Plenary

The next item will be the business statement and announcement. The Trefnydd will be making that statement. Jane Hutt.

Thank you, Llywydd. There is one change to this week’s Plenary business; questions to the Senedd Commission tomorrow have been reduced to 10 minutes. Business for the next three weeks is shown on the business statement, which is available to Members electronically.

Trefnydd, I'd like to raise the case today of Enzo Romano, the young footballer who was born in Cardiff in 2009 but has had his application for British citizenship rejected twice. I'd like to know what support the Welsh Government is providing, working with the Home Office, in order to ensure that Enzo does have that right, because, as you'll have seen last week, I’m sure, Enzo has represented Wales at youth level, and has played for the academies of some of Europe's leading clubs, including Barcelona. Despite offers to play for the youth teams of Spain and Italy, Enzo has chosen to reject these, saying that he's determined to represent Wales. He said himself last week:

'To think that I can't represent my country playing football just because of this situation really hurts me.'

I'm sure that we all want to see Enzo playing for Wales, so how is the Welsh Government going to support that?

Diolch yn fawr, Heledd Fychan. Isn't it great that we have such an enthusiastic young person who wants to represent Wales and has shown his great talent and skill as well? As you know, of course, these matters are not devolved, in terms of his status in terms of immigration status, but I would be grateful if you could share this representation with me so that I can follow it up with the Minister in the UK Government.

Trefnydd, I'd like to call for two statements today, if I may, the first from the Minister for Mental Health and Well-being in relation to gambling harm services. We know that the gambling levy comes to Wales, a proportion of that, in order to support problem gamblers and to take action and invest in prevention work. But I've recently been contacted by Ara Recovery because the Scottish Government has already published its commissioning model for the future of services in Scotland. That is also the case in England, with regard to the UK Government, but Wales seems to be lagging behind. There's no clarity as to what's going to happen from 1 April, and we do need to make some progress on this, with a clear timetable for decisions, confirmation of any interim arrangements and some meaningful engagement with Ara and the other stakeholders that are involved.

The second statement that I'd like is from the Cabinet Secretary with the responsibility for transport in relation to bicycle theft on the rail network in Wales. I know that the Welsh Government's not directly responsible for policing, but I do know that you have an interaction with the British Transport Police in relation to travel on the Transport for Wales network. There is a problem: they recently published, the British Transport Police, their new policy for investigating thefts of bicycles, and they say that they're not going to prosecute anybody if a bicycle's left for more than two hours or if it's valued for under £200. I find that unacceptable and I'd like to know what the Welsh Government is doing to ask them to look at that policy again. Thank you.

Thank you very much for both of those questions, and I obviously will raise this with the Minister for Mental Health and Well-being in relation to where we are in terms of addressing gambling harms through the services that we already provide, and I would say that we have been at the forefront, as you know, in terms of addressing this, and I thank the Senedd for engaging with these issues as well. And thank you for the feedback and the questions from Ara Recovery. I will ensure that we get a response to that in terms of where we are in these weeks as we lead to the end of this sixth Senedd and meet that timetable in terms of 1 April.

Yes, as you have said, policing is not devolved. I'm glad you actually see that it's a question you should be putting to me, because we would like to ensure that, of course, British Transport Police are serving the needs of our communities, and, of course, that's in terms of our rail services, and it is very concerning, particularly in relation to our active travel policy and commitments, that bicycles are being stolen, but I will again ask for a briefing on this, and make sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales of course will be aware of this question and follow it up.

The report and recommendations of the Independent Advisory Group on Future Electricity Grid for Wales was published last month and the foreword from the Chair, Professor Hywel Thomas, hints that they got pretty bogged down in the weeds on thorny issues like undergrounding cables versus pylons, and, disappointingly, failed to look at the heat networks we need to use in the first instance so we consume in Wales the energy we produce in Wales. The Bethesda hydro scheme is a good example of that. So, I wondered if the Government could produce a statement that indicates how far we've got on the heat networks we need and the conversations we're having with the grid to ensure that that can happen before we transmit the energy up to centralised control, which then can be flogged to wherever it's needed.

Thank you for that question, Jenny Rathbone, and also for making that link to the Hywel Thomas report and the impact implications for the grid. Heat networks have the potential to be a reliable and efficient provider of low-carbon affordable heat across Wales, and, of course, we have a heat strategy for Wales, recognising their importance in decarbonising heat and generating high-quality jobs during construction across the value chain.

I think it's really important to recognise the first phase of the Cardiff heat network—recently gone live, supported by a grant from the UK Government and interest-free loan from Welsh Government, totalling over £15 million. And we will be working with the UK Government on developing the regulation of heat networks, and Ofgem will be the regulator, to ensure consumers have a reliable service, along with fair pricing. But it is important that we look at this in relation to the report and the impact implications, as you say, in terms of the grid.

I wish to raise a concerning matter that has been brought to my attention. It concerns an organisation in the third sector who has applied for funding within the Welsh Government's equality and inclusion grant programme. They were promised to hear if they were successful by the end of December, with the work expected to commence in the second week of January, if successful. We are now 10 days into February, and organisations that applied for this funding are still waiting to find out if they have been successful. It's worth noting that this funding is designed to last for three months, as the first phase is meant to be finished by the end of March. That deadline falls in just over six weeks' time. Not only is this massively inconvenient for the third sector organisations waiting in limbo, and perhaps even holding back on applying for other funding pots while they await news, but it also means that vital work to enhance inclusion and equality is not being carried out.

I'd be grateful if you could urgently look into this unsatisfactory state of affairs, with a view to getting it sorted and bringing much needed clarity to the third sector organisations. And can you give us an update in this Senedd as to the situation within your own portfolio? Diolch.

Well, thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr, Peredur Owen Griffiths. This is a new programme, the equality and inclusion grants programme. It is in my portfolio, so you've asked the right person to follow this up and respond. I know that there have been a large number—a welcome large number—of applications, and I have also been monitoring and checking how this is impacting on applicants. So, thank you for drawing attention to this, and I will update the Senedd on the equality and inclusion grants programme.

But also, I'm very willing, again, if you want to share with me which organisations are making applications, to follow it up. But I also know that this should not be bound by the financial year. We have to look at this in terms of the time that we've got for organisations to be able to deliver on their applications once the approvals have been made.

Trefnydd, the University Hospital of Wales Cardiff is Wales's largest hospital. It should be a symbol of national pride; instead, it has become a symbol of national failure. Members will be well aware that problems at UHW are now making repeated headlines across the country, regularly branding the hospital as the worst in the UK. We have seen reports of pigeons getting into operating theatres, sterile or surgical equipment being interfered with, and allegations of drug use, physical fights and inappropriate sexual relationships between staff. All this sits on top of long-standing, deep-rooted problems at the hospital: crumbling ageing buildings, poor management, low staff morale and serious safety concerns in theatres and clinical areas.

The conditions at UHW are not the result of bad luck; they are the predictable outcomes of years of neglect by this Welsh Labour Government, which controls the NHS in Wales. Your Government sets the budgets. Your Government sets the priorities. And, therefore, it must accept responsibility for the conditions in which care is being delivered at UHW today. Therefore, can I ask again for an urgent statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health on the immediate actions the Welsh Government are taking to improve conditions at the University Hospital of Wales Cardiff? Thank you.

Thank you, Joel James, and you raise an important question. And, as you know, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and Welsh Government officials, are regularly holding meetings with the health board to hold them to account, including the public accountability meeting that took place on 13 November 2025.

We've been very clear with the health board about their need to improve the culture and leadership, particularly addressing concerns raised in recent internal reviews and the response from the workforce. I think it is important just to reflect on the issue around the regular review meetings that the chair and the Cabinet Secretary have been holding, particularly a report from the hospital's sterilisation and decontamination unit, and the fact that action has been taken as a result of that.

And also, just to say, on capital and estates, Welsh Government have prioritised capital schemes for maintenance within the constraints of the capital budget, including maintenance commitments above and beyond that which other parts of the UK have made. Because that capital is crucial in terms of addressing the issues at the University Hospital of Wales.

But we are very clear about the need to improve culture and leadership, addressing concerns raised in the recent reviews. And, of course, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board remains in level 4 escalation, and we're working with them to agree appropriate interventions and support.

Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. I'd like to request a statement, please, from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. At a public meeting last Friday in Tairgwaith, residents raised concerns about their experiences with the Amman Tawe Partnership. Amman Tawe Partnership operates across four GP surgeries in my region, and across seven in total. It also operates across two health boards—Swansea bay and Hywel Dda. I do intend to write to the Cabinet Secretary, but I would like there to be consideration given to an independent inquiry into the partnership, in order to hear all sides of the story and to ensure that all experiences are listened to. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr, Jane Dodds. Thank you for feeding back on that important meeting that was held in the community. It is important, again, that you've brought this today, in terms of local concerns about health service provision at the Amman Tawe Partnership GP practices. I'm grateful that you will be writing to the Cabinet Secretary about this. I think this is something where—. This is about local concerns that have been received by both Hywel Dda and Swansea Bay university health boards from some constituents. But they have been investigated; formal complaints are limited, dealt with either directly by the practice or by the health board. But, at this present time, I understand there is no indication of regulatory issues, and no intervention has been made by Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. But it is important now that this is followed through, as you said. I think a key message is that health boards are aware of periodic local concerns, but there has to be, obviously, an evidence base, in terms of systemic or safety issues, in terms of further intervention.

I'm asking for a Welsh Government statement on the future of computing in Swansea University. There are currently proposals to make substantial staffing reductions in the computing department. If this goes ahead, it will affect recruitment of both staff and students for many years into the future. I regularly raise the importance of computing and life sciences in growing the Swansea economy. These changes will seriously affect the growth potential of computing in Swansea and the opportunity to grow the Swansea economy in a high-wage and high-skills sector. The current proposal of those reductions is an act of economic vandalism, and Swansea is going to suffer.

Diolch yn fawr, Mike Hedges. You draw attention, which has been in the press as well, to that particular course, and, of course, there are others that are affected in terms of the issues arising in Swansea University. I understand that the Minister for Further and Higher Education has reached out to the vice-chancellor of the university, to meet and discuss how staff, particularly, can be supported during these difficult times. The Minister has also reached out to campus unions and expects Swansea University to work closely with them. There are, I understand, hopes to reduce numbers in scope through voluntary means. I'm grateful for the fact that you've raised this, particularly in terms of that area in terms of the faculty, the computer science course. But we of course remember that Medr is engaging closely with universities in Wales, understanding their individual positions, to ensure their long-term financial sustainability.

I was wondering if I could ask for a written statement from the Trefnydd herself on Royal Mail. I've spoken to a number of postal workers and members of the Communication Workers Union who've raised concerns with me around Royal Mail's overtime ban on the delivery of letters. If, for example, a postal worker is unable to complete a round because of the sheer number of letters they have, or if there are additional rounds to do, it doesn't matter; Royal Mail have refused that overtime. That has massive implications for our constituents, it has massive implications for the service. So, I would be interested in having a written statement from the Trefnydd, outlining what conversations the Welsh Government might have had with Royal Mail, and what the Welsh Government would be asking Royal Mail to do in this instance.

Thank you, Luke Fletcher, for that question. Of course, it's not devolved, but, again, it's a matter of liaison and representation, so I'm glad you've brought that to my attention today. We're aware of the changes that have taken place, in terms of the delivery of postal services and the impact it can have in terms of, I know, concerns about appointments in the NHS, for example, but also the impact on the workforce. That's certainly something to engage with the unions on as well, to understand those impacts. So, thank you for that, because I will be making representations as a result of questions being asked of me—this week, in fact.

I call for a statement on support for parents and carers of children with additional learning needs. As chair of the cross-party autism group, I've been made aware of a letter issued by the director of education at Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council to parents, which could be distressing for parents and carers of children with additional learning needs, and asked to raise this issue in the Chamber. The letter warns that having ALN does not mean school rules do not apply, and selectively quotes a line from the National Autistic Society's website completely out of context. Both the National Autistic Society Cymru and Learning Disability Wales have condemned the tone as distressing and ableist, particularly for families already struggling to secure the reasonable adjustments their children are legally entitled to. Learning Disability Wales has referred the matter to the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the Cabinet Secretary for Education. The National Autistic Society has made clear that misrepresenting its guidance is unhelpful and potentially misleading. This reflects a failure to understand and meet the needs of autistic pupils and other pupils with additional learning needs, which is worryingly replicated at senior level in many local authorities. I call for an urgent statement accordingly.

