Cabinet Secretary, this statement does gloss over the substantial costs that farmers will face. The National Beef Association estimated that BVD presence in a herd incurs annual losses of up to £15,000 for some dairy farmers. You talked there about the £100 annual testing cost. That might seem small, but that's not the only cost, is it, Cabinet Secretary? Because there are additional costs for biosecurity measures and veterinary costs. If you're going to have to segregate cattle, you may have to put additional sheds up, and you may have to adapt your land to do that. And those costs could cripple our small farms. So, Cabinet Secretary, can you outline if there are any concrete financial support plans beyond some of the things that you've mentioned today, and will the Welsh Government be offering substantial grants and cost-sharing initiatives to ease that immediate financial burden on our farmers, particularly those in our smaller holdings, because we need clear commitments from the Government about funding on this? It's very good bringing these schemes forward, but if there is no funding to match them, it's going to be very difficult for the agricultural industry.
The programme that you've set seems to adopt quite a uniform approach, and I think that neglects the vast differences between our large and our smaller family-run operations, especially those organic farms that we have in Wales. So, can you elaborate on how the programme will cater for the needs of these diverse farm types, and are there alternative testing protocols and biosecurity measures for organic farmers, so that they can adhere to their certification standards, because a blanket policy across Wales risks alienating and disproportionately affecting those in the sector who do actually struggle to conform to some of these standards that you're setting out?
Eradication is an ambitious goal, and it's one I share—I like to be ambitious and I think we need to be—but I think the programme lacks long-term detail on sustainability. While you mention monitoring, there's no concrete plan that's been outlined. Studies exist, for instance from the Royal Veterinary College, showcasing eradication programmes in other countries that have led to dramatic reductions in BVD and PI calves, but how will the Welsh Government adopt these learnings? What specific long-term programmes are you going to be putting in place to prevent BVD re-emergence, and have you had conversations with vets on how we can actually put those long-term strategies in place to stop this disease in its tracks?
Thank you, James, very much, for those several questions. I can see that we haven't convinced you entirely, but I would simply say to you that this has been, actually, co-produced and led by those in the farming community—those in the cattle sector that have been very keen to see these steps forward, specifically to deal with the eradication of BVD, which has such a significant impact on the productivity of our herds, and actually on the viability of those herds as well. So, in response to your questions about the costs, I noted in my opening remarks—I said on average about £100; actually, for smaller cattle holders, including possibly some of those organics, there is a range. Roughly speaking, it's £6 per animal tested, so on a smaller herd you could be looking at something like £50. On others, it could be £150. Roughly speaking, it's £100 a year. You balance that against the productivity savings, which could be up to £2,000 for a smaller herd, or even £14,000 for a larger herd. I think there's the balance, and that's why those who've co-produced this with us are so supportive of it. So, I hope you can overcome some of your reservations on the cost, because what this does is not only help us with the animal welfare aspects of the herd, help us eradicate BVD, it also deals with carbon emissions, because if you have a healthy herd, all the evidence we’re now seeing—and I know his background within the farming community—shows that better productivity within herds also helps us with the carbon reductions, but it also increases the viability because the cost to those farmers of less productive animals is quite significant. So, it more than outweighs the investment and the, roughly speaking, £6 per animal for the sample testing.
Just to reassure on the longevity of this, when we move to, as I laid out in my initial statement, a system where you have that integration of databases, the information being shared with farmers and accessible to their vets on-farm and so on, these will be tools that are at the disposal of those individual farmers, then, to make decisions, both in terms of cattle movements and bringing new cattle onto the farm, but also in terms of making those on-farm decisions, then, where they have PI animals. It will be for them, then, to make that business decision whether to isolate them and so on.
So, there will be a task over the next year of engaging with the farmers, not only in terms of doing the sample testing before summer 2025, but also working with unions—NFU, FUW—and others who are involved, representative organisations in the farming community, to engage with farmers alongside on-farm veterinarians to explain how this will work, how they can do it in a very straightforward way. There will, for example, be an app brought forward as part of this as well with the database, so that literally the tools are at the disposal of the individual farmer who wants to make use of that; not every farmer will, I appreciate that, but some will want to do it as well.
May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement? I've been a keen supporter of the BVD eradication scheme from the days before it even existed. And, of course, I was very pleased to see that the scheme had come into being, and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to people such as Dr Neil Paton who pushed very hard to see this happening, and who's done so much to prove the value of that broader approach for the industry, for the Government and for others, and that it's a scheme that can make a difference, as you said, in terms of animal well-being, productivity, profit, emissions, and so on and so forth.
But I've also shared the frustration of many on the delay between the end of the funding of BVD eradication and the 18 months to get us to this point where this will become something more permanent, and the fact that there's been a significant decline in the number of those who were coming forward to test for BVD. Perhaps you could explain why the delay. Do you share that frustration? But, of course, the important thing now is that we have reached this point.
Now, what happens now is that the cost and bureaucracy falls more heavily on the shoulders of the sector, and as we have heard, there are questions about the practical impact that that will have. You are clearly saying that there won't be any resources from Government to support that shift within the sector. If so, what will you do to promote the benefits to the sector, because you have highlighted that there will be increased profits from doing this? But how can you sell that to the sector, so that the broader sector—because representatives of different organisations might be buying into this, but on the ground, there needs to be that understanding that this is an investment, and they shouldn't necessarily look at it as a cost burden? But there is an expectation then, if places have been infected, that animals will need to be separated, isolated, kept indoors. There is an infrastructure cost that may be attached to that, and where will you refer people who need that kind of support?
There is a recommendation, of course, that animals should be culled as soon as practically possible. Can you expand on that in terms of 'as soon as practically possible'? I'm sure there will be guidance, but how clear will that guidance be? We don't want a situation such as the one we've seen with TB, where great anxiety is caused unnecessarily. We need clarity, and we need to be able to move very quickly on that front, should the case arise.
What resources are provided to the authorities responsible for enforcing this new regime, because we often say when new regulations are introduced they are only as effective as their enforcement, so that is perhaps something that we need an assurance on?
Llyr, thank you very much for those questions, and thank you as well for, broadly speaking, the welcome for this on the basis that it has been brought forward by people who've been advocating for this for a long, long time, including Dr Neil Paton, but also being brought forward with full co-production. We often overuse that phrase, but this is genuine within this area, with the support of Welsh Government officials, with the support of the office of the chief veterinary officer, and the veterinary sector within the agency as well. But it's genuinely led by those who are dealing with this day by day. It was at their demand. They said, 'We need to deal with this and drive this out of the cattle sector', for all the reasons we've said already. So, thank you for your broad support for it.
But you raised some interesting points there. One aspect there was to do with the support from Government going forward. Well, there is support, it's been support from Government to get to this point, working with industry to get here. There will be support in terms of bringing forward a governance body, which you've touched on. We do need some form of governance, but it needs, as well, to have significant direction within that, again, from the cattle sector itself so that they can adjust, advise on where else we might need to go so that we do eradicate BVD. So, it will have our support in doing that. We'll be bringing forward the databases and the integration of those databases so that we have, at the fingertips of farmers and their on-farm vet, how they can respond to incidents of PI animals, either that are within the herd, or that are brought into the herd.
We will, just to reassure you, as I said to Jane, work with the sector, going forward now in all the clever ways in which we can link to them to explain not just why this is important and why it is so well supported, but how this will work. There is a job of work to be done on this, because not every farmer is connected to a union, not every farmer has regular dynamic engagement with a vet on their farm to the extent that others do. So, we're going to have to use all of those networks of people that we have at our disposal. In the same way that we've co-produced this, we're actually going to have to take forward together the work to explain this. We've got a year to work with all farmers to say, 'You've got till next summer to get your screening, testing, done of your herd.' And it will vary from farm to farm in the nature of those discussions and it will definitely vary in the cost of this as well. But we've worked hard, in co-producing this, to make sure that we keep those costs to a minimum.
The resourcing around enforcement of this—I think that is an important point and I think the group that have brought this together would want to see the right approach to enforcement, because this is all about for the good of the Welsh herd in its entirely and driving out BVD from the whole herd. Now, I have to say, I can give you the assurance there that, even though our on-farm veterinarian services are very stretched, as we've said—and there are ways to resolve that as we go forward—my own, I have to say, very expert and very dedicated team under the chief veterinary officer are also constantly working hard to be right across the piste with this. I have no difficulties in giving the assurance that the enforcement of this in the right way, in the proportionate way in order to eradicate BVD, will be done, and it'll build on the work that's come out of the group's co-produced work as well. There is oversight of this, of course, from Welsh Government. Even when putting the governance body in place, which we will support, there will be oversight from Welsh Government, and, of course, from our office of the chief veterinary officer as well.
I welcome this really positive statement, Cabinet Secretary. I was pleased to see that Welsh Government is tackling this issue and taking an innovative, partnership approach by listening to rural communities and the experts, and I see it as like an invest-to-save programme as well. So, by doing this, we can improve animal health and welfare standards, as well as improving food production, reducing carbon dioxide and boosting farm profits, going forward.
Partnership working is also about having clear and consistent communication with those involved. I hear what you're saying: we've got a year to work on this. So, again, I was interested to know how we're going to be informing the farming community of these changes. It sounds like there's a lot of communication needing to happen; we've got the sustainable farming scheme regarding this, so how will you be doing it? I know that, very often, they work within their own communities, they share machinery, they talk together as well. So, I'm wondering how that would happen. And who will have access to this BVD database, and who will actually be leading on it? Thank you.
Thank you, Carolyn, for that. You are right, the approach to taking this forward I think is a signal of the way that we want to work across a range of sectors and ways of working within Government, which is work with those people on the front line, in this case, literally, in the field, dealing with cattle on a day-to-day basis, and learn from them what the benefits of this will be, as well as the challenges. We're doing this because they came forward and said, 'We have to do this. We can do it. This is something we can genuinely move fast to eradicate, but it will require that screening and testing and isolating until we drive it out.' But the willingness to do that and the partnership working I think has been a signal moment for me. And I think doing that, applying that to other areas, is a good way of working. You're right in saying that it gives those multiple benefits as well, in terms of animal health and welfare, in terms of zero carbon, and also—also—in terms of driving up productivity on individual farms. We know how stretched farms are, of different sizes, and if this will return on that—I agree with what you're saying: it's almost an invest-to-save; it's take the decisions because that will drive up productivity, get more value into those animals, do better for the bottom line of that farm at the end of the year—then that's a great contribution.
And we will need—. The great advantage we do have, which I've always been aware of, is if we use it well, if we work together, we have an incredibly strong network of farmers, farming unions, representative organisations, veterinarians et cetera, plus the work done with young farmers, as James Evans was saying, plus the agricultural schools that we have. All of those need to combine now to both convey the myriad benefits of this approach that we are taking, but also to provide reassurance and help to say, 'This is how you, as an individual farmer, can now take this forward.' But this is something where we can see the goal line—the goal—in front of us, and, working together, this is genuinely something where we can see a disease and we can say, 'We can eradicate this, working together.'
Item 6 today is the Procurement (Wales) Regulations 2024, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Cabinet Office to move the motion—Rebecca Evans.
To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 27.5, approves that the draft The Procurement (Wales) Regulations 2024 is made in accordance with the draft laid in the Table Office on 11 June 2024.
Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Cabinet Office
Thank you. I move the motion to approve the Procurement (Wales) Regulations 2024. Procurement is one of the most effective levers available to deliver our policy ambitions in Wales. Each year, Welsh contracting authorities spend over £8 billion on public procurement. Improving the way we procure can drive innovation and resilience, support our local economy and maximise opportunities to deliver social, environmental, economic and cultural outcomes for Wales.
Our exit from the European Union required that we modernise our procurement legislation. We engaged with stakeholders across Wales, the majority of whom confirmed that they were content with the direction of the UK Government's proposed reforms. They favoured consistency, continuity and clarity for buyers and suppliers on both sides of the border. That's why, on 18 August 2021, I announced that provision for Welsh contracting authorities was to be made within the UK Government's Procurement Bill, which received Royal Assent in October 2023.
These regulations are made using the stand-alone equivalent regulation-making powers for the Welsh Ministers included within the Procurement Act, and it's our intention to make further regulations prior to the commencement of the Act on 28 October 2024. These regulations provide the essential technical and practical detail required to ensure the intended functioning of the Act, including the information that Welsh contracting authorities will need to include in their notices at each stage of the procurement process.
Improved transparency is one of the cornerstones of the new procurement regime, and embedding greater transparency throughout the commercial life-cycle will help to ensure that the spending of Welsh taxpayers' money can be properly scrutinised and that value-for-money outcomes are being achieved. These regulations will enable Welsh contracting authorities to deliver their procurement in a more open, informative and transparent way, whilst ensuring compliance with our international obligations.
I'm grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for the close consideration they have given to these regulations. I'm also grateful to the respondents to the formal public consultation on these regulations, which took place last summer. Their positive and constructive feedback has helped to further develop these regulations prior to them being laid before the Senedd, and I ask Members to approve the regulations today.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered these draft regulations on 24 June. Our report contains 11 technical and two merits reporting points. We had some concerns with the response to our report, and I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her swift reply to the letter that we sent to seek clarity. Unfortunately, the Cabinet Secretary’s response did not alleviate our concerns and we took the unusual step of writing again yesterday afternoon. Our report and the correspondence are available on today’s agenda.
These regulations provide additional detail and requirements that are necessary to ensure the functioning of the Procurement Act 2023. Members will know that the Senedd approved a legislative consent motion for relevant provisions to be included in the now Act. Senedd Committees were told, when they were considering the consent memorandum for the Bill, that Welsh and UK Government officials were working closely on the development of secondary legislation. The Welsh Government subsequently taking responsibility for making regulations for Wales using powers in primary legislation considered by a different Parliament at least gives the Senedd some active control over the law that will apply in Wales.
I want to highlight our reporting points 10 and 11. In Schedule 2 to the regulations, reference is made to the ‘National Assembly for Wales Commission’ and not, as it currently is, the ‘Senedd Commission’. The Welsh Government has said that the UK Government advised that names could not be changed. The response we received also added that, if the UK Government decides to amend the list in its own regulations, the Welsh Government will look to do the same. We asked the Welsh Government to share with us the advice provided by the UK Government, particularly in relation to the name of the Senedd Commission. In any event, we were surprised that the Welsh Government is apparently taking instructions from the UK Government in how to draft its legislation.
The Cabinet Secretary also told us in her letter that, historically, the Welsh Government had no power to amend the names of central Government bodies as a result of international trade obligations. We are genuinely unclear as to how using the correct and current name of the Senedd Commission could possibly pose a risk to the UK's compliance with international trade obligations. We ask that as much detail as possible is offered to the Senedd to provide clarity as to why the Welsh Government has adopted an approach that to us seems, at best, irregular. And, unfortunately, the Cabinet Secretary did not provide us with the UK Government advice she told us the Welsh Government has received and was following.
The Cabinet Secretary will understand that the committee's key role is to assist the Senedd in making good legislation. We are a critical friend. And so I will use my final comments to highlight that there are known defects in these regulations. The Cabinet Secretary has committed to bring forward a further statutory instrument in the autumn to correct four issues my committee has identified. We believe it is important for that to be on the record this afternoon.
Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Cabinet Office
Thank you. Can I just say again how very grateful I am to the committee for the diligent scrutiny that they've undertaken of these regulations? In response to the committee's concerns regarding the list of central Government bodies listed in Schedule 2 to the regulations, the issue that they have raised is both technically and historically complex, and it's linked to our international obligations. Whilst the Welsh Government has the powers to pass laws relating to the observation and implementation of international obligations, it's the UK Government that is responsible for agreeing trade deals for the whole of the United Kingdom, and, historically, this has meant that we've been unable to amend names such as those listed in Schedule 2, as we've lacked the powers to do so. But I do think it's also important to point out that our decision to lay these regulations was driven in part by our commitment to the Welsh stakeholders that we would provide them with sufficient time to prepare effectively before the new regime comes into force. It is critically important that stakeholders have sight of these regulations prior to the go-live date, to inform their own preparations. And although the committee has highlighted certain areas that require correction, failure to correct these matters at this stage doesn't prevent stakeholders from continuing their preparations for the new procurement regime.
As I've noticed in my—noted, I should say—written response to the committee, we're actively exploring options for using powers within the Procurement Act to update the names set out at Schedule 2, as the regulations will not be coming into force until 28 October. And I'm happy to provide assurance that, should this be legally possible, then we will look to amend the names, via future regulations, at the earliest opportunity.
I'd also like to acknowledge the committee's concerns regarding the sharing of information, and I do appreciate the importance of providing as much information as possible to the committee so that it can discharge successfully its obligations to provide effective scrutiny of the proposed regulations. I'd just like to reassure the Chair that my officials and I remain committed to supporting the committee as much as possible with that.