Thank you very much, Mark Isherwood. I'm obviously not aware of this particular letter, but I think it's important that you've drawn it to our attention today, and also that those organisations that have such expertise and support, the National Autistic Society and Learning Disability Wales, are engaging. It is a matter for Merthyr Tydfil county council and their director of education, and it is now on the record that there are concerns being raised about that letter and the impact of it.

A debating society refusing debate. Well, this is a new one. Trefnydd, I'm calling for a statement from your Government following a decision made by the debating and political society at Bangor University to refuse a request from a Reform UK representative to take part in a Q&A, and in their statement using loaded and hateful language, such as 'racist', 'transphobic' and 'homophobic'. Reform have six MPs, two MSs, one MSP, 1,000 councillors across the UK, and are likely to get an awful lot more in May. Surely the answer to speech that you don't like is more debate, not cancelling them. This is setting a dangerous precedent. We recognise that Bangor University has now distanced itself from the society's decision and have said that it does not reflect the university's policies, which of course we welcome. Universities should be bastions of free speech. I'm therefore calling for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary, from this Government, on how they seek to help protect and safeguard freedom of speech in universities and fair access to debate. I'm sure you'll agree with me, Trefnydd, from what we've seen from this society and Bangor University, it's both unbelievable and unacceptable. Diolch.

Well, it is very concerning to hear from you about the tone of this and the implications of the question that you raise, Laura Anne Jones. Obviously, it's based on the Reform agenda, isn't it? Obviously, universities and their student societies operate independently. It is for them to determine which events or speakers they host. And of course there are strongly held views across the political spectrum about issues of free speech and inclusion and decisions that can prompt strong feelings from all sides. But also, can I remind you, Laura Anne Jones, of our Hate Hurts Wales? It's our commitment to ensuring that we promote unity not hostility, that we promote community cohesion not division, which of course is underlying many of the points that are now coming out in terms of Reform responses and policies.

Trefnydd, could you ask the Minister for higher education to make an urgent statement about the disgraceful comments made by Reform about Bangor University? The head of policy for Reform UK, Zia Yusuf, has said this in talking about the funding of Bangor University:

'I am sure they won't mind losing every penny of that state funding under a Reform government.'

That is to say Reform is threatening to de-fund the university, and is therefore putting the university's future at risk. This shows that Reform is not fit to govern and Reform doesn't understand my constituency. Bangor University is one of the major employers in the area, providing employment to hundreds, to local electricians and lecturers who train the doctors and nurses of the future. The comments of Reform are entirely unacceptable and they will create panic locally. The university is central to the community and economic life of the area and was established through the efforts of the quarrymen of Arfon. So, will the Government join with me in condemning this statement from Reform at once? Bullying and threats to our HE institutions à la Trump are entirely disgraceful and are entirely contrary to our values here in Wales.

Thank you, Siân Gwenllian, for your very important question.

I have already responded robustly to Laura Anne Jones. I'm just very worried what this is leading to in terms of that threat to our universities, which, as I say, are operating independently. Also, can I say how proud I am of our higher education institutions for the way they're embracing our 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan' and enabling us to ensure that universities are the places where people can learn, debate freely and openly. To have that kind of threat in terms of public funding is appalling, and I concur with your points about this, particularly as you serve it in your constituency.

I'd like to call for a statement, please, from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care this afternoon on unacceptable waiting times for gastroenterology care and the impact this is having on people with severe eating-related disorders. Across Wales, the number of patients on referral-to-treatment waiting lists has soared to around 781,000 pathways, and routine gastro waiting times have exceeded three years in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, creating a backlog and delay in care. Those with complex gastro symptoms are waiting too long for treatment, which can lead to their condition worsening with severe consequences, plus creating backlogs that can delay diagnosis and essential diagnostic procedures, such as endoscopy. At the same time, we know there is a rising prevalence of eating disorders, with the eating disorder charity Beat saying they've seen a seven-fold increase in calls from young people presenting with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, yet specialist care remains hard to obtain and waiting times remain too long. So, can we receive a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care outlining what action the Welsh Government and health boards will take to make sure that gastro waiting times are reduced, so that assessments and treatment pathways for people with eating disorders and complex feeding difficulties are timely and compassionate?

Thank you for that question. As you know, progress has been made since special measures, in terms of Betsi Cadwaladr health board: improved financial governance, a stable board in place, and also in terms of progress on access to planned care over the last three years. And if you see that progress, it's a 60 per cent reduction in the numbers of pathways waiting over 104 weeks for treatment since February 2023. It is true that some people are waiting too long to access services and you have put on the agenda today—on the record today—the particular concerns about gastroenterology. But it is true also that waits for out-patient appointments have fallen by 22 per cent, two-year waits for out-patient appointments by 80 per cent, and a 71.6 per cent reduction in pathways waiting for more than a year in some specialties, which have also made an impact and improved services for people in north Wales.

Business Minister, can I please request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care about less survivable cancers, in particular the funding and treatment inequalities that exist? A constituent of mine, who is living with stage 4 cancer, having been diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in 2022, has shared his experience with me, having been under the treatment of various health boards, including Aneurin Bevan, Cardiff and the Vale, as well as Velindre. He explained that the funding for research remains far too low, with some cancers receiving over £310 in research funding per patient death, whereas oesophageal cancer gets only £40. It's not just funding either, Cabinet Secretary. Patients in England benefit from a 31-day waiting time target for secondary care for cancer, yet Wales has no such specific target, leaving patients with advanced diseases in a postcode lottery. We have incompatible computer systems, meaning that specialists in Cardiff often cannot access scans performed in other health boards, causing dangerous delays in time-sensitive care. Endoscopies are vital for early diagnosis, yet Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board currently has the longest waiting list for this procedure in the entire United Kingdom. And whilst historically linked to smoking and alcohol, an increasing number of patients, including my constituent, who has lived a healthy lifestyle and is a non-smoker, are being diagnosed with this sort of cancer. Business Minister, we cannot improve survival rates if the Government continues to underfund the very cancers that claim the most lives here in Wales. A Government statement outlining what steps the Cabinet Secretary will be taking to rectify the situation would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Of course, we've been focused on working with the NHS to improve cancer services with earlier access to diagnosis and treatment. There is more to be done in terms of prevention, treatment and research, but we've invested tens of millions of pounds in new cancer facilities, equipment, digital systems, workforce training and treatments also as part of our £2 million cancer recovery programme, supporting health boards to improve cancer waiting times. And, of course, the long-term demand for cancer investigations, the complexity of care and delivery is increasing faster, and we need to make sure that the NHS has the capacity to deliver it.

Last week, Trefnydd, I raised with you that I believe that the health Secretary had misled this Senedd, making a statement that nobody in Powys is waiting more than a year for their first out-patient appointment or two years for treatment. In your response to me, apart from you saying that I should be careful about the language that I use, you also asked me to look at the statement again and to look at the statistical records in terms of the waiting times statistics. I can assure you that I had already done that before raising it, that is why I raised it. So, can I ask you, Trefnydd, have you now looked at the statement again and have you looked at the waiting times statistics for Powys? I assume that you have, given that you were so exercised about it. If you have, you will be aware that there are 185 people in Powys waiting for their first out-patient appointment, and that figure is just those Powys patients waiting in other Welsh health boards, let alone those waiting in English health boards. That is well above zero, isn't it, Trefnydd, and that's not 'nobody'? The Cabinet Secretary's statement was false and, if you had checked the information yourself, you would be aware of that. It is so frustrating for people waiting in pain to be told such misleading information. So, can I ask you, Trefnydd, to ask the health Secretary to make a statement to this Senedd, to provide an apology and to clarify the correct position?

Before the Trefnydd answers, can I remind the Member to be careful in his language, please? I did express that last week and I spoke to him privately with my view on what he said. There was no need to repeat it this week, because it's already on the record. You're now indicating that—in fact, you are stating clearly—he made false statements—

I am, yes.

—and I think that's a very dangerous situation. I'm very careful and conscious of what is said in this Chamber and how it's interpreted. I ask all Members to be careful how you phrase your questions, please. I ask all Members that on how you phrase your questions, please.

I stand by that statement, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Trefnydd.

Well, thank you for your question, Russell George. You know that the Welsh Government remains committed to reducing waiting times, ensuring everyone in Wales, including those in Powys, has equitable and timely access to treatment, and this has been supported by an additional £120 million this year, which includes new funding for Powys Teaching Local Health Board. In fact, the health board has just received over £115,000 as a provider to support improvements in planned care for this financial year.

But you know of course that, for many Powys residents, treatment is in English hospitals because Powys has no district general hospital and relies on cross-border commissioning. And, of course, the board has approved changes to align planned care with the extra funding for planned care services commissioned from providers in England and Wales to NHS Wales recovery targets, which came into effect—I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary has responded on this point—at the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt and the Wye valley trusts from 1 July. However, Shrewsbury and Telford NHS trust has not enacted the new commissioning intentions, but they have had this extra funding in order for them to move forward. It is really important that I say here that the health board received an additional £12.5 million in-year funding in 2024-25 to support it to deliver safe and timely access to its resident population, which included an acknowledgement of the additional costs to the health board of the commissioning position for Powys residents being treated in England in order to meet the Welsh waiting times target. That is the assurance that we can give.

And finally, Tom Giffard.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I ask for a statement from the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership? This is particularly in light of Swansea Council last week releasing minutes of a meeting that confirmed intentions that the Ospreys rugby club would not exist beyond 2027. Now, this is a grave concern for Ospreys supporters in Swansea and beyond, who, quite frankly, have been treated horribly by the Welsh Rugby Union, with very, very little transparency about what is happening to the future of their club. I'm very glad that the Minister is here and is listening to this, because he will know that those supporters deserve a lot better than what they've been getting from the WRU and others so far. Given the ongoing relationship between the Welsh Rugby Union and the Welsh Government, it's important, I think, that supporters also know the Welsh Government's position on this matter, which is why I'm calling for a statement from the Minister to be able to clarify the Welsh Government's position and its relationships, and exactly what it is doing to protect the Ospreys and to protect professional rugby in the Swansea area.

Thank you very much, and thank you for asking this question, which is obviously currently of great concern and interest. Of course, we recognise the passion and dedication of players, volunteers and supporters within the sport, and we want to see sports thrive at all levels. But, of course, decisions on the future, whether at community or professional level, are the responsibility of the Welsh Rugby Union. As it is an independent organisation, we don't have the powers to intervene on the decisions made and we can't direct the WRU. But we have urged—and I know the Minister has urged—the WRU to ensure that any decisions on the future of the sport are approached with open dialogue, transparency and thorough consideration of their wider implications for clubs, players, fans and all stakeholders who have an interest in the future of the sport in Wales.

Thank you, Trefnydd.

Item 3 is the statement by the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership on apprenticeship week. I call on the Minister, Jack Sargeant.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's a real pleasure to join you as we mark Apprenticeship Week Wales 2026. This week is a celebration of the people and partnerships that drive our skills system and support a fairer, greener, and more prosperous Wales.

I'm proud, Llywydd, that we will exceed our commitment to create 100,000 apprenticeship opportunities this Senedd term, with more than 104,000 expected by its end. This has been achieved during a period of real financial pressure and it reflects the dedication of providers, employers, and learners, backed by sustained Welsh Government investment. Our budget for 2026–27 includes an extra £7.4 million for apprenticeships, strengthening long-term stability.

Llywydd, I will never tire of saying that I once was an engineering apprentice. It not only gave me the skills to thrive as an engineer, but the confidence to enter different arenas, including to sit amongst you in the Senedd today. As I've said before, I'd like to see more former apprentices sitting in this place.