These regulations and the Procurement Act, alongside the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 and the Health Service Procurement (Wales) Act 2024, will provide an effective framework for procurement in Wales, and they'll also initiate a new way forward that will enable the Welsh public sector to leverage the power of procurement and to support the more equal, sustainable and prosperous Wales that we all want to see.
Item 7 is a motion to vary the order of consideration of Stage 3 amendments for the Local Government Finance (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Cabinet Office to move the motion. Rebecca Evans.
We will now take a break before Stage 3 proceedings. The bell will be rung five minutes before we reconvene. I would encourage Members to return to the Chamber promptly, please.
Group 1 is the first group of amendments, which relates to the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, and the functions of that commission. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 26. And I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the lead amendment—[Interruption.]—and the other amendments in the group.
The speech won't be that exciting, I can tell you that.
I'd like to begin, Llywydd, by thanking the Counsel General and his officials and Members of other parties for the constructive and comprehensive work that's happened during the parliamentary journey of this Bill. And I welcome the fact that we have been able to have positive cross-party engagement throughout the legislative process, and it has been respectful and constructive even when there have been differences of opinion, and I look forward to our discussions this afternoon in the same manner. I'd like to thank the clerks and lawyers who have worked hard on this Bill over recent months. The parliamentary staff have been particularly patient and kind in assisting with the broad range of detailed amendments that have been introduced in a number of different areas, as has Plaid's staff team.
Building on Stage 2 proceedings, we continue to seek to strengthen the Bill during Stage 3 in order to safeguard and develop the foundations of Welsh democracy and trust in our democratic institutions in the age of AI and misinformation; to get the fundamentals right in electoral administration and to secure respect for all citizens in terms of equal treatment for our national languages and the rights of disabled voters; building on and ensuring consistency with what the Senedd has already agreed in the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill in terms of the new statutory way of naming constituencies, for example, ensuring alignment between the provisions of both Bills; and finally, strengthening the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru to be a powerful, executive body, responsible for all aspects of developing our democracy, from monitoring and encouraging diversity in devolved politics to co-ordinating and reporting on a programme of work to improve the health of our democracy and to ensure broad participation in devolved elections, from dealing with barriers preventing people from standing as candidates to being a powerhouse for information and expertise on the experience of being an elected member, including unacceptable behaviours. We want to open the door, too, to give additional responsibilities to the body over all aspects of the remuneration of Senedd Members as well as county councillors.
As we are discussing a Bill that essentially has the aim of strengthening the foundations of parliamentary democracy and representative democracy, it's appropriate that the first group of amendments relates to the health of our democracy. Democracy in this state, and across the globe, is in a period of crisis, and closer to home, too, things are a long way from being healthy. Public confidence in our institutions is at its lowest level ever, whilst the shadow of disinformation continues to darken the political discourse. In the meantime, the demagogues and the fraudsters go from strength to strength, undermining the foundations of democratic principles everywhere. We are seeing in France, aren't we, at the moment, the possibility that there will be an extreme right-wing Prime Minister for the first time since the days of Vichy. We are seeing what is happening in the United States, and the appalling decision overnight by the Supreme Court, giving Trump full freedom to operate without any consequences to his behaviour at all. But it is important that we also recognise that we are not free of these dangers and risks within the UK and in Wales too. It is a critical period, and we must respond robustly and creatively to the challenges that we are facing in terms of our democracy.
It's also fair to note that the Westminster Government, under the party that has a few days left in power, has introduced some policies over recent years that have taken us in that wrong direction, including the Public Order Act 2023—a draconian Act to introduce the use of ID in polling stations, which will certainly, in this election, place more disadvantaged individuals and ethnic minorities at a disadvantage that is disproportionate. This threat of slippage in democracy also exists in Wales. There is a lack of awareness among our citizens in terms of devolution, in terms of the constitutional settlement, which emerges, partly, I have to say, from deficiencies in our national media. It's good to see that that has been an issue that we as a Senedd have sought to address in recent times. But there is major, important work still to be done to ensure that our democracy operates on a basis where citizens are aware of how democracy operates.
As a result of this, apathy more generally regarding democracy has increased at all levels in recent decades, which is reflected, for example, in the low voter turnout at all levels of Government, I have to say. We do have a particular problem that we must recognise in terms of the percentages that turn out for Senedd elections. But participation levels at all levels of our elections are unacceptably low, and we must recognise that as one of the things that needs to be resolved in terms of ensuring that our democratic health is improved. We also suffer from a lack of equal status for the Welsh language in this context and practical use of it in the administration of elections, and we'll come to that in due time.
The intention of amendment 27 is to ensure that the democracy commission encourages democratic innovation and it puts a framework in place as to how the commission should exercise its functions for the democratic health of the nation by establishing a unit within the commission that would have responsibility for co-ordinating a programme of work. It suggests some areas that could be reported on, including turnout of elections, and so on and so forth. These amendments all build practically on the conclusions of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, in addition to the excellent work on this subject by other organisations, such as the Wales Centre for Public Policy, commissioned by Government.
A key part of democratic health is also about ensuring that the democratic arena is secure for all candidates and representatives. My final amendment in this group, amendment 36, places a duty on the commission to monitor harassment of elected members and candidates; to establish a particular unit to do that monitoring work; and to report on the findings of that monitoring, which could feed in to a comprehensive annual report on democratic health.
There is no doubt, unfortunately, that another element of the crisis that we are facing is the appalling levels of threats, violence and intimidation and harassment that are targeted at politicians, particularly female politicians, and other members of oppressed groups—ethnic minority groups, for example, and LGBT people. The murders of Jo Cox and David Amess do outline the most appalling outcomes of this. But, despite the ongoing efforts to tackle this issue, the truth of the matter is that very many politicians today have to ask for police protection from day to day, and also we know that this leads to people leaving politics, particularly women, particularly those from ethnic minorities and other oppressed groups, and that is not acceptable.
What we're asking for through this amendment is that we do have information that provides us with that data, as a baseline, to assess the success of any interventions that we and the Government put in place in order to tackle the issue. Unless we have a monitoring unit—. And such monitoring units have now been created by other Parliaments around the globe. The Dáil recently, in Ireland, have discussed this. So why can't we do that at the Welsh level in order to ensure that we do have a unit that not only monitors, but also provides advice, support, practical support, which advises people on what they can do if they do face that kind of harassment? So, there are things in the pipeline, and Counsel General will mention those. But why not bring them all together in one place in order to ensure that we do tackle a problem that has such a negative impact on our democracy? And with those few words, I will conclude for now.
For Members' information, 10 minutes is the time limit for contributions, but I was generous there because it was the Member's first contribution to this debate. Maybe I won't be so generous next time. The Counsel General to respond.
Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I hope, in due course, you'll be as generous with myself, if the need arises. The matters that Adam has raised are indeed very important matters—matters that, I think, exercise all of our minds. The Bill does contain a number of changes and implications for the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, and these will need to be prioritised to avoid jeopardising delivery. So, I won't be supporting the amendments.
I do want to thank Adam for the amendments, though, because they are related to important issues that we will need to consider in due course. They do add a function for the DBCC—Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru—delegated to the electoral management board, of advising the Welsh Ministers on issues relating to the democratic health of Wales, as well as requiring a unit within the DBCC to support this function and to report. I accept that these issues could indeed be helpful and are matters of importance for the EMB, or the wider DBCC, to consider in the future. As Members will know, the issue of democratic health is a serious matter of concern for me. It's one I've mentioned numerous times, and it is underpinning the consideration of all our work on electoral reform. We may indeed need to look to add these functions at a later date through subordinate legislation. I fear that adding them at this point could jeopardise the DBCC's immediate focus, and that's why I'm not supporting them. I have real concerns about overloading at a time when we are engaging on such an important and fundamental transformation of the way our electoral system will be managed.
Turning to amendment 36, whilst it highlights a matter of great concern for the Welsh Government, I think it goes beyond the current intended remit of the DBCC. There are already mechanisms for reporting political harassment, abuse and intimidation of elected representatives through the public services ombudsman, local standards committees, the Senedd standards committee, and a range of regular surveys. That is the main reason, but just to say that of course there is ongoing work in this area. It's an area of work where officials are in regular engagement with the Jo Cox Foundation, working with the Welsh Local Government Association, One Voice Wales, and wider shareholders. So, I don't want to reduce the importance of what the Member is actually saying. I just think, at this moment in time, it's ensuring that we prioritise and focus these transformations and changes to ensure that they are up and running and in a position to fulfil their functions for 2026. But this is an ongoing process. Diolch, Llywydd.
As you were so generous with my opening remarks, I don't want to keep us too long. Thank you for that considered response from the Counsel General. We are still of the view that there is merit in being specific on these other functions. I understand that there is no disagreement on the aims. But with those full comments, I would like to proceed to a vote, please.
The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, and therefore we will proceed to a vote on amendment 26. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote on this amendment is tied. Therefore, I will use my casting vote in accordance with the Standing Orders, against amendment 26. Therefore, the result of the vote is that there were 26 for, no abstentions, and 27 against.
The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 27. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 26 against. Therefore, amendment 27 is not agreed.
Group 2 is next and these amendments relate to electoral registration. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 7. Peter Fox to move the amendment.
Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you for enabling me to take part in this important debate today. I'd also like to extend my thanks to the Bill team and everybody who's worked so hard on this, and to the Counsel General for his engagement, and I do thank you for that, and to Adam Price, who's worked closely with us as well. You'll be pleased to know that I haven't a long preamble, but there are important issues within this Bill that we are not content with, hence the amendments we're bringing forward. So, I'll talk to my amendments 7 and 8, but we will also be supporting Adam Price's amendments in this group.
So, amendment 7 increases the notice period of 45 days to 60 days, after which somebody will be registered to vote without application. The increase to 60 days will provide more time for the vulnerable to be able to opt out if needed. We need to be careful with people’s information, as people are often wishing to remain anonymous for a good reason, and it’s for this reason that we are aiming to increase the notice period. While we appreciate that the Counsel General mentioned at Stage 2 that 45 days will be reviewed, the Welsh Conservatives believe that being provided with more time can only benefit vulnerable people.
Amendment 8 calls for a review on the effectiveness of the changes to the operation of electoral registration. This will provide us with a clear picture of how effective the measures have been and what more can be done to improve voter turnout and make it easier for people to participate in democracy. And as I said, Llywydd, we will be supporting both of Adam Price’s amendments in this group.
I'd like to thank Peter Fox for his amendments in this group. As a party, we're very supportive of the measures in this Bill to introduce electoral registration without application, and we believe that this is an initial step that can increase electoral participation in Wales. For those reasons, we don't support amendment 7, because we agree with the Government's rationale that the 45-day notice period is adequate. However, we still recognise the importance of reviewing policies on an ongoing basis, so we're happy to support amendment 8.
Turning to my amendments in this group, the purpose of amendment 28 is to ensure that applications for automatic registration are as flexible and easy as possible, specifically through deleting the need for any elector in Wales who wishes to register anonymously to provide the evidence, and to remove the need to renew their registration for anonymous registration.
The purpose of amendment 29 is to establish clear rules on the rights of constituents or electors who are registered in more than one abode, something that has been important in Wales for a number of years, as well as where the issue of second homes is a challenge. It's worth noting that around 36,000 people live in second homes in Wales for periods during the year, a significant number who could have a major impact on Welsh elections in the future, despite the fact that they do not live permanently in that accommodation.
A number of efforts have been made over a number of years in Westminster, for example, to deal with the situation that currently exists, where someone, because they have a second home, can vote or can choose to vote between more than one constituency. We are of the view that that is fundamentally undemocratic. The fact that you have access to more property doesn't in our view give you rights to have greater freedom to decide in elections where you will cast your vote, and that should be reflected in the electoral system, particularly for national elections.
We believe that action is needed to deal with the lack of clarity on this issue, and it's worth noting that local registration officers do have the right to challenge people who have second homes under the 1B process, as it is known. They can question anyone who is on the register to determine whether they do have adequate local connection. But in reality, of course, that isn't implemented—consistently, at least—and I believe we need that statutory assurance to say that having a second house somewhere doesn't give you the right to vote in that area. You should be voting where your main home is located. We do set out some reasonable exceptions in this regard—people who have to be away from their main residence for an extended period for reasons related to employment, service, education and so on. But if you are not registered because you have a second home somewhere, that shouldn't be reflected in our democracy, in my view.
Diolch, Llywydd. Can I thank Peter Fox and Adam Price for their contributions? I'll speak first to amendment 7. Amendment 7, as has been mentioned, changes the 45-day notice period of intention to register by the registration officer to 60 days. I am able to support this amendment. We will be piloting registration without application and the waiting period will be evaluated as part of this, so I feel that, although I still remain of the view in terms of 45 days being appropriate, bearing in mind that there will be the pilot, this is a concession that can reasonably be made, and then we will evaluate.
Amendment 28 would remove the requirement for an applicant of anonymous registration to provide evidence in support of their application for the local government register in Wales. It would also allow someone to remain anonymously registered until they requested to be removed from the anonymous register for the local government register in Wales. So, this amendment would create a different anonymous registration system for the local government register in Wales to that for the UK parliamentary register. This amendment, therefore, wouldn't reduce the administrative burden on the electors, as they would still have to complete a yearly evidence-based application in order to remain on the parliamentary register.
I do not support this amendment. Registering to vote anonymously is also something that is specifically reserved for electors who can demonstrate that the publication of their details on the electoral register would put the safety of the applicant or a member of their household at risk. Inclusion of an elector as an anonymous elector on the register means that their details are only available to a very restricted list of organisations and would prevent them from certain activities, for example receiving electoral mailshots. So, that's why we continue to believe that anonymous registration should only be used for those who really need it for that specific purpose. Anonymous registration is reserved for the most grave circumstances, and it needs to be evaluated on a yearly basis to provide the chance for any changes in the elector's circumstances to be reflected. Keeping Welsh provision around anonymous registration in line with all other parts of the UK is also essential for the elector and to reduce confusion. Keeping people and their data as safe as possible is of the utmost importance and these amendments I think present serious risk to that.
Supporting voters' positive engagement with electoral registration processes is very important to us, which is why additional safeguards have been built into our automatic registration provisions where, if an elector does not want to be automatically registered, they're able to opt out of the system once they have received their notice of registration. They will then be able to follow the usual individual electoral registration process.
Thank you, Llywydd, and can I thank the Counsel General for agreeing to support our amendment 7? I appreciate that, and I acknowledge your position regarding amendment 8. I don't feel there's more I need to say, Llywydd.
The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we will proceed to a vote on amendment 7. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 40, no abstentions and 12 against. Amendment 7 is agreed.
Yes, it's moved. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection; we will proceed to a vote on amendment 28. Open the vote. The result of the vote is tied, so—. Close the vote. I will use my casting vote against the amendment, and therefore the final result is that 26 are in favour, no abstentions and 27 are against. The amendment is not agreed.
Yes, it is being moved by Peter Fox. Is there objection to amendment 8? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection to amendment 8. We'll proceed to a vote, therefore, on amendment 8. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied, therefore, I will use my casting vote against amendment 8. The result is that there are 26 in favour, no abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.
Yes, it is. Is there objection? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 29. Open the vote. The vote is tied. Close the vote. I will use my casting vote against the amendment. The result is that there are 26 in favour, no abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 29 is not agreed.
The next group of amendments is group 3, which relates to Welsh elections piloting powers and regulations. Amendment 9 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on Peter Fox to move amendment 9.
Diolch, Llywydd. Amendment 9 calls for the elections cycle for local authority elections to be changed to four years, as this will avoid a clash between Senedd elections and local authority elections. As an ex-council leader, I know the importance of accountability and security, and reducing the cycle from five years would give voters a chance to hold their local authorities to account. It's only through good scrutiny and the ability to hold our elected representatives to account that we get good leadership.
I want to briefly touch on amendment 11, which highlights the need for the Welsh Government to consult with stakeholders representing a range of vulnerable groups to be involved in planning pilots relating to electoral registration without application. We need to ensure that vulnerable groups are supported and that their best interests are kept when they are automatically enrolled, and that proper safeguards are put in place to prevent any manipulation or coercion.
Finally, I want to address amendment 12, which will ensure that the Welsh Government conducts pilots across a geographical range of areas, including rural and urban areas. This will ensure that we get a full understanding of the effects of any pilots and how they will affect different parts of society. Diolch.
We support amendment 9 to pilot an electoral cycle of four years for local elections, aligning it with the new Senedd electoral cycle. We also recognise the value of amendment 12 to create a duty to pilot in rural and urban areas, where appropriate, in order to get comprehensive data on the impact of different pilots in different areas. As we mentioned during Stage 2, we oppose amendments 10 and 11, as removing the enforcement powers to require local authorities to take part in pilots where necessary could actually impact their effectiveness, and the need for further consultation before piloting automatic registration could be a barrier to one of the central aims of this legislation, in our view.
Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you, Peter Fox, for opening the debate on the amendments in this group, and thanks also for the contribution made by Adam Price. I'll speak first to amendment 9. This amendment adds frequency of electoral cycles to the list of matters that can be piloted. I don't support the amendment as I do not believe it is practical in its application. Local elections are held on an all-Wales basis, helping to raise awareness and participation in the elections. The effect of a pilot in one area would likely mean permanent differences between elections.
Turning to amendment 10, this amendment would remove the Welsh Ministers' power to conduct electoral pilots without the local authority's consent. The ability to properly conduct pilots is essential to evaluating the changes being proposed. This means that sometimes Welsh Ministers may need to compel a specific authority so that the demographic profile of Wales is properly represented through the piloting process. We have to ensure that safeguards are in place so that this is only used when entirely necessary, so I therefore don't support this amendment.
Amendment 11 would require the Welsh Ministers to consult with stakeholders to electoral registration without application. The Welsh Ministers must undertake consultation with such stakeholders as they consider appropriate, but, in particular, with those that they deem to represent vulnerable groups. So, I'm able to support this amendment, and to confirm that we are committed to not only consulting with, but also, Peter, to working closely with, our stakeholders to develop the best possible pilot proposals. This includes working closely with those representing vulnerable voters, voters with additional needs and those in hard-to-reach groups.
Finally, with regard to amendment 12, this amendment would require pilot regulations, where appropriate, to ensure that pilots cover a geographical range of areas across Wales, including both rural and urban areas. The amendment is overly restrictive and I, therefore, do not support it. It might, for instance, prove necessary to conduct pilots looking at issues specific to different types of area, such as, for example, voting in rural areas. Diolch, Llywydd.
Thank you, and thank you, once again, Counsel General, for the positive input there to our amendments, certainly amendment 11. Again, I hear your views on the other amendments, and I see little point in trying to challenge that.
The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 9. Open the vote. The vote is tied, therefore I will use my casting vote. And the result of the vote is that there are 26 in favour, no abstentions, 27 against. And therefore, amendment 9 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 10. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 10 is not agreed.
Yes, it's been moved. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 11. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 39, no abstentions, 13 against. Amendment 11 is agreed.
It's been moved. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. Therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 12. Open the vote. The vote is tied, therefore I will use my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, the result of the vote is that there are 26 in favour, 27 against. And amendment 12 is not agreed.
Group 4 is the next group of amendments. These amendments relate to electoral reform regulations. Amendment 13 is the lead amendment. Peter Fox to move the amendment. Peter Fox.
Diolch, Llywydd, and I do move the amendment. These amendments will ensure that regulations will not remove or create any criminal offences. I'm concerned that the Bill would give Ministers powers to modify offences through regulation rather than through proper scrutiny. This will give the Senedd, and therefore the people of Wales, more powers to scrutinise and hold Ministers to account. It's for this reason that we've tabled these amendments. That's all I need to say, Llywydd.
Diolch, Llywydd. Well, I thank Peter Fox for tabling the amendments, but I won't be supporting amendments 13 or 14. Electoral law already specifies numerous offences in various situations, so amendment 13 would, essentially, exclude these entirely from all future reform regulations, which would be unworkable. Amendment 14 is also overly restrictive and could have unintended consequences for making changes to the electoral administration system that are of benefit to voters, so I therefore do not support it. Diolch, Llywydd.
Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you, Counsel General. Whilst we understand that you feel that these amendments are overly restrictive, it is due to the desire to have more accountability and transparency that we've tabled these amendments, and it's for that reason we are slightly disappointed that you're unable to support them, but happy to continue.
The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 13. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 13 is not agreed.
Is there objection? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 14. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 14 is not agreed.
Group 5 is next. This group of amendments relates to assistance for voters with disabilities. Peter Fox will be moving the lead amendment, amendment 15. Peter Fox.
Diolch, Llywydd. While I appreciate the work that Adam Price has done in advocating for partially sighted voters, amendment 15 inserts a provision that requires the rules for local elections in Wales to contain certain requirements on the facilities available in polling stations for persons with disabilities, where it's reasonable to do so. This will encompass the amendment that Adam Price has put forward, which we will also be supporting, as well as ensuring that people with a wide range of disabilities will be supported in taking part in the electoral process on the day. While it can be argued that people can vote by post or via proxy already, my amendment provides more autonomy and empowers a wide range of people to vote in person, something that's a fundamental right in our society, and it's for this reason that we encourage people to support these amendments.
May I thank Peter Fox for introducing amendment 15, which aims to deliver a similar aim to our own amendment in this group, namely to ensure that disability is not a barrier to the fundamental right to vote? We are very content to support this amendment.
The purpose of our amendment is to extend this crucial principle to include specific provisions to assist partially sighted and blind voters. Following discussions with the RNIB following Stage 2, we have added wording to our original amendment to make it clear that these electors do have the right to cast a vote without the need for them to be further assisted by another individual, and that's been raised during the Westminster election period recently. Because the reality is that, more than 150 years since the Voting Act, which guaranteed the right to vote independently and in secret for some, at least, blind and partially sighted people continue to be deprived of their most fundamental democratic right.
Voting is a visual practice of reading the ballot paper to find the correct box that is relevant to your own choice of candidate, and to place a mark in that box. This means that the vast majority of blind people are forced to share their voting intentions either with a member of the family, a friend or the staff at a polling station. Blind voters say that they feel that they are being belittled and disappointed by the system, and in some cases they aren't even sure who they actually voted for, which is entirely unacceptable.
As the recent report by the RNIB on this issue emphasises, fewer than one in five—19 per cent—of blind voters were able to cast their vote independently and secretly in the elections held in 2021, for example. It's about time that we tackle this democratic deficit, and the technology is available, including tactile and audio solutions.
I would also like to praise Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan councils who have taken it upon themselves to establish a service that reads ballot papers over the phone to support blind and partially sighted voters. The RNIB is working with both authorities to promote and evaluate this phone service. This shows that solutions are possible and that this issue could be resolved quite simply without incurring additional costs, if the political will to do that existed.
I have to say that I wasn't content with the Counsel General's response on this issue at Stage 2. There is inconsistency in the Government's view, insisting on the one hand that these provisions can be introduced by subordinate legislation, whilst also claiming that introducing these standards will create inconsistency between Welsh elections and Westminster elections. We are clear that we have an opportunity to lead the way in Wales, and that it is primary legislation that is the best vehicle to deliver this. We will therefore be moving this amendment.
Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you for all the points that have been made, and they've been well made. My preferred approach, as I did say at Stage 2, is to place duties on returning officers via subordinate legislation. The Welsh Government and, certainly, I want to make Welsh elections as accessible as possible for all voters. I am very keen to learn from other elections, including the general election later on this week, to make sure that we get this right for Wales. So, whilst I agree with the principles of the amendments, I'm not supporting these amendments due to the election rules framework in place in Wales.
As I set out at Stage 2, and it's already been mentioned, our preferred approach is to place duties on returning officers via the rules contained in secondary legislation to provide such equipment as is reasonable to help disabled people vote independently according to Electoral Commission guidance.
Amendment 30 would require returning officers to consider guidance from the Welsh Government, rather than the independent and impartial Electoral Commission. I don't think this is preferable. It would also lead to different duties and different guidance for returning officers for reserved and devolved elections in relation to accessibility. This could cause complexity for electoral administrators and confusion for voters. But I am very keen to learn from existing research and feedback from recent elections and, as I've said, from the forthcoming general election, to ensure that we do get this right for Wales.
But I do think that it should be via secondary legislation and Electoral Commission guidance and other measures, rather than a duty on the face of this Bill. Feedback from recent elections has shown that voter awareness could be improved, and we are looking at that through the elections information platform as well. These issues should be addressed in secondary legislation, where similar provisions are already located. These are set out in the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007, known as the conduct Order, and the local elections rules 2021.
The Bill itself will provide a level of accountability by placing a duty on the Electoral Commission to report on the steps taken by returning officers to assist persons with disabilities to vote at the election. This approach will mirror that taken by the Elections Act 2022, and it means that there can be local flexibility to provide appropriate equipment and support to remove barriers to voting independently and in secret, whilst also giving voters a consistent experience between Welsh and reserved elections. We still have the option to consider further provisions, as we develop secondary legislation.
For Senedd elections, we have made a commitment to consolidate and restate the law as part of an accessible, bilingual framework, for the first time, ahead of the 2026 election. We intend to consult on a bilingual consolidated draft Order, so that stakeholders will have an opportunity to consider proposed changes in detail. We look forward to and very much value continued engagement with all stakeholders in the development of this secondary legislation.
Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you, Counsel General, and thank you for agreeing with the principles of what we were trying to achieve in our amendments. I do think this is a missed opportunity. I hear what you're saying around secondary legislation and developing this, but, clearly, we all want to make democracy as accessible to as many people as possible, and I reiterate that I think this is a missed opportunity; we could've done that here and now, but thank you, Llywydd.
The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 15. Open the vote. The vote is tied. I will use my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, the result of the vote is that there are 26 in favour, no abstentions, 27 against. Amendment 15 is not agreed.
Yes, it's moved. Is there objection to amendment 30? [Objection.] Yes, there is. We'll proceed to a vote on amendment 30. Open the vote. The vote is tied, therefore I will use my casting vote against the amendment. The result is that there are 26 in favour, 27 against. Amendment 30 is not agreed.
Group 6 is the next group of amendments. These amendments relate to diversity in persons seeking elected office. Amendment 16 is the lead amendment and the only amendment. I call on Peter Fox to move the amendment.
Thank you, Llywydd. I'm sure we are all aware of the increasing levels of harassment that many candidates receive across every political party. This amendment seeks to ascertain more information as to what consideration the Minister has given to including issues of harassment and abuse when it comes to questions surrounding candidates' experiences, as gathering this data will help us to understand the scale of abuse and harassment. It also provides candidates the chance to highlight these concerns when they are subject to this abhorrent behaviour. It is hoped that with more recording of these experiences, more can be done to prevent this, which in turn will enable more people to feel comfortable about standing for election. Diolch, Llywydd.
Diolch Llywydd. Thank you, Peter, for opening this debate. I'll speak to amendment 16.
The amendment would require candidate surveys to include questions about candidates’ experience of abuse and harassment. As I explained during Stage 2 proceedings, the Bill seeks to support greater flexibility and relevance of the survey, so it's important to keep flexibility on questions that can be asked in surveys, and in particular given amending primary legislation is time consuming and costly. Development of the survey will include extensive engagement with stakeholders. Currently, the issue of abuse and harassment is high on the agenda of these discussions. Previous surveys have therefore included questions on abuse and harassment without the need for the requirement to be specified in primary legislation, which is why I'm not supporting the amendment. Diolch, Llywydd.
Thanks, Llywydd. So, Counsel General, whilst I understand the concern about how this will impact, perhaps, the flexibility of the survey, I think it is important that this is documented and addressed, as without doing so, more people will just not feel comfortable in standing for election. That's why I thought it was important to bring this amendment forward.
The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 16. Open the vote. The vote is tied. I will use my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, the result of the vote is that there are 26 in favour, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 16 is not agreed.
Group 7 is the next group of amendments, and these relate to a Welsh elections information platform. Amendment 17 is the lead amendment, and I call on Peter Fox to move the amendment.
Diolch, Llywydd. I move my amendment. I want to begin by speaking to my amendments and raising my concerns surrounding the issue of the creation of a Welsh elections information platform. I think there are some issues surrounding free speech and impartiality as well as data protection.
Over the last few weeks and months, we have seen several data leaks across a variety of high-value targets, so I think we need to be incredibly careful as to how we use data and situations where it's collated in one place. I also think there is an issue surrounding the platform's independence and perceived independence. I can envisage a situation where the platform refuses to publish a candidate's statement, calling its independence into question. Vice versa, I can see a situation where a candidate deliberately tries to create a statement that is published in order to make a political point. Whilst I see the argument for improving voter understanding and knowledge of candidates, I do not agree that a central platform created by this legislation is the way forward.
The other concern I have is the issue of legal liability when it comes to candidate statements. While we will be opposing amendment 31, as we don't support the information platform, we will be supporting Adam Price's amendments 32, 33 and 34, which outline the growing concerns we all have surrounding artificial intelligence.
We do oppose amendments 17 and 18 because we strongly believe that creating this platform is an excellent opportunity to raise levels of democratic engagement and public awareness of how democracy works. In light of this, we have also introduced amendment 31 to expand the scope of the information that is distributed on the platform, including information relating to polling stations, voting systems, background information on devolved elections in Wales, and issues related to the democratic health of Wales. This will create a one-stop shop, therefore, for electors to expand their understanding of our democratic systems and how they have evolved in the 25 years since the dawn of devolution.
We also believe that this platform has an important role to play, as Peter Fox mentioned, in terms of monitoring the influence of AI and deepfake technologies in elections. As I mentioned at the beginning of this debate, there is a clear threat to our democracy emerging from the abuse of technology, and without robust regulation in this area we will be opening the door to the abuse of our electoral processes.
The purpose of amendments 31, 32, 33 and 34, therefore, is to enable the platform to be used to make people aware of the use of AI in electoral literature, requiring all electronic material created by AI to be registered on the platform with an appropriate digital signifier in accordance with the Elections Act 2022. This will ensure transparency by having one area where all of this electronic material is available, so that civil society, digital rights campaigners, academics and citizens more generally can see what is being put out in the digital ether, much of it including inaccurate information, much of it using AI for incorrect purposes, and much of it related to deepfake video and audio.
These amendments reflect the current legislative frameworks already introduced across the world. For example, the EU has introduced a very broad framework regulation on the use of AI in elections, and what they've introduced is the right to know that AI has been used in digital electoral material, as we suggest here. Likewise, the need for regulatory oversight as regards fake videos, namely deepfake technology, is something that has become more and more apparent in recent years. Some of you will have perhaps seen the Dispatches documentary on Channel 4 recently on this very subject, which was quite frightening, if I'm honest, as to the potential for this technology to have a detrimental impact on our democracy. There were examples in the Slovakian election, of deepfake audio in that case, which did have an influence, according to some, on the outcome of that election, and also during recent elections in India.
There is inconsistency at the moment in terms of the oversight of public political material, where on the one hand there are clear rules for traditional news broadcasters, but virtually nothing that relates to social media companies, which share this fake content, as well as the companies producing the content. It is something that could have very dangerous implications for the integrity of our political discourse over coming years, and we can't afford to remain static.
Imagine, if you may, that you are a disabled voter in Wales. Let's say you have to use a wheelchair. You go to the polling station to cast your vote, as is your human right, and then you find you can't get up the steps. There's no ramp set up or the lift isn't working. Or let's say you're legally blind. You get to the polling station, you ask for a tactile voting device. The polling staff looked confused—they have very little understanding of the accessibility arrangement for this polling station. They call up the presiding officer, they dig through some boxes and boxes of gear to find it for you, if they even have one in the first place. It's no wonder now that many disabled voters prefer to use postal votes, but even that is full of issues. If you require someone else to vote for you, you are, by definition, excluded from your right to a secret ballot. It can make you feel helpless, dehumanised, to know that this is permitted to happen in a democratic society. And this isn't just a hypothetical situation; this is the reality for thousands of people or voters across Wales. I'll give you an example. On election day, for this Senedd, I was in Llanover Hall, my polling station, to vote, obviously, for myself. I could hear a visually impaired person telling a polling clerk that he wanted to vote for that nice man Mark Drakeford. I was obviously disappointed—that wasn't the first time I'd heard similar sentiment—but it was clearly so unfair that that voter could not exercise his right for a secret ballot. Research from RNIB Cymru has shown that fewer than one in five blind voters are able to cast their votes independently and in confidence. Research by Democracy Volunteers showed that 15 per cent of polling stations they observed in the last Senedd election were not easily accessible to disabled voters. That surely isn't fair. My amendment changes the section on the Welsh elections information platform, to make sure that all voters, no matter their disability, are able to be informed of the accessibility arrangements for their local polling station. This means they can plan ahead, apply for an emergency proxy or postal vote, if necessary, but, more importantly, it gives them the confidence to know what is on offer for them, which could very well be the deciding factor on whether they vote at all. If even one more disabled voter casts a vote in an independent and secret way as a result of this amendment, to me that would be a great success.
But this is far from the end of the story. We need to work with election authorities to prevent a hierarchy developing with regard to disabilities. The Electoral Commission's guidance to polling staff says that every site should at minimum make available a tactile voting device, a polling booth at wheelchair level, magnifiers and pencil grips. This is what will hopefully be enforced through Peter Fox's amendment 15, and that's very good. That's commendable. But what about easy-read ballots? What about large-print ballots? What about hearing loops and audio devices? Postal votes are able to be given in large print or braille or audio format. Why can't we have the same in the polling station? This is why my amendment is crucial. It is important that, when voters go to the polling station, they know they aren't just getting the bare minimum support, that they aren't a pain, that they're getting real, comprehensive support without the need to ask. They need to know before they head out the door what's available, whether there will be a ramp, whether there will be magnifiers, whether there will be audio devices. Crucially, on our end, it will allow us to hold polling stations to a higher standard of quality, to ensure that every voter is granted their right to a private and independent vote. We need to do the right thing for our disabled constituents, to ensure accessibility information is available in a one-stop shop, not scattered across the internet, not hidden in a local authority website. A poll by the disability charity, Sense, showed that 47 per cent—nearly half—of disabled people believe that they are not important to political parties, and, therefore, not important to this Senedd. This, tonight, is our opportunity to say, 'You are not forgotten by this Senedd, you will be included in Senedd reform, and your vote, your voice, matters to us all.' Diolch yn fawr.
If I might just start, because there have been several references to the RNIB—I might have mentioned this in one of the earlier amendments, but it's equally been raised here—just to say that we are in regular engagement with the RNIB. In fact, there was a meeting with officials and them on 24 June, really to talk about legislative intentions, but also the lessons being learnt from the recent police and crime commissioner elections and also in terms of the learning process that will apply to the elections on 4 July, and we will be working with them in terms of undertaking user testing of audio devices and solutions such as telephone services et cetera in the Welsh context, and to consider potential developments and solutions and examples since the implementation of the Elections Act 2022. I really wanted to get that on the record, because that matter has been raised and I think it's important that it's out in the public domain.
Amendment 17 would remove the duty on Welsh Ministers to provide an elections information platform. We have made a commitment to provide the people of Wales with an information platform to support their engagement with Welsh democracy. We did consult on this, and there was overwhelming support for such a platform, ensuring that Welsh Ministers must provide such support to Welsh voters, and that, I think, will give considerable help to improving democratic participation in Wales.
Amendment 18 would remove the transparency currently provided for in the provisions. The list of issues to be included in the regulations is not exhaustive, but will set out those issues that must be provided for. The amendment would also remove the exemption from liability for information on the platform. So, I don't support either of these amendments.
If I turn to Adam Price's amendments, 32 and 34 relate to the use of artificial intelligence. These are unnecessary as the regulations can already set out the information to be included, therefore it doesn't need to be set out on the face of the Bill. Amendment 33 adds to the purposes of the platform and would undermine it as a host of reliable, neutral information plus candidate statements. It may create an unwieldy platform if all material covered by the Elections Act digital imprints regime were to be included. It is also unnecessary as the regulation-making powers are already comprehensive.
Can I thank Rhys ab Owen for his amendment, which I will be supporting? The regulations and content on the platform will be informed by extensive engagement with partners and the electoral community. We will work closely with our stakeholders to understand what information will be of most use to electors and how to make the platform as accessible as possible. Diolch, Llywydd.
Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you, Counsel General. It was remiss of me not to mention Rhys ab Owen's amendment 1, which he eloquently described and that we will be supporting also.
Counsel General, we recognise the commitment that the Welsh Government have made, but we really need to take into consideration how these different platforms can be used for political point scoring. So, I do hope that the Government will do all it can to make sure that the chances of that are reduced. Thank you, Llywydd.
If amendment 17 is agreed, amendments 18, 31, 1, 32, 33 and 34 will fall. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 17. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 17 is not agreed.
Yes, it has been moved by Peter Fox. If amendment 18 is agreed, amendments 31 and 1 will fall. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. [Objection.] There is an objection. Therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 18. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against. Amendment 18 is not agreed.
Yes, it has been moved. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 31. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 31 is not agreed.
Yes. Is there objection to amendment 32? [Objection.] Yes, there is, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 32. The vote is tied, therefore I will use my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, the result of the vote is that there were 26 in favour, no abstentions, and 27 against. So, amendment 32 is not agreed.
Yes, it is. Is there objection to amendment 33? [Objection.] Yes, there's objection. We'll proceed to a vote on amendment 33. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied, and therefore I will use my casting vote against amendment 33, and the result is that there were 26 in favour and 27 against, and the amendment is not agreed.
Is there an objection? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 34. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied, and therefore I will use my casting vote against amendment 34. Therefore, the result is that there were 26 in favour, 27 against, and therefore amendment 34 is not agreed.
The next group of improvements is the eighth group, and these relate to the financial assistance scheme and the operation of that. Amendment 35 is the lead amendment, and I call on Adam Price to move the lead amendment and speak to the group.
Thank you. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that there are specific provisions on expenses available for electoral candidates. In addition to some of the other amendments already introduced, these amendments will ensure that participation in our democracy is open to all, whatever their personal circumstances. We also support amendment 19 in this group in the name of Peter Fox, which will ensure that the relevant information on financial provision is available to the public.
We will be supporting Adam Price's amendment 35, as this amendment will enable people from all parts of society to be able to stand for election. It is for the same reason that we have tabled amendment 19. The public being more aware of any financial assistance ahead of any relevant election will help to alleviate any concerns or apprehensions that people have about running for elected office. It's for this reason that we urge Members to support these amendments.
Amendment 35 would allow Welsh Ministers to make regulations making provisions for candidate care and support costs to enable them to participate in the election. The provision in the Bill as introduced enables schemes for financial assistance to be provided to candidates with specified characteristics or circumstances, as specified in regulations. These regulations could include care and support costs. Therefore this amendment is not required, and I do not support it.
Turning to Peter Fox’s amendment 19, I fully agree that promoting awareness of financial assistance schemes is essential to attract candidates with the specified circumstances or characteristics and ensure the assistance available is maximised. However, the optimal time for awareness raising would be after consulting on and making the regulations, when the scheme is available to potential candidates and when people are considering putting themselves forward for selection. I therefore do not support this amendment. Diolch, Llywydd.
The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 35. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied. I will therefore use my casting vote against the amendment. And therefore, the result of the vote is that there were 26 in favour and 27 against, and amendment 35 is not agreed.
Yes. Is there objection to amendment 19? [Objection.] Yes. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 19. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied. In favour 26, and 26 against. I use my casting vote against the amendment, therefore. The result is that there were 26 in favour, and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 19 is not agreed.
Yes. Is there objection? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, and therefore we will proceed to a vote on amendment 36. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied. I will therefore use my casting vote against amendment 36. The result is that there were 26 in favour, no abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 36 is not agreed.
Group 9 is next, which relates to Welsh language requirements for returning officers. Amendment 37 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on Adam Price to move this amendment.
Thank you, Llywydd. Amendments 37, 38 and 51 enable the Welsh Language Commissioner to give a compliance notice to returning officers and thereby making them open to compliance with Welsh language standards regulations in the future. Using primary legislation as a vehicle to add bodies or sectors to sets of standards regulations that are already agreed by the Senedd is a long-established way of delivering the aim, and is one that has been effective and acceptable to Government in other contexts, including the public services ombudsman and the citizen voice body.
We go into detail about what set of standards would be relevant, namely the standards in the Welsh Language Standards (No. 1) Regulations, already passed in 2015, the same standards as Welsh Government, local government and national parks. Given that it is an anomaly, to all intents and purposes, as county councils, who usually appoint returning officers and the staff that support them, are captured by standards agreed by the Senedd in the Welsh Language Standards (No. 1) Regulations 2015, there is no reason why returning officers could not be added to these regulations. It would save legislative capacity, and we hear the Government talking about that issue from time to time.
We are very disappointed, therefore, that the Counsel General, following Stage 2 discussions, hasn't decided to bring his own amendments forward to put right the Government's failed efforts to comply with the policy intent that it originally consulted on in the White Paper that is the basis for this Bill, and which has been discussed for a long time, but hasn't made its way into legislation, which, in our view in Plaid Cymru, is very regrettable. The only reason of substance given to justify this during Stage 2 was that having to make standards would be too much for the sector given the other changes that they have to prepare for for 2026.
Reluctantly, therefore, and not for one moment am I saying that this is acceptable, because there has been so much delay already, we have brought an additional amendment forward, amendment 51, which means that these provisions, if they are agreed today, could not come into force until 1 June 2026, after the next Senedd elections. I hope, therefore, that the Counsel General will now be able to support these three amendments as a package, because we have listened to, even if don't agree with, the argument he made at Stage 2. All that will happen after 1 June 2026 is that the commissioner will be able to commence quite an extended process of discussions with the bodies in terms of what is reasonable and proportionate for them to do within the standards menu in the Welsh Language Standards (No. 1) Regulations that I referred to earlier.
The commissioner, according to the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, may only impose standards if that is reasonable and proportionate, and so there is already a strict test in place in law in terms of any concerns about the reasonability of these proposals. The commissioner would have to consult with all returning officers on a draft compliance notice before making that final notice. If the returning officers are of the view that the requirements to comply with standards are unreasonable or disproportionate, then they can appeal the requirement to the Welsh Language Tribunal before they are required to implement. So, clearly, this is a considered, lengthy process, which provides a lot more power to the bodies already, than to citizens.
The fundamental point here is that the Welsh language has official equal status in Wales in principle. That is certainly what the Government would have us believe. However, as standards have not been implemented, this official status hasn't extended in practical terms to electoral administration and the functions exercised by returning officers. This varies from the production of forms and papers for elections, announcing results, raising awareness of electoral arrangements and related activities, such as training staff who support them and developing their skills.
It's a matter of discretion, rather than a legal requirement, therefore, to use the Welsh language at the moment. This means that their treatment of the Welsh language and the ability of our citizens to see, hear and use the Welsh language in the democratic process can vary from place to place across the country, because there is no baseline expectation in place. If someone has been unable to use the Welsh language, there is no means for them to make a complaint to the Welsh Language Commissioner and it's not possible to enforce the rights of Welsh speakers in this crucial and fundamental part of the civic and national life of Wales, namely our democratic process—one of the fundamental privileges of being a citizen. It is entirely unacceptable, in our view, that the Government has rowed back on its responsibilities to ensure equality of our official languages and on its fundamental duty to ensure that those wishing to use the Welsh language in exercising their democratic rights and participating in the democratic process in Wales can do that.
As I highlighted during Stage 2, there is evidence to suggest that the improvements in the sector haven't really taken root, and the Government has referred to these, because Mirain Gwyn, a Gwynedd woman, who was a presiding officer at her local polling station, refused to serve for the first time in 20 years in the police and crime commissioner elections in May, because she wasn't content to undertake the mandatory training that was only offered through the medium of English. During Stage 2, we had confirmation that the training will be available in Welsh by 2026, but that is a matter of goodwill, and nobody who has difficulties in this regard could raise a complaint with the commissioner as they would be able to do if the sector were captured by standards.
For those of us who speak Welsh, we are only asking for something that is fundamental: the right to be treated equally in our own country as we participate in the democratic process. It's now 25 years since the establishment of this Senedd as our national Parliament, and here I've had to bring amendments forward in order to ask for the respect and simple dignity for me, as a Welsh speaker, to be treated equally with everyone else in my own nation as I participate in the democratic process. It is disgraceful—it is an insult to our democracy and our nation—that we even have to bring such amendments forward. It should have been done years ago.
Can I thank Adam for the points that he's raised and the various arguments that he's put, and, of course, we did have some of these at the last stage? Can I say that there is much of what Adam has said that I'm in complete agreement with, in particular with the fundamental rights issue that he raises? I think we are working towards getting towards exactly the same objective. I think the challenge is the mechanics of actually getting to that, but I want to give an assurance that I'm very committed that we do get to that same objective after 2026, but I will, perhaps, explain a little bit more.
Although I won't be supporting amendments 37, 38 and 51, I will just state that the Welsh Government is fully committed to ensuring that people can participate fully in our democracy using our country’s two official languages. I'm very grateful to the Member also for the various conversations and meetings we’ve had to try to discuss this. The options for applying Welsh language standards to returning officers and electoral registration officers does remain open to us through subordinate legislation.
I will not be supporting amendment 37, which would add returning officers to Schedule 6 to the Welsh language Measure of 2011 as a category of persons capable of being required to comply with the Welsh language standards via primary legislation. To accept this amendment would mean placing further, as yet unspecified, responsibilities upon returning officers on the face of the Bill, at a time when they will already have to adapt to significant change from electoral and Senedd reform. I do, however, acknowledge that amendment 51 seeks to commence this provision after the 2026 Senedd elections. The drafting that defines a returning officer in this amendment is defective because it points to section 35(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, RPA 1983, which does not exist; the relevant section is 35(1A).
I have had some really positive discussions on these issues recently, and that's as a result of the discussion we had at Stage 2. I had those discussions with key partners, including the Welsh Language Commissioner’s office and the Electoral Commission. These conversations are ongoing and I'm keen to develop a joint memorandum of understanding for supporting and improving the bilingual delivery of Welsh elections. The priority in the short term to medium term should be working together with stakeholders to build on existing good practice—to improve that practice. This would include compliance with the Electoral Commission’s legally binding performance standards for returning officers. The Welsh language advisory group of the Wales electoral co-ordination board will also be supporting the bilingual delivery of elections, with the opportunity for the new electoral management board to build on this.
I haven't been part of these discussions, but it occurs to me that, with the Welsh Government's aim of reaching 1 million speakers in Welsh, your objection and your reluctance to accept this seems at odds with that. So, I just wonder if you could just comment—on the one hand you're saying you want to achieve 1 million Welsh speakers, and yet you're not wanting to include returning officers in the legislation. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
There's no contradiction because the objective and my support for the objective is absolutely there, it's really the practical mechanics of actually getting to that and raising the two specific issues that I think I have raised. One is the as yet unspecified nature of what those responsibilities would be and having that clarity. Returning officers, of course, although many of them work for local government, not all do—but, in any event, when they act as returning officer, they act in an independent capacity. The other one is, of course, that actually the role in terms of the conduct of elections is with the Electoral Commission. We do have to be clear about where the line of responsibility actually lies in terms of that specific role. That's why those discussions are very much ongoing at the moment and why I'm trying to get all the parties together in terms of an agreement of the way in which we will actually move forward. At the moment, I don't support the amendments, not because I disagree with the amendments but because I disagree with the practicality of how we're going to achieve that. But I can give you the assurance I'm actually determined that we actually work in exactly the same direction to achieve exactly the same objective, and my commitment—and I put this on record now—is actually there.
There has been a lot of progress that has been made. Adam mentioned, of course, the issue in terms of training, and he's right. These are the things that should be automatic, they're not things that should have to happen in response. But, of course, they did occur in response to changes and they are of course things that have been implemented. I'm sure that not only will progress be achieved but that we will get to a stage where I think we will have those standards. Whether there will be complete agreement of them, whether they're under the specific function of the Welsh Language Commissioner or the Electoral Commission—what seems important to me is that those standards are there and that they're actually achieved, that they're capable of being implemented, are implemented, and I think that is the way forward. Diolch, Llywydd.
I'm so disappointed. It simply isn't good enough. This is the fundamental difference, isn't it? Agreements between different organisations or protocols or memoranda of understanding, guidance, an advisory group, good practice—none of those gives me rights. A right is something that I can insist upon. It empowers me as a Welsh speaker and every other Welsh speaker out there. Everything else, these agreements and so on—they don't give me any rights at all. Like all other Welsh speakers in so many contexts, I'm reliant on goodwill, on ad hoc arrangements. I thought we'd moved away from there. I thought we'd decided that we wanted to give rights to people. It's relevant not only to this context, it relates to that feeling of being respected, of being equal. I shouldn't have to constantly insist and check, 'Is this available?'; I should know as a matter of fact that it is a right in Wales in all areas. It certainly should be the case when it comes to something as fundamental as the electoral process.
There was a lot of talk about consultation between various bodies and so on, well why not consult with Welsh speakers? Where is their voice in all of this? Has someone sat down and spoken to the language organisations and asked them what their views are? I could certainly take a guess as to what the response would be: 'This is not good enough.' It is contrary to what you suggested in your own White Paper, and it is regrettable that this Government, with its broader policy and ambition, as Jane Dodds says, in terms of the Welsh language, is refusing to support these very reasonable amendments, which are fundamentally important in terms of respecting our language in our democratic process. May I urge the Government, once again, to think again?
The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 37. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 37 is not agreed.
Yes, it is. Is there objection to amendment 38? [Objection.] Yes, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 38. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 38 is not agreed.
Group 10 is next. This group of amendments relates to electoral arrangements reviews. Amendment 2 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on the Counsel General to move this amendment. Mick Antoniw.
Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on this group of amendments, which are concerned with electoral arrangements reviews. Feedback from the 2017 programme of electoral arrangements reviews, which culminated with Orders for each local authority area in 2021, suggested the range of matters to be taken into account when considering changes to electoral arrangements should be expanded. Section 40 of the Bill specifies the matters that should be considered.
Following discussions at Stage 2 of the Bill about the importance of clarity around Welsh language matters, amendments 2 and 5 make clear that these must form part of the considerations when conducting reviews of principal and community areas. Whilst this generally happens already, these amendments put this beyond doubt.
Amendment 3 broadens the scope of the provision to apply not only to the review reports, but to the broader process.
Finally, amendment 4 makes clear that the Welsh Language Commissioner has an important contribution to make as part of the electoral and boundary review process. It puts this beyond doubt by requiring the commission or a principal council to consider the views of the Welsh Language Commissioner about, amongst other things, the orthography of Welsh language ward names. Diolch, Llywydd.
I introduced an amendment at Stage 2 that sought to emulate and apply the same principles that were accepted in the naming of proposed Senedd constituencies, as the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024 is now on the statute book, to local and community councils. Those principles in the case of the Senedd include an expectation that every constituency should have one name for communication through the medium of Welsh and English, unless that is unacceptable, which, to all intents and purposes, sets in place a presumption in favour of having a monolingual Welsh name and places a duty on the commission to hold a pre-consultation with the Welsh Language Commissioner on the orthography or spelling of names before various stages of consultation and review.
I am pleased to see the Counsel General accepting at least some of the points that were made at Stage 2 with these amendments, specifically in terms of formalising the role of the Welsh Language Commissioner on advising on orthography on a statutory basis and the recognition of the Welsh language as a local tie in terms of boundary reviews. However, it is disappointing that there is still no movement on the central issue of the need for consistency in the principles that underpin the process of naming our electoral wards, our communities and areas at a devolved level. Why is it acceptable for the Government to place a requirement in terms of a monolingual name in terms of Senedd constituencies, but not in terms of local authority wards and community wards? It makes no sense, and the lack of leadership by Government on this issue will create the risk of confusion and inconsistency across Wales, and the lack of clear guidance for the boundary commission and principal councils alike.
The Counsel General himself mentioned the foolishness of having 'Barri' with an 'i' and 'Barry' with a 'y' at Stage 2 committee proceedings, and I agree entirely with him. However, unlike the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act, I don't see anything in these amendments that would prevent or give guidance to avoid such scenarios arising. I should also note that the interaction between the commissioner and the commission is slightly different and, again, it isn't clear to me why there’s a requirement to hold a pre-consultation on the orthography of names with the Welsh Language Commissioner and to give due regard to her comments before the publication of a report as a basis for consultation with the public and other stakeholders in the case of Senedd constituencies, but the emphasis in this amendment is on doing that after consultation and before the publication of the final report.
In terms of the detail of the amendments that have been brought forward, the Counsel General's amendment 4 places of duty on the boundary commission or a principal authority to give consideration to comments by the Welsh Language Commissioner in terms of the orthography of the name of an electoral ward or a proposed electoral ward. An ‘electoral ward’ is defined in section 29(11) of the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013, which this Bill amends, as follows:
However, the provisions in Part 3 of the 2013 legislation are broader than just wards for the election of members to a local authority. They also include designating community council wards and some other names in the area. The examples that I gave you at Stage 2 related to the community boundaries review carried out in Ceredigion. So, it's not clear to me that the text of this amendment makes it a requirement for the commission or a principal council to take account of the commissioner's comments on the orthography of a name beyond a local authority electoral ward. Can the Counsel General provide an assurance that the naming process in its entirety under this Part of the 2013 legislation is captured by the amendment, and that it also includes the names of community council wards and other names of the areas that emerge from Part 3 of the 2013 legislation?
It also talks about the orthography of the name or proposed name of an electoral ward—in the singular rather than the plural. But, in the absence of any expectation of having a single name, would this include a situation where you could have two names, or two proposed names?
I thank the Member for the comments, and I've taken note, very much, of those comments. I'm very much aware of them. One of the reasons for creating the duty is I'm sure that the positive engagement and the obligation to engage will result, I'm sure, in many of those issues actually being resolved. There are many community and ward names. There are a lot of local issues in many of them over the use and the choice of names and so on. Again, I think we are going in a particular direction, but creating that duty I think is one that specifically ensures that there is that input, and I've no doubt whatsoever that that consultation and that engagement with the language commissioner is something that will be given very, very serious consideration within all those considerations of trying to achieve that objective.
The next group will be group 11. This group of amendments relates to the publication of contact details for community councils. Amendment 39 is the lead and only amendment. And I call on Adam Price to move the amendment.
Thank you. Llywydd. The purpose of amendment 39 is to replace the current requirement in the Bill for a principal council to publish
‘an up-to date list of all communities and community councils in its area',
and have a broader requirement that would have a more complete list, which would include not only the names of the communities and community councils, but also the details of the members of those community councils and their political parties where relevant, contact details for the community council, the members and the clerk. The intention is to make it easier and more transparent for those seeking the information to find it in one central point, rather than having to search in different places on the website of every community council, and to make it easier as a result to contact community councillors and community councils.
I thank Adam Price for the amendment. I won't be supporting it. Section 54(2) of the Bill requires each principal council to publish and maintain on its website an up-to-date list of all the communities and community councils in its area with their current names. Section 55 of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru etc. Act 2013 already places a duty on town and community councils to provide the additional information specified by the amendment.
Transparency and accountability in the town and community council sector are critical, and this is an area that is being considered by the democratic health task and finish group, which will be reporting in the autumn. In the meantime, principal councils cannot be held accountable for any lack of transparency by town and community councils. It is the role of the auditor general to ensure the relevant law is followed. But, as I say, that task and finish group will be reporting in the autumn, and I'm sure there will be further debate as a consequence of that.
We'll move to a vote on amendment 39. Is there objection to amendment 39? [Objection.] Yes, there is. Therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 39. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 39 is not agreed.
Group 12 is the next group of amendments. They relate to Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, functions relating to remuneration of elected members. Amendment 40 is the lead amendment in this group. And I call on Adam Price to move this amendment.
Thank you, Llywydd. These are simple amendments in this group. Amendment 40 ensures that any decision by Welsh Ministers to use the powers under section 69H to direct the commission to reconsider an annual decision on payments and allowances for county councillors is communicated to the Senedd, and that the rationale for the decision is published.
Amendment 41 seeks to ensure that the commission must publish an annual report setting out a national picture in one place in terms of the data gathered from county councils in delivering their monitoring functions, for example, information about payments for family absences. That would be useful to check that councils are acting fairly and consistently across Wales in administering the commission's decision. This would ensure that the information is available proactively for those who want to access it, and it is a matter of transparency, therefore.
Diolch, Llywydd. Just to say that, obviously, transparency in respect of the method of determination and levels of local elected member remuneration is, indeed, an important public matter and a matter of public interest. However, the Bill does provide already for very high levels of transparency, and my view is that further amendments are not required. I'm grateful for the amendments, though.
Amendment 40 requires that where the Welsh Ministers issue a direction to the commission to reconsider a draft report, they must at the same time lay before the Senedd a statement of their reasons for making the direction. The amendment is not required. Directions are statutory instruments and are published when made. By their nature, they include a rationale, and so this duplicates an existing process and therefore that is the reason why I do not support it.
Amendment 41 requires the commission to publish a report setting out the information that has been collated by the commission whilst exercising its monitoring functions under what will become section 69L subsections (2) to (4) of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru etc. Act 2013. It's unclear what the amendment would achieve beyond publishing reporting requirements in relation to elected member remuneration, which can already be required to be published by a remuneration report. So, I therefore don't support this amendment as being necessary.
We'll move to a vote, therefore, on amendment 40. Is there any objection? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We'll proceed to a vote, therefore, on amendment 40. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied, therefore I use my casting vote against amendment 40. Therefore, amendment 40 is not agreed. In favour 26, 27 against.
Yes. Is there objection to amendment 41? [Objection.] Yes. We will proceed to a vote, therefore, on amendment 41. Open the vote. Close the vote. The result is tied. I will use my casting vote against the amendment. The result is that there were 26 in favour, 27 against. Amendment 41 is not agreed.
Group 13 is next. This group relates to the independent remuneration board of the Senedd. Amendment 42 is the lead amendment. I call on Adam Price to move the amendment.
Thank you very much, Llywydd. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Senedd Commission holds a review of the independent remuneration board, and that review should commence within one year of the Act receiving Royal Assent. The amendment builds upon the discussion that we had, during the amendments tabled at Stage 2 on the abolition of the board and transferring its functions to the democracy commission that will be established under this Bill and will be responsible for publishing annual decisions on allowances and salaries of county councillors. That is to say that the corresponding panel that was in place for approval of local authority remuneration is abolished and its functions are transferred to the renamed commission. That gives us an opportunity, therefore, to consider whether we should also do likewise, namely to provide all of these functions to one organisation, which would then develop expertise in this whole question of making arm's-length decisions on approving remuneration for elected members at all levels, rather than having a separate body.
Now, in the case of the local government panel, there was a 10-year review in their case, as we are suggesting in this amendment, to have an arm's-length review. So, it's not the remuneration board that would be reviewing itself—that has happened—but it would be a review more similar to the review that happened in the local government panel, which is arm's length and looks at the 15 years, I think, since we established the remuneration board, since the Measure was passed by the Senedd, to ask the question: is this the best arrangement for now, or is there an alternative way of making these arrangements? Because the 10-year review of the local government panel did come to some conclusions that would be relevant to the remuneration board also. Broadly speaking, they didn't believe that the pattern of having a board or a panel and a secretariat was ultimately effective, and that there should be a move towards a structure that is more purpose-built. And the question we're asking through this amendment, of course, is: is the same true now of the arrangements in relation to our remuneration, and shouldn't we create a single department with permanent staff and so on, rather than having a structure that is sometimes necessarily reliant on external consultants? That is, that you develop expertise on the more general question of the appropriate level of remuneration for politicians at all levels, and that that is something that we should perhaps consider for this ensuing period, rather than sticking to a structure that was created, I think, as quite a swift response to the crisis in Westminster, mostly, relating to expenses. So, it was a swift response to that, creating a model that made sense, I think, in the short-to-medium term, but isn't it now, 15 years later, an opportunity for us to have an arm's-length review to assess whether this is the model, namely the remuneration board model that we have, that we should have as we look to the next 15 to 20 years? Is there an opportunity, in the context of the changes happening through this Bill, to create a single structure, or are there other structures that we could look at? We can look at good practice elsewhere, of course, in other Parliaments, and so on. So, that's what's at the heart of this amendment.
Diolch, Llywydd. Firstly, just to say, that I think the issues that have been raised, I know they're ones that are probably shared by a number. It's an area of debate and it does resonate with many Members, I am sure. But can I just say that it's a matter for the Senedd, rather than the Welsh Government, to determine whether a review of the independent remuneration board, and the measures through which it was established, is needed? However, I do consider the amendment to be unnecessary, and I think it is constitutionally problematic for that particular reason. If the Senedd wishes to undertake a review, it's entirely within the gift of the Senedd to do so. It's not necessary for the Senedd to place itself under a duty to do so. I believe it's also perhaps questionable as to the appropriateness of placing a duty on the Senedd itself in order to bind itself.
I should take the opportunity to make clear that this amendment is not equivalent to the review procedure set out in section 19 of the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024. That legislation avoided such an approach by placing a duty on the Llywydd to table a motion to propose the establishment of a committee to review the operation and the effect of that legislation. And, in doing so, it ensured that the decision as to whether to take forward that review, and whether to conduct it in that way, remains entirely within the hands of the Senedd. Conversely, the amendment seeks to place a duty directly on the Senedd itself to undertake the review and specifies a time frame in which the review must be commenced.
As I said in opening my contribution, it's entirely a matter for the Senedd to decide whether a review should be undertaken of the independent remuneration board. I won't be supporting the amendment, but the Member has made the comments and, of course, they are on the public record, and I'm sure the matter will be further discussed in other fora.
I thank the Counsel General for his comments. I do think, on the basis of the conversations I've had across the Senedd, that it's an issue that would be welcomed. I do accept the points that the Counsel General has made. This was perhaps a further probing amendment to ensure that we have this wider forum to raise these issues. Perhaps there will be further opportunities for us to pursue this suggestion in terms of holding a review along the lines that I have described. But, with those few words of response, I would like to withdraw the amendment and not move it to a vote.
The amendment has been withdrawn by the Member, if everyone is content with that, if there is no objection to the withdrawal of the amendment. So, amendment 42 has been withdrawn.
Group 14 is next. This group of amendments relates to disqualification from being a Member of Senedd Cymru and local government. Amendment 20 is the lead amendment, and I call on Peter Fox to move this amendment.
Diolch, Llywydd. Before I start, I'd like to thank my colleague Joel James for all of the work he's put in to bringing these amendments forward, which I'm presenting on behalf of our group. Amendments 20, 21 and 22 will enable community councillors to become a Member of Senedd Cymru. As we all know, the position of being a community councillor is a voluntary role, with only a small, but still taxable, allowance being allocated for expenses, which many turn down. As these people are putting a lot of work into their communities on a voluntary basis, we believe that they should be able to become a Member of the Senedd, as well as continuing their voluntary role as a community councillor.
Amendments 23 and 24 will ensure that clerks will not be able to become members of the community, county or county borough councils. This will ensure that their role of an officer is independent, and that there is no political motivation, as clerks should be able to provide independent advice and guidance to their council without there being any party political reasoning behind it. It's for these reasons that we urge Members to support these amendments.
Thank you, Llywydd. I promise I'll be short and sweet with this. I just want to thank Peter for introducing my amendment, which is specifically number 23, and to thank the Government for its support at Stage 2, and the use of the Senedd lawyers in order to tighten this. As many people might know, I'm a community councillor, so I need to declare an interest regarding that, Llywydd. But one of the things I've been quite surprised at since being elected is the amount of times I've come across a clerk, either a town or community council clerk, and they are an elected politician—they're a party politician, whether it's Labour, Conservative, Plaid—and I've always been concerned about that. I think that, as a clerk, you need to be politically neutral and it should be a restricted role. And as maybe an opposition politician, or maybe an independent, what confidence would I have that the conversations that I have with that clerk, or the advice that I was given, would be fair? And that's why I've put this forward, and hopefully everyone can support it; that would be awesome. Thank you, Llywydd. [Laughter.]
Thank you. Well, I've been pleased to be able to work with Joel James on the amendments, and 24, tabled by Peter Fox. Thank you for raising this important issue, Joel.
Can I thank Peter Fox for amendments 20, 21 and 22? However, I won't be supporting them. Amendment 20 would remove the provisions in the Bill to disqualify a member of the community council from being a Member of the Senedd. Those provisions are important and support fairness, equality and the accountability of the Senedd and local government. These provisions will ensure Members have sufficient time to carry out their roles effectively and avoid conflicts of interest and unfair advantages for dual-hatted Members. Therefore, the amendment should be rejected. I'm not supporting amendment 21 for the same reason.
Amendment 22 would allow county or county borough councillors to also be Members of the Senedd. This again would be inappropriate in terms of fairness, equality, and the accountability of the Senedd and local government. Further, the drafting is defective, as this amendment also duplicates sections 61(5) and 61(6) of the Bill. Due to the overlap between these provisions, it's likely that an amendment wouldn't work properly whilst the existing section 61 provisions remain in place.
Turning to amendments 23 and 24, Joel James tabled an amendment at Stage 2 to disqualify elected members of a community principal council or Senedd Member from being appointed as a proper officer of the community council. Whilst supporting the principle behind the amendment, I said that further policy and legal considerations were required. So, I'm pleased to have worked with Joel, and I thank him for bringing forward these two amendments to replace the amendment he tabled at Stage 2. I ask for Members to support amendments 23 and 24, tabled by Peter Fox.
Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you, Counsel General. Thank you again to Joel—it's his work involved here—and I'm thankful for the support for 23 and 24, and ask to move to the vote on the others, Llywydd.
The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 20. Open the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 20 is not agreed. Amendment 20 is not agreed.
Amendment 21. Is there objection? [Objection.] Yes, and therefore we will proceed to a vote on amendment 21. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 21 is not agreed.
Group 15 is next, and this group of amendments relates to disqualification from being a Member of Senedd Cymru because of the offence of deception. Amendment 43 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on Adam Price to introduce this amendment and the group.
Thank you, Llywydd. I think it's quite fitting, isn't it, in a way, that this last group of amendments in relation to a Bill that is about elections and elected bodies really focuses at something that is so important at the heart of our democracy, which we are all united about: the importance of truth and credibility and trust in our democracy. That's really the background to this set of amendments, which revise the section 64 that was inserted into the Bill at Stage 2, facilitated on a cross-party basis, shall we say, which I think is good. That's a sign of a healthy parliamentary democracy.