Throughout apprenticeship week, Cabinet Members are visiting apprenticeship sites, meeting apprentices, and meeting employers and training providers across the country. I recently went to the NPTC Group apprenticeship awards and witnessed first-hand the impact apprenticeships can and do have on the lives of the people of Wales. It was both inspiring and humbling.

Apprenticeships are central to developing our future workforce and they are central to ensuring opportunities reach every part of the country. This apprenticeship week, I will meet apprentices at AerFin in Newport, Pen y Cymoedd windfarm with the Federation of Master Builders, and, in my own constituency, apprentices from Toyota. I'm excited to see and share the significant contribution apprentices make to aerospace, renewable energy and modern construction—bolstering our economy and helping shape Wales into a country of the future.

Our apprenticeships policy statement sets priorities around strategic sectors, the transition to net zero, fair access, progression, and partnership. As the demands of the economy change, Wales continues to adapt its skills system. We work together with employers, training providers, Medr and Qualifications Wales to meet future needs.

As you will know, Medr is currently consulting on the next apprenticeship programme, launching in August 2027, to ensure it is flexible, inclusive and aligned to future economic needs. Underpinning the system, Qualifications Wales provides the independent regulation that maintains quality, helping ensure excellence in the Welsh skills pipeline. Together, the Welsh Government, Medr and Qualifications Wales support a coherent, trusted system focused on positive outcomes for the people and employers of Wales.

This system works. As a result of our strong collaboration in response to industry and employer needs, I am pleased today to confirm new level 2 apprenticeship pathways in bricklaying, site carpentry, scaffolding and building maintenance to come later this year, improving access to essential trades and supporting key areas such as housing, infrastructure and net-zero delivery. These developments follow strong engagement with the sector and close working with Medr and Qualifications Wales. Together, we listened, we heard, and we've now acted. Behind every apprenticeship is a personal story of talent and ambition—from engineering to professional cookery—and we continue to see how apprenticeships build confidence, skills and long-term careers.

Apprenticeship Week Wales is also about encouraging more employers to offer apprenticeships and to benefit from fresh talent, new ideas and workforce development. Apprenticeships support key sectors in Wales, such as health and social care, digital, engineering, advanced manufacturing, tourism, hospitality and public services. They underpin and contribute to a balanced and resilient economy based on fairness, inclusivity and opportunity. Apprenticeships form the foundation of a fair and prosperous economy, and the Welsh Government remains committed to a flexible, resilient skills system focused on opportunity.

Could I join the Minister in thanking all those who work within the further education and apprenticeship sector for their work on a day-to-day basis in inspiring a lot of our young people here in Wales, and fighting for that better provision here in Wales?

I'd also welcome the announcement we've just had on level 2 construction. I know this has been a long time coming, and I know the Minister has worked very hard to get this over the line. On that note, I thank him as well for those conversations in relation to level 2 construction and other issues within the apprenticeship agenda. I think a number of us in this Chamber who have been actively involved in other skills conversations over the years have a bit of collective trauma around trying to find a way forward on this agenda, particularly when we've seen the cuts of European funding to our apprenticeship system here in Wales.

I'd also like to flag that we have the apprenticeship fair tomorrow in the Senedd between 11:00 and 14:00. As co-chair of the cross-party group on apprenticeships, I would encourage everyone to come. If you were there last year, you would have seen some of the great courses that are on offer here in Wales. Last year, I found out I was a dab hand at welding. It's good to know, with an election coming, that I might be able to turn to something else, but it's a great opportunity for Members to also learn what they might be able to progress onto after the election.

Turning to the statement at hand, on the face of it, it's really good news that we're seeing the Government hitting its target, exceeding its target, with 104,000 apprenticeships in Wales. Of course, it's worth remembering that that is a revised target, for one of the reasons that I've already set out, which is the loss of European funding having a massive impact. But what I wanted to seek some clarity on from the Minister is whether that target includes apprentice starts that withdrew within the first eight weeks of their course, because if that is the case, I think it does, it's fair to say, cast a bit of doubt over the positivity of that figure of 100,000. Because surely we should be counting the apprenticeship finishes rather than the apprenticeship starts, especially if then, within those figures, you have the people who are dropping out within those first eight weeks. So, some clarity from the Minister on that would be very welcome.

Secondly, I think this apprenticeship week is as much about celebrating apprenticeships as it is about looking ahead to a new apprenticeship programme for Wales, and, of course, those Senedd elections in May. The essence of any economy is its people, so, to my mind, apprenticeships are one of the clearest ways we put that belief into practice. With a return on investment of up to £18 for every £1 spent, apprenticeships are evidently great value for money.

I thank Luke Fletcher for that. Can I firstly thank him for his work as co-chair of the cross-party group with Joyce Watson? I thank them for all the work that they both do in supporting apprenticeships and the apprenticeship system in Wales. I look forward to being at the apprenticeship fair tomorrow. I think it's a really good opportunity for Members of the Senedd to see what's on offer in their local communities, and then, hopefully, go out and promote apprenticeships as an offer for everybody in the future. I'll make the offer to the Member: if he finds himself taking up a welding apprenticeship and he needs help with his performing engineering operations qualification, then I'm sure I've got my folders under the bed somewhere, and I'm sure we can come to some sort of arrangement in the future.

I thank him for his words on level 2 apprenticeships in the construction industry. I'm grateful for the conversations that we have had over a sustained period of time now, and I'm pleased to be able to say that we are moving. We've announced those construction apprenticeships frameworks in the ones that I listed before. I think this is a positive step forward. It's what the industry wanted, and I very much recognise that, and we've been able to announce these apprenticeships. Construction is the foundation of the economy, and we should always look to support there. And that work doesn't stop. Medr will continue with the framework review, looking at further courses that could become available. So, I'll seek more there.

On the stats, he asked for clarity. The stats exceeding the target of 104,000 include apprenticeship starts. That is the programme for government commitment, and that's what we've achieved already. I won't mention the point that's been rehearsed before around the loss of European funding; I'll save that for a further contribution, I'm sure, coming, perhaps, shortly. But the stats are exceeding—. On the point the Member raised on people coming to the completion of their courses, we're always looking at what more we can do to make sure that is a higher figure again. I think the apprenticeship programme in Wales is a success. It's a quality programme, with over 100,000 in this Senedd term, over 200,000 across the last decade. But, of course, we're always working with colleagues, and Medr play a key role in some of that, about what we can do more of in the future.

I think there were just two more points. One was on level 7 Master's degree-style apprenticeships. We had a commitment to expand degree apprenticeships in this Senedd term. We've done that, we've expanded them in key areas. I'm very keen that we have an offer that helps maximise the opportunity that the economy brings. I know of the situation that the Member has pointed to. Medr are currently going through their framework approach. They should be considering all of that information now, and I think they are looking at what the Member has referred to as part of correspondence I've received and they have received.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement, and, indeed, for sight of your statement earlier on this afternoon. I'm pleased to join in and celebrate apprenticeship week this year and recognise the value that apprenticeships bring to learners, employers and the wider Welsh economy. It's great too to see employers and training providers promoting the success of their apprentices and to highlight the benefit that their roles provide to the wider economy. I know this is a subject that the Minister himself is passionate about, as you've raised in your statement this afternoon.

I think we should also celebrate that Wales has some of the highest quality apprenticeship programmes, with Wales boasting one of the UK's most successful apprenticeship programmes in terms of completion rates, with an average completion rate of 74 per cent, outperforming both England at 61 per cent and Northern Ireland at 62 per cent. Whilst I welcome the 100,000 apprenticeships delivered in this Senedd term, I think we can agree that it would be great to see the number much higher, and that this number is lower than the Welsh Government's target to create 125,000. I know you referenced European funding, which gave me foresight of perhaps something that you'll be responding to in my response to the statement. And just to say that those pledges were made in 2021, five years after Wales and the UK voted to leave the EU, and indeed 12 months after we officially left the EU. So, the Welsh Government must have had confidence at that time, given that the economy was where it was at the time, that you could produce that 125,000 figure, but we are at 100,000, which I welcome. But I would like to ask you that, Minister, in terms of the reasons why we couldn't make 125,000, given those political realities that we currently have.

Only 1.6 per cent of year 11 leavers and 2.9 per cent of year 13 leavers in Wales go straight into apprenticeships. When you look at the stats as a percentage, uptake is still shockingly low and needs to increase. The Welsh Government currently has no clear targets or aspirations in this area. With the poor economic circumstances that have been cultivated by Labour Governments at both ends of the M4, we have an environment where companies across Wales are disincentivised to invest the time and resources to provide the necessary supervision, training and safeguarding associated with taking on apprentices.

So, we are still massively behind the curve when it comes to apprenticeships, and this raises concerns that we'll see a substantial brain drain if there are greater options across the border in England. Projections suggested around 10,000 fewer starts in 2024-25, with organisations like CollegesWales warning that this undermines economic goals and cuts the talent pipeline for employers. There has been a noted fall in starts, which was reported by Medr's statistics from 2025, which was attributed to funding cuts in the 2024 budget. Estyn also attributed this fall in apprenticeship starts to the 14 per cent reduction in apprenticeships funding.

I thank Gareth Davies for a series of points there. I think we've covered a number of them in the contribution before, so I'll try not to go over them again, but I'll try and get through the rest. Can I thank him for his positive start? I genuinely do believe, Llywydd, this is one of the areas where the Senedd does come together when it comes to the importance of apprenticeships. We might differ on how we get there and all of those things, but the idea of supporting apprentices and apprenticeships is clearly one that the Senedd does support, and I'm grateful for his position there. I’m also grateful for his recognition of the highest quality of apprenticeship, which is something that we’ve never wanted to shy away from. We want quality apprenticeships and we've delivered 100,000 of them this Senedd term, and I’m grateful to him for highlighting the completion rate. I'll ask Luke to just hear what Gareth said on that in relation to his question earlier.

Llywydd, I am very proud, and it is a personal pride, to be the apprenticeships Minister, particularly given the fact I've been through that journey myself. And Gareth guessed right, and I also guessed right that he was going to bring up the European Union. We were told at the time that we would not be worse off when we left the European Union. The apprenticeship budget was directly £43 million worse off as a result of Brexit. So, wherever you sit on the fence of Brexit or not, the consequence was a direct impact of minus £43 million annually to the budget. That's a significant decrease to the budget. The Welsh Government has consistently improved the apprenticeships budget, and we are now investing more than we ever have before, with more in the budget for next year.

When it comes, Gareth—. That's not the only impact in the system that's been faced. I mentioned them in my statement as well, but there were significant inflationary pressures at the time where his party was in control at the UK level. But against all of that—. That's what contributed to the falling starts that he referred to. But let's not undermine the importance of this, and the impact this has had. Apprenticeships offer not just opportunity, they offer life-changing opportunity, and we've supported over 100,000 of them in this Senedd term. As I said, in that period, across the decade, over 200,000 apprenticeship opportunities were supported, in every single constituency, including in his own, in a wide variety of sectors, including the north Wales fire service and in Ysgol Bryn Collen as well.

He asked for two points—Llywydd, I can see it’s time to move on. He asked about support from the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and how we promote access to these opportunities for people. We work very closely. We have a ministerial board on vocational education and training. I chair that board, and then the Minister for Further and Higher Education sits in there, and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and the Cabinet Secretary for economy sit on that board. You will have heard the response to the committee report from the Children, Young People and Education Committee last week that the Cabinet Secretary raised. They have the points there where we need to do so. I'm pleased to have been on a visit today where we talked directly to industry about how they go into schools and promote industry as a way forward, and the apprenticeship route as a way forward. I want to see more of that.

Minister, it was good to hear you mention AerFin in Newport in terms of your recent visit, and I'm sure you would agree with me that they're one of a growing number of local companies in Newport investing in their workforce, companies like Vishay, KLA, and indeed CAF Rail, working in partnership with Welsh Government to show that they value the local population and the skills that the local population can bring to companies who want to work with Welsh Government and our young people to develop apprenticeship schemes as part of that. So, I just wonder, Minister, if you could reflect on that visit to AerFin and agree with me that it's a very good example of that partnership between local young people, a progressive company and Welsh Government working for mutual benefit.