The backdrop to this is what I referred to right in my opening remarks—the collapse in trust. It's an almost universal phenomenon across most democracies in the world. It's been consistent and it's been getting worse. We saw, didn't we, even I think in the last month, two of the different indexes—one last week—that measure veracity, the extent to which people trust politicians, trust in general. That trust in what we say, as politicians, has fallen to an all-time low—a 40-year low since they started to measure it. That is an existential threat, isn't it? Democracy starts to break down if the electors can't trust what the elected say. You can only have a functioning democracy and have all the healthy debate and passionate disagreement that we rightfully have in this Chamber, with the citizens as part of that—that can only work if people actually don't believe that everyone is lying.
Hannah Arendt, the German philosopher, she wrote not one but two famous essays about politics and lying—she was so exercised by this subject. It's interesting. What she said is that when political lying becomes normalised, it's not that the people actually believe the lies the particular politicians tell. It's not that. It's that they stop believing in truth in general, and they stop believing in politics in general. They believe that everyone is lying, and then you can't have, actually, a functioning democracy. So, the motivation for this section is one that I know that we all agree with, which is how can we restore and rebuild and maintain that trust in democracy.
We have to accept, I think, that the existing structures and processes that are in place have not so far achieved that, because the facts that I spoke to speak for themselves. So, the existing processes, necessary as they are and important in their own context—standards procedures, et cetera, recall—. I'm a supporter of recall. It has been in place in Westminster for nine years, but it hasn't solved this problem. I think it has addressed other problems, but it hasn't actually solved this problem of credibility. And so, that's why we have to innovate. We have to try different things, because what we've done not just here, but actually in democracies around the world, hasn't solved the problem so far. So, that's the motivation for introducing this general prohibition on deliberate deception, setting the very, very high bar. It's a small minority of politicians, populist demagogues who deliberately distort the truth for their own political gain, but they poison the well for everyone—for everyone—not just all other politicians, but for citizens as a whole. And it's that problem that we must address.
It is never acceptable—never acceptable—for a politician to deliberately deceive, and that was the starting point of this journey. It actually started originally as a Westminster Bill, traversed two different Bills here, went through different stages. The amendments that are set out here reflect the responses that we've had. I always see this: a good argument, when made against your position, is information that you should embrace, because that helps you. When you are trying to reform, that helps you to refine your thinking. So, I really am very grateful to all of those who have engaged with the debate that we've had around section 64. It has helped us bring forward these amendments, which revise section 64 as it is, in important ways, in trying to close off the possibility of the abuse of the process and bring some further clarity to what we were suggesting, and also to create a mechanism in order to have that wider public consultation with stakeholders, including in the criminal justice system, and also to have further parliamentary scrutiny. So, it's in that collaborative approach that we've addressed this issue. I'm grateful to the Government for the very constructive engagement we've had during the day today. Maybe I'll leave that to the Counsel General to elaborate on, and maybe I'll respond both to his remarks and to those of other Members in my closing remarks.
Can I also thank Adam and the Counsel General for their deep engagement around this really important subject? It's something that we all should care about. Most of us here—I'm sure all of us here—believe in the Nolan principles of public life and adhere to them constantly, and it is so fundamental that we try to rebuild the trust that has been diminished in our vocation, because it's so fundamental to democracy that we are trusted and believed, and sadly that's been eroded. So, whilst we know that there have been different perspectives as to how this offence of deception could be introduced, and conflicting views of how it might be taken forward, we felt in this group that it was worthy of taking forward and it was important that we found a way forward to make it acceptable to everybody in this Senedd.
Now, I know there are different views of how that might have happened. And I've been party—thank you—to some of the changes in position that have been forged today between Adam and the Counsel General. However, in this group, we were quite surprised that we saw this change of position, because we did feel that it was an important thing to continue on the journey it was on, albeit there were faults or flaws in the way that could be conducted. But we felt that there was enough dialogue and commitment that those things could be ironed out at a later stage—at report stage—which could have found a way where we could have united, because I'm anxious, without trying to steal any thunder that might come from the Counsel General, that the way forward that may be proposed might not be given the parliamentary time to enable things to go forward, whereas the current course that we're on would have done, I would have hoped. So, I'm pleased that we are going to find a way forward, I hope, to build trust back in such an important role in public life, but the group at the moment will be opposing the amendment to remove section 64 from the Bill. Thank you, Llywydd.
I will not detain Members for long this evening. I'm grateful to Adam for raising these matters, and grateful to him and others who have led a debate on these things, because politics have changed. As someone who's served here for nearly 20 years, I've seen the change taking place in all sorts of different ways. Many of the issues that Adam has referred to today are a matter of changes in culture and changes in behaviour. Behaviour that wouldn't have been tolerated 20 years ago is now seen with barely a nod. We need to change that and we need to change the way we do politics. We need to change the way we think about politics and change the way that we debate and discuss these matters with people. And I have to say that, in the last five or six years, I've been profoundly disappointed with some of the things that I've heard said and seen done, both within this Chamber and outside this Chamber.
Let me give you an example of something I noticed this morning on social media—a single message: 'Labour want to pay illegal immigrants £1,600 a month'. It's something that we know is completely untrue, something that has no basis of truth at all, and that was tweeted by the leader of the opposition, by Andrew R.T. Davies. Now, Andrew would not—I think I'm right in saying this—have tweeted that when we were first elected in 2007, because we would not have said something that we know is not true. None of us would have done that, no matter what our politics are, no matter where we sit in the Chamber. We would have sought and strived to be accurate. The interpretation of facts is different and there is always going to be debate and discussion about that, as there should be, but nobody would have tweeted something they know to be a direct falsehood, a direct lie, and that happened this morning from the leader of the opposition.
And I believe that we should say this and we should be very, very clear about this: this takes our politics into the gutter and it stops us engaging with each other in real political debate, and we need to change the culture of that, and this is urgent, I believe. Adam referred to the Channel 4 programme Dispatches last week. It was a profoundly worrying programme because it demonstrated how artificial intelligence can now be used to disrupt our political debate so that we know and understand now that we cannot believe what we see and what we hear. So, when we see images of political leaders on social media, those images can be manipulated to say things that that leader has never said. The days when you could say that a picture never lies are long gone, because pictures do lie and they're going to lie more in the future than they do today. So, we need to change the way we deal with this and we need to change the culture of what we do as well as deal with the individual instances that I've already discussed this evening.
I want to reaffirm my unwavering support to a principle that strikes at the very heart of our existence: safeguarding the integrity of Welsh democracy and reinforcing the rule of law to enable us here in Wales to live in a freer and fairer society. I am glad to hear that there has been an agreement on the principles that were in the initial amendment that was tabled, and I do thank the Chief Whip, the Cwnsler Cyffredinol, representatives from all political parties, particularly Adam Price for his absolutely awesome work in terms of bringing people together in a very short time period, the legal eagles from Compassion in Politics, and the representatives who've helped—there are many people—bring this forward.
Just let me say something about why compassion in politics is important, because that, for me, is about integrity, truth and honesty, as well as kindness. We cannot operate in a place not just amongst ourselves, but also to other people as well, in a compassionate way unless we base that in truth and honesty. We know the corrosive effect of political dishonesty on public trust right now. The British social attitudes survey this year revealed that a shocking 45 per cent of people rarely if ever trust governments to prioritise national interests over party politics. Throughout my very brief time here in the Senedd, I've taken pride in being part of a Parliament renowned for its progressive, forward-thinking approach. But no institution is impervious to the effects of lies and misinformation. Truth in our society is fragile and vulnerable.
Our goal is straightforward: it is to stop politicians, those individuals who have this unique place of trust and power, from calculated lying. That is an act that can have a deep, often traumatic, consequence to people's lives. Let's be clear here, freedom of speech is not freedom to lie. So, why does lying flourish in politics? Well, the answer is simple, and it's sobering: because we can get away with it. Deception can run among politicians, largely because we face no real repercussions. Westminster's attempts at reform have fallen flat, the current regulations both there and in our own Senedd are woefully inadequate. We have to do more.
There is no excuse, which is why I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's proposals to bring forward legislation to root out those who are guilty of deliberate deception and, I hope, restore trust in ourselves among the electorate. We have the chance to lead here in Wales by example, not just within the UK but on the international stage. Already we know there has been a significant degree of international interest on this particular issue. In fact, tonight, we are featured on The Rest is Politics. So, we have really made it here in the Senedd.
Accountability to voters lies at the heart of the democratic system, and, for too long, politicians across the UK and across political parties have tested the public's patience. Not only is this the right thing to do, but here we have a chance to increase levels of trust in politicians. This is about setting a new standard for political integrity and showing that Wales is once again at the forefront of democratic reform, because, ultimately, it is those who love truth who love freedom as well. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
I want to thank the Member in charge, Adam Price, for all his engagement and his legal team that gave us the time to talk and go through individual items that I have personal concern with. I also want to thank the Counsel General for his very generous use of his time, coming to meet with myself and Peter Fox to discuss this time and time again. I do appreciate the work that you and the Welsh Government officials who work with you have given to this amendment.
Before I start, I want to say I fully sympathise with Adam Price and what he wants to do. When there are politicians of all political colours going around spreading false information and spreading lies, it is no wonder, when we go out and speak to the public, that they are losing faith in elected officials. I've been going around, as most people have recently, talking to my constituents on the campaign trail, and I've been struck by the amount of people who look me in the eye and go, 'You're all as bad as each other. You're all in it for yourselves'. And one constituent even told me, 'The person before you from another political party was telling me anything just to get a vote'. Lying on the doorstep to get a vote from somebody—that just should not be allowed to happen. I'd like to think that I'm a principle-driven politician who wants the best outcomes for my constituents and the people of Wales, and it does upset me greatly. I entered politics for the right reasons and it is devastating that some people who do the privileged job that we have—it's a privilege to serve in this Senedd—want to go around and spread lies and falsehoods to further their own political positions.
But do I believe that this amendment will address the problems we face? I don't think it will. However, I do think it will go some of the way to rebuilding the public confidence in elected officials that has been lost over the years. The reason why I'm a little bit hesitant over this amendment is because I think it could do some real democratic damage to the Senedd that we sit in here today. The biggest issue, as I see it, the same as Alun Davies, is the potential to undermine our parliamentary privilege. I can stand here today, tomorrow and the next day and support and stand up for the constituents who I represent; I can express myself openly during Senedd debates and proceedings without the fear of libel or slander lawsuits. I don't want to be looking over my shoulder every time I say something in here, fearing that a big corporation or a company is going to file a lawsuit against me for slander for saying something. We enjoy privilege now, and I don't think any Member would want to be fighting a lawsuit time after time for something that someone thinks is incorrect. Do you want to come in, Hefin? I see you've popped up there, you're bobbing away.
I didn't want to interrupt you in your flow. What you're saying really does resonate with me. I have used parliamentary privilege myself for the people of Caerphilly and it has been very effective. But also, is there not a danger, if we have the architecture and too much structure around criminal law, that some people on the very hard right, and even some people on the very hard left, might actually use that as a badge of honour, and they will then go and say to people, 'Look, I've been criminalised for my views; I'm only representing you'? So, it could be used in a very negative way by those people on the hard right. Would you also agree with that as a concern about having a criminal issue there?
I could see that being a problem. I think certain people running for elected office in other parts of the world have used some of their criminal elements to further their own political campaigns.
Another element that does concern me—and it's something I've spoken to a constitutional lawyer about—is the element that, if I stand here in every debate and say, 'In my opinion', and then I make my argument, I'm excluded from this, I'm covered, because I've made an express opinion of my own that isn't actually classed as factual. If I don't say, 'In my opinion', then I could be subject to a lawsuit, and I don't think it's right that we have a piece of law that has got such a blatant loophole around it. I don't think, then, it is right that someone's personal views could be challenged in court. I don't think the judiciary would want to be challenging someone's personal opinions in a court, judging on a political forum.
But one thing, I think, that hasn't been said is that there are vexatious individuals out there who will try and exploit this process. There are people of all political parties and all different groups who want to bring down democracy. Every single Member could be subject to a vexatious complaint every time they stand up in this Chamber, and they will all have to be investigated. I know the Member in charge has put some safeguards around that, but there are some organisations out there with very deep pockets who would be quite happy to send any Member here to court for anything they've said. That's something that does deeply concern me.
One thing I want to finish on, Llywydd, is ministerial responses. I think it's very important, as Members, when we ask a question, that Ministers can give an answer to Members to the best of their knowledge, on something they might know about. What I worry about, and my constituents, I'm sure, would worry about, is if a Minister had to stand up every time I asked a question and say, 'I'm sorry. I can't respond to your question until I get legal advice before I respond to you. I don't have the information exactly all to hand, and I'm too frightened to respond to you for fear of being taken to court'. I don't think that's good for democracy. I don't think it's good for our constituents and I don't think it's the best way for it to be taken forward.
I do support the work of the standards committee in this; I think there's a key role for them to play here. I think we need to let that process run its course and come back to them and see what they say. I know there have been discussions between the Member in charge and the Counsel General, and I'm quite keen to hear what the Counsel General's got to say on this. We do have the standards committee; it is there to be used. As I say, I do support the Member, I think we do need to eradicate lies in politics; it is eroding public confidence. Do I think this is the best way to do it, with a late amendment to a Bill that really has not got that much to do with what this is about? I'm not quite sure. I think it needs proper parliamentary scrutiny, it needs proper parliamentary time, and, in my reasoning, I think we need to find another way of looking at this and bringing it forward.
I think the debates we've had on this issue have been a good example of the parliamentary process in action and the consensual way that we can work across party lines in this Senedd. There is now a consensus across the Chamber that deliberate lying undermines public trust in politics and is a danger that needs to be firmly addressed. I think the outstanding point of difference has been whether dealing with lying is best done by a standards-led process within this Parliament, or whether, in addition, a criminal sanction for the most egregious cases of deliberate deception is justified in order to rebuild trust in politics.
I acknowledge the view of many of my colleagues on these benches that this should not be a matter for the courts, but one for the ballot box. I think that's where, now, the focus of our arguments should be. I was elected here in 2016, before the Brexit referendum, before Donald Trump became President, before Boris Johnson lied his way to Downing Street and lied his way out again, and there is no doubt that politics in this country has become darker in those eight years. I worry that we're adjusting to it, and I've seen it at first hand in the last 12 months in Llanelli: lying, manipulation, racist abuse, arson, mobs whipped up by the visiting far right descending on the homes of those who put their heads above the parapet. It has been an awful, upsetting experience seeing this ugliness becoming quietly normalised. It's had a profound impact on my community and is something that I've personally found very difficult.
On Thursday, one of the ringleaders of the misinformation campaign in Llanelli is standing for Parliament in our town with the support of the far-right leader Tommy Robinson. It's naive to think our democratic traditions are sacred—they're not. We have to stand up for them; we have to fight for them. We've had a glimpse of the ugliness, but there could be worse to come. I've spoken here before about the erosion of normal standards of behaviour and the perils of letting them slide, and, by default, accepting a lower standard, and how we mustn't allow this dilution—this norm spoiling—in any form.
Later this week, we may well have Members of Parliament from the radical right in the House of Commons. Just 250 miles from here, the far right stand at the gates of power. In just a few months, a norm-spoiling President could well be back in the White House. I've seen the future, and it's worse. We need to get out in front of it to clearly say that corroding our democratic values is not okay and we will not stand for it. The public needs to know that they can trust what's being said, and that's what the amendment to this Bill passed in committee, section 64, is about: not just the standards of those who get elected to the Senedd, but those who seek to get elected too. That, for me, is the key point of the debates that we've been having. It's simply not okay to tell blatant untruths, and there should be consequences if you do it. Lying cannot become the norm.
Diolch, Llywydd. Can I firstly get my bit of business out the way? That is, I will be moving amendment 6 to remove section 64, and opposing all other amendments in this section.
Can I firstly just, on the really important discussion that we've been having around issues that are fundamental to our democracy, thank Adam and thank everyone who's actually been involved in quite a large number of discussions over the past couple of weeks? I think what it probably tells us is that this is a matter that goes to the heart of everyone and is a very, very serious and genuine concern to all of us. We all know people who, for example, won't take up public office because of the environment in which they would be. Can I also say that, in terms of the issues that have been raised with regard to our democracy, I did have, in fact, 30 pages of speech today that you, unfortunately, will not have the pleasure of now hearing, because the wind has been taken out of the my sails? We talk about the pleasure I've had of reading the 1689 Bill of Rights and trying to get my head around that. Can I say what a pleasure it was also this morning to attend the Conservative Party group, I think the first time ever? I understand—
I understand I failed the audition, my membership card is not in the post, and I hope I don't read anything about it in social media. But I think the importance of the engagement, I think, with political groups on this has been very, very important and very, very fundamental.
The concerns I've had—. And I think these have been quite emotive and are very deep concerns, because, in wanting to deal with the issue of deception, to deal with the issue of lies, the issue of standards, for me the issue has always been what are the implications of it, how will it work in practice, but, at the same time, in trying to achieve a good and an important objective, not to, on the other hand, then actually destroy some of the fundamental parts of our democracy. And I actually think that parliamentary privilege, which is a privilege that attaches to the Parliament to enable people to speak freely, without fear from the courts, from the wealthy, from vested interests, is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy. And that is something that has really engaged me in this—to achieve one objective, what you don't do is then undermine your own democratic structure that you need to maintain and you need to actually preserve. And I do think that parliamentary privilege is something that is fundamental, and, of course, it is something that can be abused, and there have to be mechanisms and so on in order to deal with that.
Can I also say, though, let's not also forget that an important part of the debate we've been having today—I know much has been focused around these important issues—is that it's also about the other parts of this Bill, which are really about protecting our democracy, extending our democracy? That is, essentially, what we, I hope, will be doing in concluding today, and through Stage 4: we are introducing one of the most fundamental reforms of our electoral system, and that is the introduction of automatic registration—the automatic registration ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote should be on the register. That gives us the challenge, then, of course, that we want to ensure that people do vote, and that is up to us as politicians to actually give people a reason to vote, to encourage them to vote, but you can't do that unless they are on that particular register. And can I just say how groundbreaking this is, because what I'm very pleased is that, in the commitment from what I hope will be the incoming Labour Government—it has given a commitment that it will also be introducing automatic registration, and I think the work that we have done and the model we achieve, I suspect, will well be the model for doing that throughout the whole of the UK. For Wales it will mean potentially some 400,000 people being added to that register. If it's extended to the rest of the UK for non-devolved elections, you are talking about 7 million or 8 million people who are not on the register. Now, it says something about our democracy, when you have so many people who are not on the register and not even in a position to vote, as well as the challenge that we have, which we've all met on the doorstep, I'm sure, of the people who say, 'No, I don't really bother with that. I don't bother voting', et cetera—something that has almost become normalised in so many of the doors that we knock on. That is a threat to democracy as well, and we have to embrace all of those.
I'm very grateful to all those Members that have taken part in this debate, and, indeed, for all those outside of this place that have helped us. Reference has been made to the support we've had from Compassion in Politics, which have been running a campaign on these lines for many years, and, indeed, the many experts—constitutional, legal and others—that have helped us get to this point.
I think that Lee Waters captured—and, indeed, other Members—the critical moment, the critical juncture that we're at. This is different. The chapter that we're now in I think is different. I've enjoyed the discussion and debate that I've had with the Counsel General, taking us back to the seventeenth century, and it's important to remember the history of our constitution et cetera. I think the threat to our democracy, I would say, if we're drawing historical analogies, is not from the sort of Stuart absolutist monarchy of the seventeenth century, where the reason that parliamentary privilege was introduced is because they basically controlled the courts, and therefore they would use that to introduce seditious libel charges against Members.
The threat to our democracy now is different. It comes largely from a different direction, and if we want to make historical parallels, the context is always different, but we have to look, don't we, to the inter-war period, the 1930s. Really, the intellectual inspiration for what we're trying to do here comes from Karl Loewenstein, who was a lawyer and constitutional theorist in Germany, and what he argued, basically, is that in circumstances such as that, such as the 1930s, where you had the far-right demagogues basically coming to destroy the very underpinnings of our democracy, then democracy had to become defensive, and had to use law against the enemies of democracy. And it's from that tradition that this section stems.
I think there are many questions of technical and legal and, indeed, constitutional principle that we now will have the opportunity to discuss further, and we welcome that, but what has just been announced by the Counsel General is truly historic. In fact, it is globally pioneering. We now have a commitment from the Government that our democracy will be the first—the first in the world—to introduce a general prohibition on deliberate deception by politicians. I think we are here again, as we did with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, at the beginning of a global movement to actually defend our democracy, to restore trust in the heart of our politics.
There are still matters of disagreement, sincere disagreement. Often, I learn more when my lips aren't moving, so, when I actually listen to somebody putting a good argument against my position, I actually gain from that. So, we shouldn't be afraid of having that respectful disagreement. But where we are agreed now on a cross-party and all-party basis—and for this to really work then that is the way that we must proceed—is that we're agreed that this will be comprehensive. It doesn't work just to have a code of conduct for Members when, actually, some of the greatest threats we are facing, in terms of the purveyors of untruth, come from candidates. They're not Members here, not governed by the code of conduct. So, we are talking here of a disqualification of Members and candidates found guilty of deliberate deception. And crucially as well, for it to have public trust, it has to be outside of the political process. You can't have politicians pointing the finger at each other and being judge and jury against others. That could, in extremis, be abused, couldn't it, for nefarious reasons, and that's why we have, of course, institutions of law, independent judicial institutions. That's part of the way that we defend our liberal democracy, and now we need to rest upon those traditions and upon those institutions in order to defeat those anti-democratic forces that are trying to destroy the very foundations of our democracy.
The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 43. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, 13 abstentions, 26 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.
If amendment 6 is agreed, amendments 44, 45 and 46 will fall. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 6. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, 13 abstentions, 13 against. Amendment 6 is agreed. And therefore amendments 44, 45 and 46 have fallen.
Yes, that's being moved. Is there objection to amendment 22? [Objection.] Yes. We will proceed to vote on amendment 22. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against. Amendment 22 is not agreed.
That is moved. Is there objection to amendment 23? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 23. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 39, no abstentions, 13 against. Therefore, amendment 23 is agreed.
Yes, it's being moved. Is there objection to amendment 51? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, we will open the vote on amendment 51. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against.
Yes, it is. Is there objection to amendment 24? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 24. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 39, no abstentions, 13 against. Therefore, amendment 24 is agreed.
That brings us to the end of our Stage 3 debate and we have reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill. I declare that all sections and Schedules to the Bill are deemed agreed.
We want to see a viable future for a green steel industry in south Wales, and the tensions over the last few days have highlighted the high stakes that are at play. I am grateful that all involved have chosen to de-escalate matters to avert an immediate crisis. Our aim as a Welsh Government is now to continue to work together with the unions, with Tata and with a new UK Government to fight for and achieve the very best for our steel communities.
And, talking of the transition board, as you did in your statement. You mentioned that you are willing to work with it to give all necessary support to workers, and this is great news. And while the transition board is operated at a UK level, and with the potential of having a new Secretary of State for Wales by the end of this week, can I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, what guarantees you have had for the continued smooth running of the transition board after the general election? The continuation of the board is clearly a vitally important cog in the offer of necessary support to Tata workers and the wider supply chain going forward. I'll reiterate our warm welcome for the pausing of the strikes, the de-escalation of tensions and the recommencement of discussions, but question marks do remain over what actually is going to change here, given Tata's previous indication of its preferred direction of travel. Diolch, Llywydd.
Just to say, finally, Llywydd, if I may, in relation to the transition board, I'm not so sure that any of us who have been participating would regard it particularly as smooth running, but I take the point that the Member makes. I do think there is an opportunity at this point to look at how we can improve the way it is working, so that the sums of money that people have pledged are able to be deployed in the most effective way, in the most responsive way. I think there is an opportunity to look again together—I hope rapidly—at how that can be configured differently to do that work in a way that brings all the partners together, but with that focus on making sure that the support is available as quickly and as usefully as possible.
It’ll be of no surprise to anyone that we remain of the view that if we genuinely want to resolve this crisis—because that’s what this is, it’s a crisis—then nationalisation has to be on the table. And let’s be clear about what we mean. This isn’t about ideology, this is about securing a strategic resource and safeguarding it for the future. It’s about nationalisation as a tool to buy time so that we can make the investment on our own terms, meet the strategic aims of this Government, and not be dictated to by a multinational corporation that doesn’t care about the communities it affects. Once we make that investment, we then have a pathway for a range of possible futures that would otherwise be closed off to us.
We’ve been clear that a co-operative ownership of the kind that has been very successful in the Basque Country is our preferred option. We’re not talking about Government ownership in perpetuity, but we are clear the Government has a key role in safeguarding and maintaining a stake in this industry. And I have to say, I do find it incredible that as we suggest this as a possible route, the Government does nothing to explore the idea. In fact, it does nothing to explore any idea, and sticks rigidly to the orders that come down from head office in London. Where is the curiosity of the self-styled Welsh Labour Party; where is the ambition? What is the reluctance to explore these ideas? We talk about this Welsh way of doing things, that we think and do things differently in Wales; well, on this issue, I have yet to see that happen.
So, I return to my original question, asking for honesty from the Government here: have they given up on changing Tata’s proposals? Are they now focused on potential future investment only? Because if the answer is ‘yes’, then it is both Labour and Tory Governments that have presided over the biggest industrial policy failure since the closure of the mines in the 1980s, and further evidence that this country is for sale to the highest bidder.
Finally, we will support practitioners to plan learning within and across the areas of learning and experience. This area-specific support will help professionals plan progression in each area. It will support them to select stretching content and plan the development of relevant knowledge and skills. We will begin to trial this in the next academic year. This support will not materialise overnight, and that’s for good reason. It is critical that we get this additional detail and support right. We know from the experience of other nations that simply providing more and more guidance just overloads teachers without improving standards. It has to be the right type of detail. And it has to be clear and simple. That is why we will work with practitioners, leaders, delivery partners and stakeholders to co-construct the detail of this support.
I want to be clear—none of this takes anything away from those schools who are already realising the curriculum for their children. This is about putting a solid foundation in place for those that need it, not putting a ceiling on the innovation we are already seeing across the country. The Curriculum for Wales is a curriculum of opportunities for all, and I will make sure schools have the tools and confidence they need to make the most of them. Diolch.
You say about your commitment to literacy and numeracy; well, frankly, this is not being translated into reality. It will also, of course, come as no surprise to you that Programme for International Student Assessment scores declined more in Wales than in any other country— than in most other countries—in 2022, with scores declining by around 20 points, bringing scores in Wales to the lowest ever level, significantly below the average across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, and significantly below those seen across the rest of the United Kingdom. Lower scores in Wales, as you will, no doubt, fully appreciate, Cabinet Secretary, cannot be explained by higher levels of poverty. Disadvantaged children in England score around 30 points higher on average than disadvantaged children in Wales. Even more remarkably, the performance of disadvantaged children in England is either above or similar to the average for all children in Wales. The differences in educational performance between England and Wales are unlikely to be explained by differences in resources and spending, because spending per pupil is similar in both nations in terms of current levels and recent trends over time.
Wales also has a higher share of young people not in education, employment or training than the rest of the UK: 11 per cent, compared with the 5 per cent to 9 per cent of other nations. And Wales has the lowest levels of participation in higher education, especially among boys. I'm not going to labour this point any further. I think we all understand what I'm saying here, and, Cabinet Secretary, it's not my intention to score any political points from highlighting this. I take no pleasure in pointing out these findings, and it's saddening to stand here and point out how bad the situation is. I believe this Government owes the people of Wales a proper explanation as to why these PISA scores in Wales are declining at this rate. We know that teachers are working harder than ever. We know that it is not the levels of deprivation or the impact of immigration causing these results. The impact of COVID has affected all UK nations but yet, after 25 years of Welsh Labour, we have seen the worst performances of students in reading, science and mathematics in Wales's history. Without any political waffle, Cabinet Secretary, this is nobody else's fault but yours. Can you explain to me why pupils in Wales are struggling so much, compared to every other UK nation? Evidence suggests that it's the general skills based curriculum the Welsh Government is pushing that might be the cause of declining educational performance in Wales. Therefore, the new made-for-Wales GCSEs that are due to be taught in Wales are not actually going to help pupils develop those skills they need to compete against others educated in the UK. You've said in your statement that you want children to reach their full potential, but this is nonsense; you are removing—
You referred at some length to the PISA results. If I can remind you that the children and young people who sat the PISA tests were not taught under the new curriculum; they were taught under the current curriculum. Ahead of the pandemic, Wales was the only country in the UK improving standards in literacy, numeracy and science in PISA tests. And it's important to note that most schools and learners opted not to take part in 2022 and that none of the countries in the UK reached the required participation threshold. So, there does need to be some caution when looking at the PISA scores, but, notwithstanding that, I have said that the scores were disappointing, and that is why both I and the First Minister have said that raising attainment is a top priority for this Government.
Just to assure you that we are working hard already on support for literacy and numeracy. Last year, we published our oracy and reading toolkit, co-developed with practitioners, providing a package of support for schools to develop and embed a whole-school approach to achieving high standards of oracy and reading in English and in Welsh. Through annual grant funding, we provide high-quality resources to all children from as young as six months, and their families, aimed at encouraging positive language and literacy interactions through books, stories and games. We've got a number of projects that are designed to promote a love of reading, because all the evidence suggests that enjoying reading is incredibly important for children and young people to learn. And, in terms of numeracy, we've got our maths and numeracy plan, which is already under way in Wales. And that support is being developed in co-construction with practitioners. We've also got the mathematics support programme, delivered through Swansea University, which we are funding and which we are expanding. So, we have a really strong focus on numeracy and literacy already, but we are looking to strengthen that further.
If I can just conclude by saying that it is a myth to say that our curriculum is just a skills-based curriculum. It is also a knowledge-based curriculum. It is very clear, if you look at the curriculum framework, that the knowledge expected from our learners is very clearly set out through the areas of learning, through the 'what matters' statements, through the descriptions of learning and through the progression framework. Thank you.
In terms of your queries about the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence, just to assure you that we're looking at examples of curricula anywhere that we can, really, and we're also really keen to learn from their experience in Scotland. One of the things that they probably did wrong in Scotland was that they responded to the concerns about their curriculum by putting too much detail into what they were asking schools to do, and that doesn't seem to have helped the problem. I met with Graham Donaldson last week to check in on how we were going. I know that he attended a large network event with practitioners, and he feels that we are very much on the right track. Obviously, there's more work to do, and I would never suggest otherwise.
Just finally on the teaching of Welsh history or histories, just to assure you, obviously, that was a commitment as part of the co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru. I came in at the tail end of that piece of work, but that work is continuing. We are committed to that piece of work and making sure that all our children and young people can understand all the histories that have grown up around them in Wales.
And on vets, Cabinet Secretary, we do have a shortage of vets right across Wales, and you keep asking them to do more and more, whether that's the increased bureaucracy that comes with TB, the increased vet visits that are part of the sustainable farming scheme, and now this on top again. And that's on top of people's herd plans and sheep health plans that vets come around to talk about. This is a lot of vet time here that is going to be on farms, so I'd be interested to know what conversation you've had with vets around whether they actually have got the resource to do that.
And one thing that I think is very key in delivering this programme—. It does rely heavily on upskilling our farmers right across Wales, and I think there's a little bit of detail lacking in the statement around that. So, I want to know how will the programme educate and upskill our farmers about BVD, the best practices for prevention and control, and the available support systems. Are there any plans to develop an educational resource or training programme specifically tailored to Welsh farmers around—I can't get my words out—BVD? And will the Welsh Government collaborate with industry bodies like the NFU, the FUW and, obviously, the young farmers movement as well, because our young farmers are the future of our farming in Wales, and I'd be interested to know whether you've been talking to them?
I think that's enough questions I've asked you, Cabinet Secretary. I can see your pen moving very quickly across the paper, trying to keep up with what I've asked you. But from my point of view, eradicating BVD in Wales is a positive step. I think it can add significant benefits to the industry, with increasing productivity and actually on-farm profit as well, but I think we need some more answers on the questions that I've asked you, Cabinet Secretary, so we can get into the detail of this, because it's only by getting that full detail will I be able to support you wholly in this scheme. Diolch.
The shortage of vets that you touched on is a really interesting point. We know how stretched vets are. I simply want to say: any UK Government elected in a few days, of whichever colour, needs to deal with the issue of veterinary agreements on a UK-EU basis. We do need to get back to that situation where there is a well-managed but also a good flow of expertise back and forth. And I mean, this is interesting, because part of the issues of shortages we’re seeing, and I attended—I think you might have as well—the British Veterinary Association annual meeting and the dinner last week—. I met with them during the course of the day. This was one of the things we were discussing: how we got to this point where we seem to have strangled the availability.
We also need as well, by the way, to continue the development of our own expertise through our veterinary schools and so on, and I think there’s something here that we need to look at with farmers themselves who might decide, or youngsters on farms who might decide that that’s a route for them to go on. So, the upskilling of farmers is an issue we’ll be working on with the vets, with the farming unions, with young farmers and others over the course of the next year to make sure that all farmers are aware of how to do this process, and why it’s good for them to do this process, and for them to take ownership in the same way that this initiative has actually been co-designed. Those farmers are going to be part of the solution of eradicating BVD, which we can do.