I thank John Griffiths for that. They are very exciting times in Newport. Newport is having its own industrial revolution, I think, John, and that's because of the hard work of representatives like you continuously championing Newport's needs. You are absolutely right to point to those companies, and a number of those companies have accessed funding through the flexible skills programme, upskilling their current workforce with the skills that industry tells us that they want.

It was great to be at AerFin this morning for a number of reasons. I was able to meet apprentices who are currently going through an apprenticeship programme, and I was able to meet apprentices who have been through the programme and now are assets into the business themselves. I was able to meet the chief operating officer for AerFin in Newport, who himself was a former apprentice, and I think that's exactly what apprenticeship week should be about: offering inspiration to all those people who want to be the apprentices of tomorrow to say, 'This is the level you can reach at AerFin and in other businesses across Wales—the sky really is the limit.'

We were able, John, to discuss a number of things in Newport this morning around what the company is doing. They are looking at further support for their future workforce through the apprenticeship programme, through, I hope, a graduate programme in the future, through activities in our schools, science, technology, engineering and mathematics activities in our schools, inspiring the next generation, and including work experience, which is one of the recommendations from both the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee and, I think, the Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee.

John, there are examples like this across the country. Llywydd, we could have 59 more questions of where businesses are supporting apprenticeships because of Welsh Government investment in this Chamber today. I consciously might not get through all of those, but it's just a reflection of how much investment has gone into the system over a number of years now, and we're very proud to have done that.

Minister, as you well know, constituents from my part of the world do struggle to access apprenticeships because of the cross-border issues, because Medr and the Welsh Government do not fund apprenticeships outside of Wales universally. If we want people to access more apprenticeships in wider parts of Wales, there needs to be flexibility with funding across borders. So, will you look at this again—I know we have discussed this privately and in this Chamber before—to see what we can do to make sure we can fund those people who live on the border to access apprenticeships in England, so they can learn those skills and bring them back to Wales, which will help boost our economy?

I'm grateful, James, for the question again, and raising this matter again. I did go to look at this after the last time you raised this. It remains a relatively small number of people who are impacted, but I do take the point that when people are impacted by this decision, it does have a significant impact on them. It's not just in Wales, it's across the United Kingdom as well, but we typically see this in niche areas where support isn't offered in Wales and needs to be in an area. I can say to the Member that we are working with Medr to review options in the future for people who may be affected by this type of programme, and we're also in conversations with other UK nations about exploring flexibilities in the system, where identified cases can be made, like the one he has mentioned. We're actively having those discussions, and I hope those discussions will progress into the future. I don't think it helps directly right now for his constituent, but hopefully, in the future, we can make a difference there.

Thank you for your statement, Minister. I know you share my views on the importance of building a strong skills base to support the significant investment in renewable energy that we're seeing now, particularly in north Wales. This Thursday, I will be visiting Coleg Llandrillo in Rhyl, and on previous visits I have helped assist them through some hurdles of development and seen the construction of the fabulous new engineering unit there, which is funded with Welsh Government money. I was also at the official opening with the then First Minister, Mark Drakeford. It's been great to see also the RWE apprentices that have really developed, and I've been really impressed by the high level of skills and knowledge that they are developing onsite. Minister, could you say a little bit more about how apprentices in my region have benefited from projects such as Gwynt y Môr? Thank you.

I thank Carolyn Thomas for that. I had a great visit to Coleg Llandrillo in Rhyl. I was able to walk past the plaque celebrating the occasion of the official opening, opened by the former First Minister, again demonstrating Welsh Government investment into north Wales and important industries like that. I was very impressed with the college's centre of excellence when it comes to wind technicians and renewable technology there, and I'm sure the Member will enjoy the visit on Thursday as part of apprenticeship week.

There are some real opportunities in north Wales because of major announcements made by the UK Labour Government in recent times, and they stretch from small modular reactors in Ynys Môn to the AI growth zones that we've heard about already, the Flintshire and Wrexham investment zone, and, indeed, Gwynt y Môr and the new announcement of the first turbines, again, in the last 10 years.

We've supported apprentices in the past through the RWE centre of excellence. I'll be going back to see some of them in the operations base on Thursday, I think, in the port of Mostyn. I look forward to that. I want local people to take advantage of the opportunities that are in north Wales. It is why I chaired and initiated a north Wales skills summit at the start of this year, with the Cabinet Secretary and the Minister for Further and Higher Education. I want the local people to take up the opportunities in front of us.

We've delivered £500 million-worth of investment into the apprenticeship programme over this Senedd term. We've set up a budget of £150 million for next year's Senedd to take a start on this. And we hope to see all people across the north Wales coast take advantage of all of those opportunities, including in the supply chain.

Thank you, Minister.

Item 4 is the Non-Domestic Rating (Value of Differential Multipliers) (Wales) Regulations 2026. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Welsh Language to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion.

Last year, we confirmed plans to introduce differential multipliers for non-domestic rates. In November, the Senedd approved regulations that specify the application of new retail and higher multipliers. Today's regulations prescribe the values of the differential multipliers. The retail multiplier will be 30 per cent lower than the standard multiplier, to rebalance the system in favour of small to medium-sized shops. This benefit will be supported by a modest supplement of 2.6 per cent on the higher multiplier.

If today's regulations succeed, the retail multiplier will be 0.350, and the higher multiplier will be 0.515 in 2026-27. Overall, 10,000 retail shops in Wales already pay no rates at all. This measure will reduce bills for a further 14,5000 retail shops, at a total benefit to them of some £20 million.

And, Dirprwy Lywydd, just to be clear, if the regulations are not approved this afternoon, these changes will not be implemented and the single standard multiplier will continue to apply to all properties.

I'm grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their consideration of these regulations, and I urge Members to approve these regulations today.

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

Diolch. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the draft regulations last week and the Welsh Government's response yesterday. The committee's report contains six technical reporting points and three merits scrutiny reporting points. I'll bring some of these to the Senedd's attention.

Reporting point 1 asks the Welsh Government to clarify why certain conditions for financial penalties are set out in the regulations but are not specified in the enabling Act. In its response, the Welsh Government states that it believes that these conditions are necessary to ensure a billing authority does not impose a financial penalty on a person until the review process is exhausted.

Reporting point 3 seeks clarification over the coming-to-force date of these regulations and the Non-Domestic Rating (Provision of Information About Changes of Circumstances) (Wales) Regulations 2026, which do not appear to have been sequenced correctly to allow for the amendments to function properly. The Welsh Government agrees and will amend the coming-into-force dates of the amendments prior to making.

Reporting point 6 highlights an inconsistency in the meaning of the Welsh and English texts, which the Welsh Government will correct prior to making.

The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee’s merits scrutiny point highlights that, although a notice under section 63K of the Act may be reviewed and appealed, the regulations do not provide a review or appeal procedure in relation to a financial penalty imposed under regulation 4. The Welsh Government response sets out that the enabling Act does not contain powers to make regulations that create the right to appeal against a financial penalty, only the right to appeal against a section 63K notice, and this reflects the policy intent for the operation of the anti-avoidance framework.

I'd like to confirm today that Plaid Cymru will be supporting these regulations—it won't come as a surprise, I hope, to the Cabinet Secretary, given that I mentioned that the last time we discussed this. But I would like to make the point, in terms of welcoming the recommendations, that we've been encouraging the Government to use new powers over non-domestic ratings to improve and support local businesses for some time. We do believe that this will create more favourable conditions for retail, and therefore welcome it.

You will be aware, from previous discussions that we've had, of questions around not including hospitality. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the point that this is a sector that also needs support, and I would, therefore, hope that the next Government would look at ways of extending the support available to this sector. But I hope that that confirmation is of help to the Cabinet Secretary today in understanding that we will be supporting this, but we would like to see the next Government looking at what else is possible to support other businesses too.

The Cabinet Secretary to respond.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thanks to the Chair of the LJC committee for their detailed oversight of the proposals. Mike Hedges is right in his account to the Senedd of the Welsh Government's response.

I thank Heledd Fychan for what she said about Plaid Cymru's support for what is before the Senedd today. I'm sure that, after all the work that Luke Fletcher did to draw the Senedd's attention to the new possibilities, he'll be pleased to hear what the Member had to say.

Two thirds of hospitality businesses in Wales, by their own industry assessment, pay no rates already. We deliberately focused these changes in a relatively narrow sector, where we thought the case was strongest, in order to test the machinery to see how it works. I'm quite sure that a future Government will wish to return to it to see whether there's more policy value that can be extracted from the new powers that the Senedd has in this area.

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

Item 5 is the Non-Domestic Rating (Artificial Avoidance Arrangements) (Local Lists) (Wales) Regulations 2026. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion.

Dirprwy Lywydd, these regulations implement the final element in this Senedd term's package of measures to address avoidance of non-domestic rates, which we have developed through joint working with local government over this term and the previous term. The scale of non-domestic rates avoidance in Wales, through various methods, has previously been estimated as at least £10 million to £20 million of lost revenue every year. This is up to 2 per cent of the income received from non-domestic rates, and many local authorities believe that that estimate is simply the tip of the iceberg. Of course, that minority who seek to avoid their obligations not only fail to make a fair contribution to local services, but they also place all those legitimate businesses who do the right thing at a commercial disadvantage.

The ability of the Senedd to address this issue was much improved by the passage of the Local Government Finance (Wales) Act 2024. That introduced a general anti-avoidance framework for non-domestic rates, and these regulations give effect to this framework by specifying a range of known activities that will now be treated as artificial avoidance arrangements and therefore can be counteracted by local authorities. Many of the most widely known avoidance arrangements rely on exploiting the definition of 'beneficial occupation'. The aim of such arrangements is often to reset the owner's eligibility for a period of empty property rate relief, but other advantages are also possible.

Now, our anti-avoidance framework provides a new way forward by enabling avoidance arrangements that constitute artificial occupation to be specified so that the advantages gained can be counteracted. The regulations define a range of artificial avoidance arrangements, falling within four broad types. These arrangements cover tenancy agreements that are designed to enable avoidance; ratepayers where their obligations are wound up voluntarily under insolvency law in order to avoid paying rates; characteristics of the ratepayer that are indicators of avoidance; and occupations with characteristics that have been used to enable avoidance.

These arrangements have been identified through research and collaboration with local authority practitioners. Where such an arrangement results in an advantage through a reduction in rates payable, the local authority will attribute liability to the person who would have been the ratepayer if the avoidance arrangement had not been made. And of course, the framework and the regulations provide necessary safeguards. The local authority may determine that an identified arrangement is not artificial in the individual case, having regard to all the circumstances. There are also rights of review and appeal against the imposition of liability.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, it's important that the framework is supported by a proportionate sanction for those who still fail to meet their obligations. The regulations require local authorities to impose a penalty for failure to pay what is due in order to counteract an avoidance arrangement.

As usual, I'm grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for its consideration of these regulations. I have considered and responded to the scrutiny points that were raised. A small number of minor amendments will be made to the regulations before they're signed off if the Senedd approves them this afternoon. I ask the Members to approve these regulations today.

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

Nothing further to add. I think the Cabinet Secretary has answered the points in his opening remarks.

Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch yn fawr.

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

Item 6, the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Act 2017 (Amendments to Schedule 5) Regulations 2026. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. These regulations amend the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Act 2017. They provide a new refund rule for certain transactions that are subject to the higher residential rates of land transaction tax. The new refund will apply where a person buys a dwelling costing £400,000 or less that is liable to the higher residential rate of LTT and then leases that dwelling to a Welsh local authority within 18 months of that purchase. That dwelling must be leased to the local authority for a minimum period of five years and meet all the conditions in these regulations.

The purpose of the refund is intended to incentivise the leasing of properties to Welsh local authorities under Leasing Scheme Wales, a Welsh Government scheme that contributes towards the delivery of homes at affordable rents. Taxpayers eligible for the refund would be reimbursed the difference between tax paid using the higher residential rates compared with a tax calculated using the main residential rates. The regulations therefore support wider efforts to address the impact of homelessness and reduce the use of temporary accommodation. They will help address the significant costs to the Welsh Government and local authorities of temporary accommodation and, most importantly, the detrimental impact of homelessness on individuals and families. As ever, I am grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for its report, and I ask Members to approve these regulations.

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

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the draft regulations yesterday, and laid its report the same day. A response from the Welsh Government is not required on this occasion. The committee’s report contains two merits scrutiny reporting points, which highlight issues that may be of interest to the Senedd. The first is that, under the regulations, the Welsh Revenue Authority must pay amounts collected in the exercise of its devolved tax functions into the Welsh consolidated fund. The second point is one just answered by the Cabinet Secretary, regarding the purchasing of houses costing over £400,000 that are then leased to a Welsh local authority.

Cabinet Secretary to respond.

Thank you, Chair.

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

Item 7 is the Land Transaction Tax (Modification of Relief for Acquisitions Involving Multiple Dwellings) (Wales) Regulations 2026. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Welsh Language to move the motion. Mark Drakeford.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, for the last time this afternoon.

These regulations amend the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Act 2017. They provide an increase in the rate that applies to the multiple dwellings relief minimum tax rule. The minimum tax rule ensures a transaction cannot be tax free when MDR is claimed. The rule relates to all MDR claims. But, in practice, it applies primarily to mixed use transactions, that is, those transactions in which both dwellings and a commercial property are combined, such as the sale of a shop with flats above it.

Where the initial tax liability calculation in a multiple dwelling transaction shows that the liability will be less than 1 per cent of the value of those dwellings, the minimum tax rule applies. The minimum tax rule rate has been 1 per cent of the consideration given for the dwellings since 2011, when the rule was introduced into what was then stamp duty land tax. We consulted on MDR in 2024. Taking into account the views of respondents, these regulations see a modest increase of that rate from 1 to 3 per cent. That rise will improve fairness in comparison to transactions liable to the higher residential rates, while maintaining a distinct and balanced tax treatment for mixed use transactions.

I am grateful, as ever, to the LJC committee for its report and, once again, I ask Members to approve these regulations.

The Welsh Conservatives will be voting against these regulations as laid today. The Cabinet Secretary referred to the consultation responses that came through. A number of those responses pointed to the fact that these regulations would penalise investments in housing, increase costs for developers and landlords, and risk slowing the supply of homes at a time when those businesses are struggling with affordability.

We've heard that multiple dwellings relief exists to encourage investment in housing and the private rented sector, and it helps to deliver the homes our communities need. By raising the minimum tax rates, the Government is making these investments more expensive, less attractive, particularly for those small-scale investors and landlords, who often provide significant numbers of rental properties here in Wales. I would not describe this as fairness; instead it's a disincentive to build, invest and provide the much needed housing that we need.

The explanatory memorandum acknowledges that the impact on taxpayers will vary, with some paying more tax than under previous relief, but does not show how this policy will increase housing supply or support the local economy. And our argument is that marginally higher revenue cannot justify slowing development, reducing jobs or increasing rents. So, for these reasons, we'll oppose the regulations and we urge the Welsh Government to prioritise policies that boost housing supply, support landlords and protect jobs, rather than discouraging investment through unnecessary tax increases.

And the Cabinet Secretary to reply.

I listened carefully to what Sam Rowlands said, Dirprwy Lywydd. I suppose I was a bit surprised to hear it, given that, in England, his Government, when Rishi Sunak was Prime Minister, abolished this relief altogether on the grounds that it was ineffective and did not deliver on the purpose of the relief. I've taken a more measured approach than that in Wales, not by abolishing the relief altogether but by making sure that, when businesses take advantage of a multiple-dwelling relief, they still make a contribution to the tax base in Wales. As for the idea that this has an impact on the supply of accommodation and so on, there are 30 transactions a year in the whole of Wales that ever benefit from MDR. It is a very niche and particular set of transactions. By bundling properties together, people are able to avoid the tax liabilities that they would otherwise have incurred had they bought dwellings separately. They're in the very fortunate position of being able to do that. The fact that we are asking them to make a small additional contribution—far smaller than they would have to had they bought dwellings separately—I think is an example of extra fairness in the system, making sure that, while we do respond to the potentially positive impact of allowing multiple dwellings to be bought together, nevertheless, we expect people in the very lucky position of being able to do that to make a contribution.

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

Item 8 is the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026. I call on the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to move the motion. Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion. I'm pleased to bring forward the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026, which amends the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 to include domestic maritime activities. The Order brings domestic maritime emissions into the scope of the UK emissions trading scheme for vessels of 5,000 gross tonnage or above from 1 July 2026. It applies a 50 per cent reduction in the UK ETS surrender obligation on routes between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It delays the inclusion of offshore vessels until January 2027. It exempts ferries serving the Scottish islands and peninsulas from the scheme. It exempts fishing vessels from the scheme and it increases the overall cap of UK ETS allowances in line with the projected increase in emissions from the introduction of the domestic maritime sector into the UK ETS.

Advice was sought, Dirprwy Lywydd, from the Climate Change Committee on the proposals covered in the Order. The Climate Change Committee advised against the cap adjustment to account for the inclusion of maritime, on the rationale that the original cap was set at the top of the net-zero consistent range, and they believe that the price of UK ETS allowances is too low to drive decarbonisation. However, we've decided to increase the cap to account for domestic maritime's inclusion in the UK ETS because the cap is consistent with net zero and will continue to be so with the addition of allowances for the domestic maritime sector.

The cap, to be clear, sets a long-term price signal to incentivise decarbonisation. The price is set by the market, and it's not the role of the UK ETS authority to interfere with the market price through scope expansion. Adding allowances for domestic maritime activities, and thereby maintaining the cap for existing sectors, gives the scheme credibility as it ensures continued stakeholder confidence and predictability to how the future scope expansions of the scheme will be incorporated. By including domestic maritime emissions into the UK ETS, emissions trading scheme, the scheme will cover more emissions within the UK economy and have a greater decarbonisation impact. Therefore, we will be better placed to achieve Wales's decarbonisation goals.

Could I thank the Chair and the members of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their diligent scrutiny of the Order as well? I commend the motion to the Chamber.

Of course, recently, as a result of good stuff coming from the UK Conservative Government, we welcomed the introduction of the Celtic Freeport. We also acknowledge the vital role that our ports play here in Wales, not only in providing a passageway for people travelling from north Wales to Ireland and back, but also in transporting goods into Wales. The inclusion of the largest shipping vessels and ferries in these regulations will add strain on these companies, such as an increase in the paperwork that will need to be completed as part of compliance with these regulations, additional bureaucracy that has the potential to act as a deterrent to these businesses and businesses seeking to use ports such as Holyhead to operate.

The Cruise Lines International Association have already raised a series of concerns on the impacts of these regulations, which include: the solutions required to decarbonise will continue to require significant investment from the cruise sector, and the ETS expansion risks diverting these funds rather than encouraging this investment into the UK, and particularly into Wales; and the risk of Welsh and UK ports being less competitive than those they compete against in the EU to attract cruise business. This could undermine a level playing field, as compliance enforcement may be limited to UK-based companies. UK companies could face full legal and financial exposure, while non-UK operators may avoid these penalties, distorting fair competition and weakening the integrity of the scheme. It is due to the additional strains and the potential for these regulations to act as a deterrent to businesses that my Welsh Conservative colleagues and I cannot support these amendments. Diolch yn fawr.

I've been contacted by representatives from the Cruise Lines International Association who, alongside the wider shipping sector, have a number of concerns about Government policy regarding the emissions trading scheme, as has been mentioned before, and the expansion of it, and how it could make Welsh ports less competitive. The cruise industry has made significant reductions in its carbon intensity in its commitment to pursuing net-zero emissions by 2050. Cruise specifically has been investing billions of pounds in new ships, innovative technologies and engines that allow fuel flexibility to use zero-carbon and near-zero-carbon fuels and technologies.

The solutions required to decarbonise will continue to require significant investment from the cruise sector, and the ETS expansion risks diverting these funds, rather than encouraging this investment within the UK. Without reinvesting revenues into maritime decarbonisation, this risks diverting capital away from the journey to pursue net-zero operations by 2050, harming UK competitiveness before essential infrastructure is in place. So, they are asking the Welsh Government to delay the inclusion of maritime in the UK ETS until full evidence and implementing guidelines are published, ensuring the industry has sufficient time to prepare.

I would like the Welsh Government to ensure the ring-fencing of all maritime ETS revenues for investment in maritime decarbonisation, including onshore power supply, future fuels and port infrastructure, and follow a phased approach for emissions to reduce the impact on planned investments and allow future planning. Given the importance of the cruise industry and tourism to north Wales, I felt it was important to raise these points to be heard today. Thank you.

I call on the Deputy First Minister to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you for the contributions from Janet Finch-Saunders and from Carolyn as well. Can I say, right at outset, that we really welcome the efforts that have already been made by the cruise industry in particular to decarbonise? There has been investment in the fleet to decarbonise. There's more to do, but they are doing this. It's really encouraging to hear. I understand that they're on track, or they're right on track to be net zero by 2050, and that's really good news.

But we must focus on the fact that this is designed to incentivise decarbonisation, and to incentivise a range of sectors along that journey to decarbonisation. The ETS scheme works by incentivising investment in decarbonisation and then penalising those who pollute. So, the faster we decarbonise, the less those who are polluting will be penalised. The ETS, therefore, actually improves the business case for investing in decarbonisation technologies by providing a very clear incentive to carry on on that trajectory at speed.

I just want to turn to the issue of ring-fencing, which you raised. Revenue from the UK ETS is not currently hypothecated, and Welsh Government actually has no direct control over how the revenues are spent. I appreciate you asking, but it's an impossibility to do it. But Welsh Ministers have, indeed, consistently pressed for greater transparency in how the ETS revenues are used to support decarbonisation, sector by sector, covered by carbon prices. That would be really helpful, because then we could really identify within these sectors how the money is being spent to help decarbonisation.

Maritime is included in the EU emissions trading scheme, which protects industries from rerouting risks, as, if they reroute anywhere within the EU, to be crystal clear here, they will still be required to pay a carbon price, because it's within the EU scheme as well. So, there isn't a question of diverting to another port to avoid this; it's EU-wide. The inclusion of domestic maritime into the UK emissions trading scheme is also, by the way, a key condition for linking the UK and the EU ETS, and negotiations for this link, as Members will know, are currently taking place. We don't consider that a delay is necessary or appropriate. We've published an impact assessment, which accompanies the explanatory memorandum, and it covers the period from 2026 to 2046.

Just to be clear, on this journey that we're on together, scope expansion of the UK ETS to domestic maritime is estimated to lead to a net reduction of approximately 645,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in total across the entire trading sector over that period. It was developed in wide consultation with operators, industry groups and devolved administrations. We think this is well focused, proportionate and well assessed, and it helps the sector continue to decarbonise. But thank you for those important points and I hope this motion has the support of the Siambr today.

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

Item 9, the Closure of European Union Legacy Agriculture Schemes (Wales) Regulations 2026. I call on the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to move the motion—Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm very pleased to introduce the Closure of European Union Legacy Agriculture Schemes (Wales) Regulations 2026. These regulations will close three out-of-date EU legacy agricultural schemes in Wales. These are the fruit and vegetable aid scheme, the public intervention scheme and the private storage aid scheme. These schemes were created in a different day under the European Union, under a very different policy landscape. These changes will simplify the approach to support farming during times of crisis and allow us to better support the current needs of Wales's horticulture and wider agricultural sectors.

The fruit and vegetable aid scheme was designed in 1996 to help larger scale horticulturalists improve efficiency. Since its inception, the scheme hasn't received any applications in Wales. This is due to the complex rules governing schemes that make it very unattractive for our sector. The public intervention and private storage aid schemes were designed to counteract the overproduction that came from the old common agricultural policy back in the 1980s—remember those overproduction times? They've lessened in importance since the changes were made to that policy in 1992. These schemes haven't been used in Wales now for over 20 years.