You say that we are moving to an industry-led phase, that the industry itself will lead on this, but what role do you therefore see for the Government in the longer term in terms of governance and costs related to eradicating BVD? There's reference to BVD governance; can you tell us who you think will play a part in that?
Just to close from me, your predecessor made a statement in January of last year saying that the two main threats in this context for the sector are sheep scab and BVD. Where are we on sheep scab? What is your ambition in relation to scab? If you get to this point with BVD, is that the direction of travel in the other context too? Thank you.
You mentioned whether this then points the way forward on other things. I'm very keen to point out that, whilst I really welcome the fact that this is a co-produced piece of work that's been led by the sector, been championed by the sector for some time, and we've now got to this very important point today, it doesn't, of itself, say, 'This is a precedent', but we do need to actually get on with scab as well. Now, I think what this has shown us is that there is a way of working with the industry to actually say what's the best solution. This model, I think, is absolutely right for this, but let's see now. I'm looking forward to bringing forward some outcomes of the work that we've been doing on scab, and sharing it with the committee as well, so that they can see it, and I think that's our next one that we move onto. But this shows a way that we can do it together. Thank you.
I just do want to say that this has been a really good example of co-productive working between the Welsh Government and UK Government, and we continue to work closely on the development of our respective procurement regimes. We have been able, for example, to change the UK Government's approach to a number of things. For example, in the drafting of the Procurement Act, we secured an increase in the maximum contract term for when contracts are reserved to public service mutuals from three years to five years, for example, and we were also able to influence the drafting of the UK Government's procurement regulations in a number of areas. For example, when a contract is awarded to an excluded supplier, we suggested that the name of the supplier should be included in the contract award notice, so that, in all instances, the public are aware of the intention to award to an excluded supplier before the contract has been entered into. So, there are a whole range of examples that we can cite in terms of the influence that we've had on the UK Government's approach and the good working that's been done jointly.
And then just to point out two things that I think will be of particular interest to colleagues in terms of the approach that we're taking forward today. In the legislation there is a specific duty on contracting authorities to consider how to reduce and remove the barriers to small and medium-sized enterprises when they are trying to access those public procurement opportunities. We know that these barriers can include over-complicated tender processes and the requirement to submit multiple documents multiple times, and SMEs can find themselves at a disadvantage when competing against larger firms with dedicated bid-writing resources, for example. So, I think that's a really exciting move forward in the approach that we're taking. And also, crucially, the Act will require procurers to assess tenders on the basis of the most advantageous tender. Previously it's been the most economically advantageous tender, so it does mean that in removing the reference to economic criteria we will have a positive impact on social value, allowing for greater consideration of the wider benefits for the community in which the contract will be delivered. I know that will speak to a lot of concerns that colleagues have raised about procurement in recent years. Thank you.
Amendment 26 corrects a problem with the Bill by confirming that the functions of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Wales, as they are expanded in this Bill, include advising Welsh Ministers on issues related to the democratic health of Wales. That is the term that's used in paragraph 1.2 of the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Therefore, it is clear that it is the Government's intention for the commission to have that function, but it is not included on the face of the Bill at present. This legislation, therefore, in our view, needs to be true to the policy intentions set out, and as a matter of transparency, citizens should be able to understand the functions that are exercised by this body if they look at the legislation.
During Stage 2, the Counsel General argued that the Government could add to the functions of the body to be exercised by the electoral management board specifically through subordinate legislation in future. However, if the intention is for the body to have this function from the outset in terms of advising on democratic health, as we understand the explanatory memorandum to say, then we do need to be clear on that in the legislation, and therefore I ask Members to support amendment 26.
Turning now to amendment 27, in response to the first recommendation of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, the Government listed some of the different organisations that play a part in nurturing the democratic health of our nation: the Welsh Government itself, the Senedd Commission, and the power that the Commission has under the Government of Wales Act in this regard, the Electoral Commission, the advisory body on broadcasting and communication, the media, the third sector, local government, and, of course, the democracy commission itself. The education system and schools are also crucial bodies in terms of the role of the curriculum in nurturing and understanding and participation in democracy, and I do think that we still have more work to be done in that regard. Sioned Williams has been promoting this cause recently.
The problem is that not one single body seems to be leading on this co-ordination role, nor are they reporting holistically the success or otherwise of efforts made in terms of democratic health. The Reform Bill Committee recommended in relation to raising awareness of the electoral system for the new Senedd that there needed to be specific clarity on who will drive this work. The Government gave an initial response pledging to respond with substance in due time. I've asked two written questions to the Counsel General, and I'm still no clearer, I have to say, in terms of the Government's intentions in this regard.
The Counsel General said that Royal Assent to the first Senedd Cymru Bill would be an important milestone to enable the work to happen. That has now happened, of course, and it was said that there would be a further update for Members following the summer recess. But I do ask once again: who is responsible for leading and co-ordinating the work? Amendment 27 seeks to answer that question, and we want that clarity. I see that I—. Is there a time restriction on contributions?
The reason why this is even more important is because of automatic voter registration. Many of the people in the second homes wouldn't register, necessarily but now there is an automatic voter registration process, those 36,000 people all of a sudden will be on the register, in a number of cases for the very first time. That 36,000 is concentrated in very few constituencies. So, as a percentage of electors in those constituencies, they will be a significant proportion, and we believe there is a fundamental unfairness here that needs to be resolved.
During Stage 2, the Counsel General recognised that this was an important issue and that there was value in assessing ways of tightening up the rules around people's electoral rights when they are second home owners, but the conclusion, at that time, was that including something in this Bill would place an unnecessary burden on the electoral registration process. We are suspicious of this rationale, and we believe that, unless there is a change to the end to which this amendment is seeking, we are going to find ourselves in a position of an undemocratic unfairness, in our view, that I've warned against.
If I might turn, now, to amendment 8, this amendment would require the Welsh Ministers, no later than at the end of a period of 12 months beginning immediately after the end of the local government elections in Wales held in 2027, to carry out a review and lay a report before the Senedd relating to the operation of electoral registration without application. The Electoral Commission are required to produce an independent report evaluating the registration without application pilots. It would be an unnecessary complication to require the Welsh Ministers to do the same, given that the Electoral Commission's report on the pilots will be published and shared with all Members. So, I therefore, again, don't support this amendment.
Finally, if I can speak to amendment 29: this amendment, as the Member has outlined, places a residency requirement for local government registration, and would require a person to be ordinarily resident in the area for at least 182 days of the year. I have sympathy with the amendment, but I don't support the amendment, because I think it would create an unnecessary burden on the electoral registration officers, as monitoring compliance would be extremely difficult, particularly as we move to registration without application. It would also overlap and conflict with other existing provisions with respect to determining residency and local connection and could have unintended consequences with respect to people's existing right to vote. Diolch, Llywydd.
I do agree with the sentiment of the amendments, to ensure that voters are able to vote without the need for further assistance from any other person. I would like to place on record my commitment to ensuring that voters are able to vote independently and in secret, and to protecting that fundamental democratic right in Wales, through legislative, but also, importantly, through non-legislative measures. Diolch, Llywydd.
In our view, broader consideration needs to be given across the UK Government to the prohibition of deepfake materials entirely from our electoral systems. But, in the meantime, these amendments will enable us to, at least, monitor the scale of this issue in the context of Welsh elections and to introduce appropriate penalties for those who fail to register AI-generated material on the platform. There are 12 states in the United States, and counting, that have introduced this kind of legislation, as suggested in these amendments. So, we're not breaking new ground here, and there are good examples of legislation in other places, such as the European Union, and there are draft laws in a number of Parliaments across the globe at the moment, so we believe that it would be appropriate for us in Wales to be mindful of the possible impact of this technology on our democratic health.
Now, the Counsel General said that there were doubts as to what the standards or the requirements could be. They would be no more than what is contained within the regulations already available for everyone to see. It's possible that the Counsel General will talk again about specific guidance for the sector, but there is no reason to act beyond the legal framework that the Senedd has already agreed in the Welsh language Measure of 2011. The Welsh language as a cross-cutting issue is the central aim of that Measure, and the official status that was secured; it's not every sector doing as it chooses, as the Government itself recognised in its White Paper. Any arrangement, agreement or guidelines will be secondary to that. That is the truth of the matter, and the Government and the Counsel General should understand that, recognise that and support the amendments that Plaid Cymru has tabled.
There is also another issue that has emerged, and I think it's an important issue, regarding the role and responsibilities of the Electoral Commission for the conduct of elections. This could be resolved in the short term by a protocol or by a joint memorandum, and in the future perhaps a joint agreement on standards. So, I do want to work to that objective, but I do think there's still further work that's needed in order to achieve that.
So, how do we do this? For me, it isn't a matter of criminalising or bringing the criminal justice system into the process because it is a matter of how we behave and the example that we set, and we need to be able to address these matters ourselves. I've been very impressed with the work that Vikki Howells is leading as Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, and I believe that we should support the work that Vikki is leading as a part of that committee and to support the committee in what it's doing, because what it is doing is more profound than simply creating a criminal offence that I believe would be impossible to prosecute in a realistic timescale.
And what I also do not want to see is our political debate being determined and a matter of judicial litigation. That is not what politics should be about. Politics should be about us debating and discussing, arguing and disagreeing—disagreeing well—with each other and recognising that it's a political disagreement, not a personal hatred, and being able to have those debates with people and to lead those debates around the country with the people we seek to represent. I believe that seeking to criminalise and taking this into a judicial environment takes politics out of politics, if you like, and I don't believe that we should be doing that. I believe we should be doing something different, and I hope that we can do that. So, what I would like to see us doing is dealing with this in a more profound and, perhaps, a more serious way, and that is to look hard at the issues we face and to ensure that our response is more considered than the proposal in front of us today.
I also am deeply concerned about the issue of privilege. When this place was established, we had a limited privilege allowed to us, and that limited privilege exists today. I believe that privilege should be expanded and should be deepened. I do not believe that this Parliament should be subject to judicial review in terms of our decisions. Most Parliaments in the Westminster model, if you like, and not just the sovereign Parliaments of Canada, Australia, Westminster, and the Irish Republic and others, have a much more profound and wider level of privilege, and even the provincial Parliaments in Canada and the state legislatures in the United States also have a wider sense of privilege. I believe that that's the privilege we should have here so that our decisions are not subject to judicial oversight, because a parliament shouldn't be subject to judicial oversight. A parliament that seeks to govern a country should be able to govern its own affairs, and that is a profoundly important matter.
But we do need to have a privileges committee, which we don't have at the moment, so that the decisions and the way we behave and act in this Chamber can be subject to review, and we can be held to account for how we behave. The example I gave at the beginning of my contribution should be able to be challenged, because I've used language that would in some quarters be described as unparliamentary, and that should be open to scrutiny and it should be open to challenge. But it should be open to scrutiny and challenge by a parliament that has the powers to do that, and not open to scrutiny and challenge whereby a judge would start looking at our affairs and our processes and proceedings here. I do not believe that we should be in that process.
So, I hope that, in taking forward the debate this evening, we will have an opportunity to start a conversation, or to pursue and continue a conversation, that will be about protecting our politics, protecting our political discourse, ensuring that we aim to have political discourse of the highest quality, but rooted in truthfulness and honesty. And truthfulness, Peter, and honesty are fundamental to who we are—which I know that you would always exercise, and you have throughout your time done that—but we need to be able to be absolutely direct and to call it out when it doesn't happen, and that is a challenge that faces all of us. I hope that, in voting on these matters this evening, we won't simply conclude this debate but we will start a debate with ourselves and with the people we represent to enable us to have a process that does deliver the quality and the standards that we'd expect from everybody, but that also begins to address some of the cultural issues that we will be facing in the future. Thank you.
The Counsel General has set out his arguments and concerns in letters and in articles, and Adam Price and I have responded. There are differences, and people can judge those, but I'm pleased to say that we've worked really well and hard over the last 24 hours with a number of Ministers, and we've tried to focus on what we do agree on. There is agreement that lying should be sanctioned, and the question that remains is should the sanction come from fellow Senedd Members. I don't think it should. Alun Davies has made a cogent argument that a parliament should govern its own affairs. In my view, it should be for our independent institutions to uphold the norms and standards of democracy, because what are we trying to do here? If we're trying to rebuild trust, well, people don't trust politicians to regulate themselves. We've had recall petitions in Westminster where people who are bad eggs get resubmitted to the electorate and that has not rebuilt public trust. The public should have confidence that these breaches have been tested by an independent tribunal, underpinned by the safeguards and fair processes of the justice system, and are subject to the high bar of the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt', not the lowest civil test.
I know the Government and colleagues have concerns about that, and particularly about the fact that not enough consultation and thought has been given to understanding the potential unintended consequences of this, and I understand that. I do think a number of the concerns can be allayed. I do think a number of the things that James Evans has said, when worked through, are not as he fears, and can be addressed. But, as he said, this has come fairly late on in the parliamentary process—as is proper, and I think that's a good thing. We should be able to amend legislation, not just take what is given to us by the Government and be told, 'It's too late to change it.'
But people do feel the scrutiny has been rushed, and I respect that, so I do accept the need to decouple the detailed implementation of prosecution of deception from this Bill. I think we've had very constructive discussions about how to do that, and I'd love to hear more from the Counsel General. And I thank him for the spirit of compromise that he's been willing to engage into, to Vikki Howells, as the Chair of standards, who's been willing to align with us the work the Standards Committee are doing with the objectives here, and, of course, to Adam Price who's led the argument on this, and the team at the campaigning group Compassion in Politics for their advice and experience in supporting these efforts.
I think it is important to be of consensus on things of such gravity. I don't think the normal ways of doing things meets the level of the challenge that we already face to our democracy, a challenge that is going to get more fierce and more perilous. Simply thinking we want the good chaps to obey the good chaps approach is not fit for the danger of our times. I think the criminal standard, far from meeting the fears that many here have, actually provides more protection than is commonly thought, because it sets the bar very high. There are significant get-outs, if you like, from the legislation, where people who are genuinely caught up in this are able to find a way out. So, I don't share the concern about large moneyed interests trying to dominate this and to shut down debate. But the point is, these things need to be tested further in a way that builds the confidence of colleagues, and I don't think that has happened from this process. So, I think it's right that we step back and we take it into the standards committee. The commitment that Government have given is to work in good faith with that effort, and I look forward to being part of that.
Just in closing, Llywydd, as we have this debate, we need to recognise the darkness that is there before our eyes. I've seen a particularly ugly side of it in my constituency, but let's not kid ourselves that this is not going to become more widespread. We should act now while we can to get in front of that and build safeguards for our democracy and the fabric of our political culture.
Unlike Lee, I actually don't think the criminal direction is the way that we go, because I think what it does do is undermine that parliamentary privilege. I also think that the courts are an arm of Government. And one of the points about the great revolution and the Bill of Rights was, of course, what it did was create a separation between the courts and Parliament to create a distinct ability for Parliament to be able to operate without the threat of the courts and interference and so on. That having been said, we do have to ensure that we do tackle, firstly, the issue of recall within the constitutional structure that we have that's applicable to us, and I'm very pleased to see the work that Vikki Howells and the Standards of Conduct Committee have started, and I've been following the debates and reading the transcripts. I think that ties in and integrates exactly with the work that is needed in respect of the issue of deception and how that will be dealt with, and the sanctions that need to apply within that.
Can I just say, then, in the spirit, in terms of the engagement, that has taken place now on a cross-party basis, that I think it is a way forward? It is a way in which we will have that detailed and thorough scrutiny that I think we actually need to have to ensure that the legislation that comes out of this place is the most effective legislation that will take place.
So, I do have really just a very short statement to make, which is that the Welsh Government will bring forward legislation before 2026 for the disqualification of Members and candidates found guilty of deliberate deception through an independent judicial process and will invite the committee to make proposals to that effect. I'm committed to that, the Welsh Government is committed to that, and I believe now as a Senedd as a whole we're all committed to that. Diolch yn fawr.
I think the process whereby we have arrived at the words that the Counsel General describes, I think this is parliamentary democracy at its best. It's Welsh democracy at its best, isn't it? We've had many sincere and sometimes passionate disagreements, but look at where we've arrived at. We are going to—collectively, together—we are going to outlaw political lying. We're going to be the first country to do so, building a better future for our democracy, but also starting a global movement to take back the future, to defend democracy, and to prevent those who are conspiring globally to undermine democracy both here in Wales and in the future.
I thank everyone that has contributed to the debate. I look forward now to taking it to the next stage, to enacting this ready for 2026 so that we can build the best possible foundation for the future of our democracy. Thank you.