As we continue to refine a Welsh bespoke approach to agricultural support, it's important that we do review the relevance and the effectiveness and the practical use of some of these older mechanisms. This ensures that the support framework remains aligned with today's challenges and with sector-specific needs. The market intervention powers in the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023 allow Welsh Ministers to provide a more effective approach to support farming during times of crisis, while the capital grants for horticulture that we've introduced in recent years have better supported an emerging and growing sector in Wales. There's a real demand for the support that we've put in place.

The regulations before Members today would implement the formal closure of these legacy schemes, which have seen no utilisation in Wales for over two decades. Their closure forms part of the ongoing efforts to simplify and modernise support for the agricultural sector moving forward. Subject to Senedd approval, Dirprwy Lywydd, the regulations will come into force on 16 February 2026.

Just to inform the Senedd, stakeholders were themselves informed of our plans to implement these regulations through a public consultation. Although the volume of responses to the proposal was limited, and I suspect some of that was because of the underuse of these and some of the ignorance, quite frankly, of these as well, because they hadn't been used for 20 years, the feedback was largely positive. Stakeholders highlighted that the complexity of these old schemes discourages participation and highlighted the need for a more modern, streamlined approach to support, better reflecting the current needs of Wales's horticulture and wider agricultural sectors.

The explanatory memorandum and the regulatory impact assessment give a fair and reasonable view of the expected impact of the regulations, and I'm satisfied that the benefits justify the likely costs. Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, once again, I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank the Chair and members of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their report on the regulations, which I've noted and to which I've responded as well. I would ask Members to approve these regulations.

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

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the draft regulations last week, and the Welsh Government’s response yesterday. The committee’s report contains five technical scrutiny reporting points and two merits scrutiny reporting points.

Three of the committee’s technical scrutiny reporting points highlighted defective drafting. Reporting point 2 highlights incorrect references to 'paragraphs' rather than 'points' in the text of the regulations. Reporting point 4 highlights ambiguity in determining the provision to be amended by regulation 10, and reporting point 5 highlights a numbering error in the draft regulations.

The Welsh Government has accepted the technical points made by the committee. It will make amendments prior to making in respect of reporting points 2 and 4. However, it does not consider that the error in reporting point 5 requires correction.

The committee’s first merits scrutiny reporting point highlights that a consultation on the regulations was carried out between June and August 2025. Only two pertinent responses were received to the consultation, both of which agreed with the proposed changes.

Finally, the committee’s second merits scrutiny reporting point sets out the Welsh Government’s view that the regulations will reduce the financial and administrative risk on public finances by closing schemes that, it argues, are of no use to the agricultural sector.

The Deputy First Minister to respond.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you to the Chair of the committee. I was pleased that we were able to respond quite positively to those technical and merits points. Thanks for your scrutiny on this. Certainly, in terms of merits scrutiny point 1, the consultation, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, indeed, had a limited response, and I suspect that's because many people had looked at these and thought, 'What are these? They haven't been used for 20 years.' But those that did respond were quite clear when we asked them for their views. Most respondents were unaware of, for example, what the public intervention and private storage aid schemes were, and they were happy for the schemes to be closed.

In terms of merits point 2, we noted that overall feedback suggested that these schemes were of no use to the agricultural sector in Wales, and closing them would have no impact on the sector in Wales. But thank you for your scrutiny on these points, and I'm pleased we've been able to respond. But, fundamentally, these schemes that we are proposing to close are no longer active or relevant within Wales's current policy framework, and what we can do now is focus on our existing agricultural support structures so that they are really current, practical and of use to the farming and horticultural sector. Diolch yn fawr.

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

Item 10 this afternoon, the Renting Homes (Model Written Statements of Contract) (Wales) (Amendments etc.) Regulations 2026. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government to move the motion. Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. The Renting Homes (Model Written Statements of Contract) (Wales) (Amendments etc.) Regulations 2026 make necessary consequential amendments to the Renting Homes (Model Written Statements of Contract) (Wales) Regulations 2022 following the passage of the Renters' Rights Act 2025. The 2025 Act inserted two new sections into the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 regarding new requirements on landlords to include additional fundamental terms in occupation contracts in order to prevent landlord discrimination. These regulations ensure that specified model written statements of occupation contracts produced under the 2016 Act contain new fundamental terms, as inserted by the 2025 Act.

These new fundamental terms will prevent a landlord from discriminating against a contract holder with children or when a contract holder is in receipt of benefits. The Renters' Rights Act 2025 (Commencement) (Wales) Order 2026, will bring these and other related provisions in the 2025 Act into force on 1 June 2026. This will align with the commencement date of these regulations, ensuring that landlords are provided with sufficient time to update their occupation contracts and notify their contract holders of these changes. I'm grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for reporting on these regulations and I ask Members to approve the regulations.

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

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the draft regulations last week, and the Welsh Government’s response yesterday. The committee’s single reporting point seeks clarity from the Welsh Government about how certain powers cited are relied on in these regulations. Specifically, it asks the Welsh Government to clarify how regulations 3 and 4 rely on the powers conferred in sections 141(1) and 141(2) of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. The Welsh Government has responded that the powers are relevant because the regulations are consequential to provision in the 2025 Act. The response sets out more detail in relation to that justification. The committee noted the Welsh Government’s response.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply.

No.

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

Item 11, the legislative consent motion on the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to move the motion. Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I recommend that the Senedd gives its consent to the relevant provisions of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill 2026. These are set out in the legislative consent memoranda. This Bill makes necessary and important provisions for prioritising places on UK medical training programmes for medical students, wherever they come from, who have graduated from medical schools in this country. Priority will also be given to a small number of students who have graduated from other nations. The Welsh Government is committed to ensuring a successful future for medics trained in Wales as well as ensuring that the NHS has the doctors it needs for the future.

To do that, we work closely with other Governments within the UK to ensure a co-ordinated approach of prioritising medical training. This Bill puts in place a statutory framework across the UK for prioritisation of students for specialist medical training and foundational training during periods of undersubscription. A prioritisation system across the UK is crucial to safeguard training places for doctors trained within this country. Such a system is also crucial to manage the increasing pressures emerging from the increase in the number of applications. This approach will reduce delay, will avoid reservation allocations, and will allow the system to adapt over time as workforce needs evolve.

The Bill secures an aligned, coherent and fair approach to medical training prioritisation across the UK. It ensures graduates from medical schools in the UK, Ireland and European Free Trade Association countries are offered training places ahead of other eligible applicants. It means doctors who have chosen to train in Wales, wherever they're from, will be able to continue their training and careers in Wales. But I want to be very clear: it does not mean that Wales or indeed the UK will be closed to international medical graduates, of course, who have supported the NHS, importantly, with their dedicated service over many generations.

Transitional arrangements will apply in 2026, including temporary categories to support current trainees and applicants with certain immigration statuses. From 2027, Welsh Ministers, alongside the Secretary of State, will hold regulation-making powers to determine additional priority groups and amend the priority country list, where needed, to reflect international obligations. I am grateful to the UK Government for their collaboration in relation to the devolution elements of this Bill.

A statutory UK-wide system avoids the operational, financial and workforce risks that would arise if Wales were required to develop separate foundation or specialty training schemes. Divergence from the established four-nation model would create significant administrative burdens and risk increasing oversubscription pressures in Wales. Maintaining consistency across the UK training system supports effective workforce planning, protects access for UK-trained applicants and provides continuity for training programmes delivered in Wales. The Bill aligns with devolved responsibilities for workforce planning and medical education.

The majority of the Bill's provisions with fall within the Senedd's legislative competence. Holding this debate today ensures the Senedd's view will be clearly heard and represented as this important piece of legislation makes its expedited journey through the Houses of Parliament. If further amendments are made to the Bill, I will ensure an updated legislative consent memorandum is laid before the Senedd. Finally, if the Bill is passed, the Welsh Government will continue to work closely with our UK counterparts and with partners and stakeholders to support its effective implementation.

I call on the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, Peter Fox.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I will speak briefly to put on the record that, in the very limited time available to the Health and Social Care Committee to consider this LCM, we were able to give it only the briefest of consideration. The LCM was referred to us on 3 February with a reporting deadline of 10 February. This very small window did not allow the committee to carry out its usual inquiry work or to engage with stakeholders in any way. This is particularly disappointing given that, as is clear from the memorandum, there have been discussions on the Bill between the Governments in the UK for some time, and yet the Senedd was given very little notice of the consent request. The committee appreciates that the Bill is working to an accelerated time frame in Westminster, but that should not, in and of itself, be a reason to limit the opportunities for the Senedd committees to consider this important piece of legislation. I ask the Cabinet Secretary to reflect on this, and I have written to the Business Committee setting out the health committee's concerns in this area and asking them to consider these matters as part of their legacy work. Diolch.

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

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the Welsh Government's legislative consent memorandum yesterday, and laid its report today. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill has been subject to expedited scrutiny in the UK Parliament, and I will return to that shortly.

Firstly, and most simply, the committee agrees with the assessment of the Welsh and UK Governments that all of the Bill's provisions have regard to devolved Welsh matters, and therefore require the Senedd's consent. Of course, on this occasion, it's whether the Senedd has been given every opportunity possible to make an informed decision about whether to grant that consent. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, like the health committee, has concluded that it has not.

The legislative consent memorandum was laid on 28 January, one day outside the two-week window set out in Standing Orders. That afforded us just nine working days, including today, to consider and report on it. This is despite the fact that both the UK Government and the Welsh Government have stated clearly that regular engagement between them has been under way since September.

We see no reason why the Welsh Government could not have laid its legislative consent memorandum as soon as possible within the two-week deadline set out in Standing Orders, given the extent of the Welsh Government's engagement with UK Government about this Bill. I ask the Cabinet Secretary to clarify to the Senedd why the memorandum for such a time-critical piece of legislation could not have been laid earlier.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that the committee laid its report on the memorandum today. That means, of course, that it is very challenging for the Cabinet Secretary to have considered and responded in full to the report in time for today's debate in the Senedd. In turn, this means that the Senedd's debate today will not be informed by concerns raised in this, or any other, committee report on the memorandum.

Again, I stress that the Welsh Government's engagement on this Bill with the UK Government has been ongoing since September. In that context, the committee regrets the scheduling to debate the legislative consent motion on the same day as the deadline for committees to report on the memorandum.

The committee's report also notes that the final deadline for substantive amendments to the UK Government Bill is scheduled for 19 February. It is therefore unclear whether, if the Senedd withholds its consent today, the Bill could be amended to address the Senedd's concerns.

Cabinet Secretary, if that is the case, and the Senedd does not grant its consent, can you please set out what steps you will take to pursue amendments to the Bill in the UK Parliament to reflect the Senedd's determination? Will there be sufficient time in the UK Parliament's scrutiny timetable to do so? If not, the committee has fundamental concerns about the consent process in relation to expedited UK Bills, and the extent to which the views of the Senedd can meaningfully influence the legislation.

More needs to be done to support and strengthen our domestic workforce here. There's no doubt about that. In fact, I remember raising this several years ago now, arguing that we should emulate the apprenticeship academy project at the Hywel Dda Health Board, which trained its nursing workforce in that case. Indeed, Wales is particularly vulnerable to losing a wealth of talent that is nurtured in our universities due to a lack of placements and opportunities. Over the past few months, I have been inundated by stories from Welsh medical graduates who are unable to secure employment in Wales and are, ultimately, being forced to consider their options elsewhere. Clearly, this situation has to change. It therefore stands to reason that we support the core principles of the Bill.

But even though we do agree with the general principles of the Bill in that respect, the consideration of its impact on Wales has been entirely unsatisfactory. The fact that the Health and Social Care Committee has decided, due to a lack of time allocated for scrutiny, that it is unable to report on the LCM is another example of fundamental flaws in the failed LCM process, and reflects how Wales is too often treated as an afterthought by the UK Government. I endorse the LJC and HSC committees' comments in that respect.

Let's be clear here—this is a measure of convenience so that the Westminster Government can agree to the demands of the BMA in England, rather than to address healthcare requirements in Wales. So, in order to calm the waters in England, it has brought forward a Bill for England that will affect Wales, ultimately, but without any consideration of the circumstances of Wales. This is unacceptable.

It is also a matter of concern that this LCM creates concurrent powers for UK Ministers to legislate in a devolved area without any obligation to consult Welsh Ministers. Once again, we see the tendency of this UK Labour Government to ignore the Sewel convention with the same reckless indifference as the previous Tory Government.

As there is no comprehensive set of evidence available to us regarding the impact of the Bill on Wales, and given that we’re not satisfied that enough consideration has been given to devolution in its design, but that we do see the value of the core principles of the Bill, we'll be abstaining on the vote.

On Friday, I visited the excellent cancer research unit at Bangor University, and they spoke so positively about the new medical school in north Wales where they've been training doctors up. So, I've just got a short question, really, to the Cabinet Secretary: would this have an impact on that in north Wales? Thank you.

And I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you to those who’ve contributed in the debate. Perhaps I could start my response by reflecting on the points that the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee made in relation both to the timing and the substance of the LCM, and I hope the points on timing also address the points that the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee has raised as well. I think we’re all operating in an expedited timetable in relation to this LCM. I’m therefore grateful in particular to the legislation and justice committee for having considered the Bill. The Bill, as the Chair said, was laid one day outside the 14-day period that is set out. I would say that, although there have been discussions, which started in the autumn, the Bill itself, to which the LCM, of course, relates, was developed and introduced at pace over the Christmas period. So, I think the ability of the Welsh Government to respond as quickly as it did, whilst not providing the time any of us would wish, both to the Government and to committees, was fast in that particular context. The committee makes the point that the debate will not be informed by the content of the committee's report, but I do think that the Chamber will have the benefit of the points that the Chair has set out.

The Chair asked me a number of particular points in relation to timing and the relationship between a decision of this Senedd and the legislative process in Parliament. I can confirm that I do consider there is sufficient time between the debate and the final amending stages of the Bill for the UK Parliament to consider any amendments, and indeed the motion debate has been scheduled when it has in order to facilitate that, and I recognise the impact that has on other considerations.

Both the Chair and the Plaid Cymru spokesperson made points in relation to the 'concurrent plus' arrangements in the Bill. I can confirm that this is in accordance with the Government's guidance, so it's not a breach of the Sewel convention, as Mabon ap Gwynfor was seeking to argue. I do consider the 'concurrent plus' powers in the Bill are an exceptional case, because the UK foundation programme and specialty training are delivered through a single UK-wide system, as at present. So, consistent implementation across the four nations is essential to protect medical training pipelines and, in these limited areas, a unified legislative approach is necessary. I hope the points that the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee made have been addressed in those responses. I will say that I was grateful of the opportunity, when I attended his committee recently, to have had the opportunity of answering some questions specifically on this LCM in those discussions.

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

Item 12 today is the financial resolution in respect of the Senedd Cymru (Member Accountability and Elections) Bill. I call on the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery to move the motion—Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. As Members will be aware, I did not move the financial resolution motion when the general principles of the Senedd Cymru (Member Accountability and Elections) Bill were debated on 13 January. I set out at that point that I wanted to consider the implications of the regulatory impact assessment of the committee recommendations to remove much of the detail from Part 2 of the Bill in relation to lay members to be appointed to the Standards of Conduct Committee.

Having undertaken that consideration, I'm of the view that if the detail in Part 2 of the Bill were to be removed, the already significant level of uncertainty underpinning the assumptions in the RIA would be compounded. Consequently, it would not be possible to provide a reasonable estimate of the costs associated with the appointment of lay members, or set out the time frame over which those costs would fall. The estimated costs would become unknown. It was important that Members were aware of this position ahead of considering the financial resolution.

I have noted the letter from the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee to the Chair of the Member Accountability Bill Committee, which takes a different view to the level of detail that should be included in Part 2 of the Bill. A number of Stage 2 amendments have been tabled on this matter, and I look forward to the debate in committee later this week.

If any such changes are given effect by way of Stage 2 amendments, I will make the necessary revisions to the RIA, reflecting the changes to the assumptions that support the current estimates. The RIA accurately reflects the potential cost implications of the Bill as introduced, and on that basis I'm content to formally move the financial resolution today.

I'm grateful to the Finance Committee for their report on this Bill, and I will continue to work closely with stakeholders to refine the cost estimates during the Bill's passage through the Senedd. In particular, and in response to the recommendations of the Finance Committee, I will, in consultation with the Senedd Commission, look to establish the estimated cost of providing lay members with an induction and ongoing support, and, in consultation with the Senedd Commission and the commissioner for standards, establish the opportunity costs associated with undertaking own-initiative investigations. Diolch.

I have no other speakers, so the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 13 is Stage 4 of the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government to move the motion—Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. I'm proud to move this motion today, which brings this unique and long-awaited piece of legislation closer to implementation. The Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill has been shaped with people who have experienced homelessness for those at risk of it. It is rooted not in theory, but in lived experience, in the testimony of people who know the fear, indignity and harm homelessness can bring. These are people who have transformed their lives against the odds—people who, having endured the toughest time of their lives, have bravely chosen to share those experiences with all of us, who have both the privilege and the responsibility to change the law.

We are today joined by Scotty and Phil, two exceptional men who have worked with us to develop the Bill. Their experiences are intrinsic to the legislation. They were with my predecessor, Julie James, and Siân Gwenllian at the launch of our White Paper. They were with us in this place to introduce the Bill, and I wanted to make sure they were with us again here today. I do not know how many of us could face the hardship that they have with the bravery, strength and generosity that they have shown. I cannot overstate my gratitude nor my awe for them and for every person who trusted us with their story so that others might be spared the same hardship. This Bill belongs to them and we will continue to work with experts by experience as we deliver the legislation into practice.

This bold and ambitious Bill will be a catalyst for profound change across Wales's statutory homelessness system. I know that for local authorities change is daunting, and I am grateful for their honesty, their dialogue and their constructive challenge as we balance bold ambition with practical delivery. I call on them to embrace the opportunity this Bill presents to renew our shared commitment to ensure that homelessness is rare, brief and never repeated. I thank our third sector partners and the wider housing sector, whose expertise and persistence have strengthened the work at every stage. I pay particular tribute to housing officers and support workers. It takes an extraordinary person to dedicate themselves to ending homelessness. I cannot thank them enough for the commitment, compassion and perseverance they show every day.

I also extend my thanks to Professor Fitzpatrick for her leadership of the expert review panel, whose work forms a fundamental pillar of this legislation. And I want to thank my officials for their hard work, dedication and commitment to this Bill. It's a privilege to work with such a compassionate, professional team, who have spent so much time to get this right. And to my predecessor, Julie James, your passion and commitment to ending homelessness laid the foundation for these reforms. I thank the Chairs and members of the committees who have scrutinised this Bill so rigorously, in particular Siân Gwenllian, Joel James and their staff, for their constructive and principled engagement. While we may differ on some issues, we have worked together on shared values, and this Bill is stronger for that collaboration.

Deputy Llywydd, these reforms are transformational, but they are not a quick fix. This is an evidence-based, expert-informed package of change. It will take time, but it will build a system capable of meeting the demands of the future and responding to the changing demography of Wales. Much work remains, but, should the Senedd pass this Bill today, we take a monumental step forward. I'm profoundly proud of this legislation, Deputy Llywydd, and of the world-leading homelessness system it will create for Wales. Diolch.

I'd like to take the opportunity today to thank all of our stakeholders for their hard work and continued co-operation in helping us to shape this Bill. I'd also like to thank from the bottom of my heart those individuals who have shared their direct experience of being homeless with us as we prepared this work, including Scotty and Phil, who have joined us here today.

Plaid Cymru has always emphasised the need for better data in terms of social housing, has emphasised the need to move quickly to preventative approaches, and also the need to provide additional support to the most vulnerable people. This Bill does establish the principle that homelessness is a problem that needs everyone's help to solve it. This week, the Salvation Army has published a report showing that, in 318 situations, people were released from hospital without a home to go to. The Bill will start to ensure that health workers in our hospitals and other workers on a cross-sectoral basis will 'ask and act'—the important 'ask and act' that is in this Bill—when they think that a person is facing homelessness.

One vital amendment that was passed during Stage 2 was the removal of section 35. The responsibility for deciding who is eligible for social housing should not be in the hands of local authorities; that undermines a principle that we strongly believe in. But it is disappointing that our amendment relating to the quality of temporary accommodation has not been passed. This would have ensured that it would not be possible to consider accommodation that contains a category 1 hazard as being suitable for temporary accommodation. No-one should have to live in accommodation that is unsuitable and unsafe. Safety in the home is fundamental, so it is disappointing that the absence of some Members in the Chamber last week did contribute to a failure to strengthen the Bill. But I will continue to push for this provision, and will seek opportunities to take steps to ban temporary accommodation that contains serious hazards.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasise how vital it will be to establish a robust action plan following the passage of this Bill. The plan must include timely and appropriate training for staff across the different sectors. It will need to show concrete and positive progress, particularly towards the abolition of the priority need test, and to make real progress in our efforts to tackle the number of people sleeping rough in Wales. We need a robust action plan in order to ensure that progress. At the same time, we must provide the necessary support for local authorities as they undertake their dedicated work in terms of achieving the goals in this Bill.

This issue has been debated in the Senedd since I became a Member nearly 10 years ago now. Now, it's time to move from legislation to action. Thank you.

I think every Member here agrees how important it is to not only tackle homelessness, but to make sure it doesn't happen in the first place. That is why one of the greatest disappointments that I have with this legislation is how late in the parliamentary cycle this Bill has come forward to us, limiting the time we have had to properly scrutinise it, and showing in quite stark terms where the priorities of this Labour Government lie.

However, we will be supporting this legislation, and I would like to thank the local government and housing team, along with the officials who have worked on this Bill. They've worked to some extremely tight deadlines set by the Government, and their hard work and commitment should be properly recognised.

While the Welsh Conservatives are supporting this Bill, I want to put on record our disappointment that veterans are not explicitly exempt from local connection tests, something we believe should appear on the face of the Bill. This submission places Welsh veterans at a clear disadvantage compared with those in England, and runs counter to the spirit and intent of the armed forces covenant.

In England, veterans are now exempt from local connection requirements for social housing allocations, recognising the unique nature of military service. The absence of a comparable exemption in Wales for homelessness support risks undermining equal treatment under the covenant and creates clear policy inconsistency across the rest of the United Kingdom.

Many veterans have been required to move repeatedly throughout their military careers, and as a result have been unable to establish long-term ties to any single local authority area. The Welsh Conservatives believe that local connection tests are deliberately discriminative towards veterans. The amendments put forward by myself in Stage 2, and further amendments by Rhys ab Owen in Stage 3, were designed to level the playing field for veterans in this regard. It is extremely frustrating to note that, while they were supported by Plaid Cymru at Stage 2, they were not supported by them at Stage 3. Likewise, for all their talk on veterans' rights, yet again Reform was absent in this Chamber when we discussed them—no amendments and no interaction.

Because of this, veterans under this Bill may still find themselves referred back to areas they cannot realistically or safely return to, delaying access to support at a time of acute need. This is not only unfair, it directly disadvantages them compared with civilians who have been able to put down permanent roots. These concerns are not unique to the Welsh Conservatives. The Veterans’ Commissioner for Wales, alongside homelessness organisations and housing charities, have all raised serious concerns about the lack of an exemption for veterans and their families. Again, had this Bill been brought forward earlier in the parliamentary term, I believe we could have reached agreement on including a specific exemption for veterans on the face of this Bill. Veterans' rights is a policy we will always, as Welsh Conservatives, continue to pursue, and we will with this.

I also welcome this important Bill before us today. I have seen with my own eyes the staggering increase in the number of homeless people in our capital city, and the number of homeless people who access the support provided to the homeless in the middle of our capital city in recent years. I have learned a great deal from those people, and I very much appreciate their company, but the fact is that we do not want to see people having to access those services. We understand why we need this Bill. There was a great risk that homelessness would continue to increase: 24 per cent by 2041 if this Government and this Senedd didn't act. So, I am so pleased that we have taken action.

Of course, I would have liked to have seen at least one of my amendments passed. That didn’t happen, unfortunately, but I do hope that the fact that we had that debate means this will now be a priority for the next Senedd. I would have liked to have seen priority need and intentional homelessness coming to an end before the eighth Senedd, but that isn’t going to happen. It is a shame that it will not happen in the seventh Senedd. I am also disappointed in particular in relation to those amendments where there was an equal vote between the Government and the opposition parties. We got so close to passing amendments that truly would have made a difference, but, because of the absence of some Members, that couldn’t happen. I very much hope that the fact that we have raised these issues means that we will see regulations brought forward in the seventh Senedd that will deal with some of the points raised in the amendments that I tabled.

Wales, the homeless and those at risk of homelessness will be in a far better position once this legislation is enacted, and I urge you not to wait too long before implementing this legislation, and implementing certain parts of the legislation. So, I am grateful. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be involved in the scrutiny. I'm grateful for the opportunity to raise points. I'm grateful for the opportunity to work with the wonderful homelessness charities that we have in Wales, and I thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for ensuring, with your officials and colleagues, that this particularly important Bill—and we use these words too often, perhaps, but this Bill is particularly important—which will make a very real difference. And I am grateful that you've been able to ensure that this Bill is brought before the Senedd before the end of this Senedd term. Thank you.

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

Move to the vote.

In accordance with Standing Order 26.50C, a recorded vote must be taken on Stage 4 motions. So, I defer voting under this item until voting time.

And that brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move directly to voting time.

The first vote this evening will be on item 7, the land transaction tax regulations. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, one abstention, 10 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote will be on item 8, the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme amendment Order. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, no abstentions, 11 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The final vote will be on item 13, Stage 4 of the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jayne Bryant. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 47, no abstentions and none against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

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

Ten minutes because in five minutes the bell will ring, five minutes before we start.

That brings us to our Stage 3 consideration of the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill.

We will begin with group 1. The first group of amendments relates to environmental principles and integrating environmental protection under Part 1 of the Bill. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 9. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the lead amendment.

Diolch, Llywydd. Group 1 relates to the environmental principles, as has been said. The amendments we’re putting forward today, 9 and 10, insert additional environmental principles into section 2 of the Bill, the precise meaning of these principles and how they relate to existing principles in section 2 of the Bill. I must say, at this stage, that I’d like to thank our lawyers; our researchers, Ella Tregaskes and Jena Quilter; the climate change committee; and the Minister himself, because we’ve actually worked, haven't we, throughout each stage.

Dr Victoria Jenkins summed up what most of us believe, and I agree with the Countryside Alliance that there would be merit in including these proposed principles in the Bill, as they will ensure that we will leave the environment in a better place than when we found it, recognising the interconnectedness of areas such as water catchment areas, wildlife corridors and the marine environment.

Amendment 11 will ensure that the Welsh Ministers review the section 6 statement at least once every two years. While the environmental principles are already well recognised internationally, it is the statement that will determine their meaning and how that will be applied in a Welsh context. Currently, I know there’s support from the Minister to go for five years. That is longer than the new Senedd terms of four years, and I think, really, that this Bill is so delayed, and we’ve seen so many species go into decline here in Wales, that, actually, now we need to make sure that any legislation we pass here is fit for purpose, and the only way you can do that is by holding your reviews every two years. Diolch.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply—Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd, and thank you, Janet, for moving this. As we open today's Stage 3 proceedings on the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill, I just want to also express my sincere thanks to all those who’ve brought us to this point, including Members, but also the Senedd committees for their very thoughtful, rigorous scrutiny, and stakeholders across Wales—the environmental groups, the public bodies, the academics and community organisations—who have engaged with such commitment and candour throughout the process. Also, just a word for my small team of officials, who’ve worked not just with me, but through me, in engaging with Members of the Senedd across parties as well.

The strength of this Bill is that it is a product of that collaboration; the constructive cross-party engagement that has supported its development is testament to a shared recognition that protecting the environment is a matter of our collective responsibility. The amendments made to date by both Government and committee members reflect this, and they’ve led to a more robust, more coherent and, ultimately, more effective Bill; that’s what scrutiny is about. This Bill represents the Senedd at its best, working together to strengthen the future that we’re building for Wales.

I know, Janet, and I appreciate, that this legislation has been long anticipated, but I can assure you that the time has not been wasted. We have significantly benefited from learning how environmental protection and governance arrangements have evolved elsewhere in the UK and, indeed, internationally. We’ve seen what has worked well and where challenges have emerged. This has enabled us to design a model that is not simply comparable to counterparts in the UK, but is, actually, in many respects, stronger, and one that reflects the distinct needs of Wales and our unique policy and legislative landscape.

This Bill provides us with a real opportunity for a step change, establishing an environmental objective that is focused on a high level of environmental protection and improvement of the environment; four core environmental principles and duties to integrate environmental protection; an independent environmental governance body with authority, expertise and teeth; and a framework empowering Welsh Ministers to set targets in secondary legislation to contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss. As a whole, it gives us the framework to respond to the nature and climate emergencies we face today, but also to challenges that will impact future generations.

But I just want to be clear that we can only realise these opportunities if the Bill passes and if it passes in a form that's deliverable. The effective implementation requires legislation that is clear, workable, and grounded in the practical realities of the systems and institutions it creates. The Bill before all of us today has been strengthened with that in mind. It's ambitious, yes, but it's also achievable. And it's through that combination of ambition and deliverability that we will deliver the change that we need.

As we move through today’s amendments, I really look forward to continuing that collaborative spirit that has brought us this far. Because we have an opportunity here in front of us. In that spirit, can I thank Members in advance for their amendments that we're debating and the opportunity to set out this Government’s position on them? There will be amendments this evening that I look forward to supporting, in that collaborative spirit. There are others where I will explain why we cannot, but, I always hope, in a constructive and meaningful way.

Let me turn to the amendments in this group in Janet's name: amendment 9 and amendment 10. Just to note, these amendments were, indeed, tabled and discussed at Stage 2 and they were rejected at that point. I don’t support these amendments because of the same reasons, which I'll lay out now for the whole Senedd Chamber. They were, indeed, discussed and rejected at an earlier stage, Stage 2, where I explained that the four environmental principles in the Bill and the duty to integrate environmental protection are based on concepts that have developed over decades, including through international agreements, and EU and domestic legislation. They are very well developed and very clearly understood. But in addition, we've placed the stronger special regard duty on the Welsh Ministers and Natural Resources Wales on the basis of these well-understood and developed set of principles—special regard; it goes beyond what is in other pieces of legislation.

Adding further, less developed principles into this list risks significant uncertainty and even barriers towards effective delivery. The environmental principles and the integration duty presented in the Bill are supported—I've got to make clear—by a wide range of stakeholders and a case for additional principles has not been made throughout our engagement with those stakeholders. Furthermore, relevant aspects of these principles are actually already captured, to differing extents, and, I would say, to a more effective and appropriate degree, within the environmental objective and the duty to integrate environmental protection.

I can give you an example. Non-regression is generally interpreted to require that there should not be a roll back on environmental standards. The environmental objective, however, aims the duties in Part 1 at the attainment of a high level of environmental protection and an improvement of the environment. This goes beyond non-regression, in terms of preventing any lowering of ambition, and it focuses on contributing to a high level of environmental protection and actual improvement to the environment. I consider these amendments could be highly detrimental to the policy outcomes sought. In addition, the intended effect of amendment 9 is not entirely clear as to whether the Member proposes that the net-gain principle should be included in addition to the three principles set out in amendment 10, or something else. For these reasons, I do not support these amendments.

Janet Finch-Saunders to respond.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'll just say that recently I attended a technical briefing from your officials, and they actually admitted that they were way behind where they should be in terms of this agenda. That made me even more steadfast that we really do need to nail your feet to the floor on this, because we do not know what new Governments may be here who are not enthused by looking after the environment. Anyway, I'll respect your views on this, but let's move to the vote on it.

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 9. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 9 is not agreed.

Is amendment 10 being moved, Janet Finch-Saunders?

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 10. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 10 is not agreed.

Amendment 11. Is it being moved?

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We will therefore open the vote on amendment 11. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 11 is not agreed.

Amendment 12. Is it being moved?

Move.

It is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore vote on amendment 12. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, no abstentions, 38 against. Amendment 12 is not agreed.

Amendment 13. Is it being moved?

Move.

It is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 13. Close the vote. In favour 10, no abstentions, 38 against. Amendment 13 is not agreed.

Group 2 is our next group of amendments. This group relates to an environmental protection and improvement report. Amendment 53 is the lead amendment, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move the amendment.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'll be speaking to amendment 53. Plaid Cymru welcomes this long-awaited Bill. After the disaster of Brexit, a gap was left for Wales to fill in the area of environmental governance. That gap needs to be closed urgently, and that, of course, is what this Bill does.

But this Bill is about more than just processes and structures. At its heart, it is about giving a stronger voice to the residents of Wales and our communities who have had to suffer for far too long from the disgraceful state of our greenery, without the power to change or challenge that. As Gerallt Lloyd Owen said, too often we perhaps see, if I can paraphrase what he said, progress measured by a nation's shame. We must ensure that the legacy we bequeath our children is better than that.

The need for action could not be clearer. The 2023 state of nature report showed the average abundance of terrestrial and freshwater species in Wales had declined by 20 per cent over the last three decades. Iconic species are disappearing before our eyes. The fate of the shrill carder bee, of which I'm species champion, hangs in the balance, and we'll be talking later, of course, about swifts, about curlews. These are not abstract statistics or points, they represent the loss of sound, place and memory in our world. Without action, the dawn chorus risks becoming something future generations will only read about, as they gaze at our skies and wonder how we allowed it all to be lost.

The natural world has always inspired our poetry, our music, our identity as a country. Our anthem was inspired by the flow of the rivers in Pontypridd. We have a duty to keep that song alive.

Nature is central to our well-being and it is also one of our strongest allies in tackling the climate crisis. Healthy ecosystems store carbon, reduce flood risk, protect homes and support our food security.

So, to turn to my amendment in this group, Llywydd, amendment 53 aims to ensure all policy making is underpinned by strong environmental principles. This amendment would ensure that there is a review of the contribution of Part 1 of the Bill, which sets out duties for Ministers, NRW and public bodies to consider environmental principles and so on to achieving the environmental objectives set out in section 1. It would also ensure that such a review would take place within five years of the Bill passing through the Senedd.

In terms of its importance in including a duty to review these principles—and, again, I am going to be very interested in hearing the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog's response to this amendment when I am determining whether or not to push it to a vote—but to make sure that we need to have a mechanism, or certainly, to ensure that this works as it's intended, because there is so much at stake—. For example, research has identified over 45,000 potentially contaminated land sites across Wales; almost none have been inspected. This hidden legacy could pose serious threats to people, to water, to wildlife. How different might planning policy look had principles of prevention, mitigation and polluter responsibility informed the development of our contaminated land regime more robustly? Polluters are getting away without conducting remediation, and this must stop. It would be vital for that implementation of the polluter-pays principle to be improved and embedded in policy decisions across Government.

At Stage 2, I submitted an amendment that would have required a review in three years, complemented by further regular reviews. The feedback was that that was not proportionate, and I've taken that on board. Therefore, the timescale for review has been increased in this amendment from three to five years and the need for further reviews and their potential frequency left with Ministers.

As I say, I would be interested to hear the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog's response in terms of whether there are other ways in which something like this might be achieved, just to make sure that the environmental objectives that the Bill sets out to achieve are actually achieved, and to learn possibly from UK Government departments that have offered a more defined route.

I look forward to hearing the Government's response to this.

As I've already said, I can't disagree with a lot of what you said, Delyth, but as far as I'm concerned, to hold the feet of the Minister to the fire and the Government in the future, I believe that these reviews should take place every two years.

The Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Delyth, and Janet as well.

I'm going to try, in the way that we've done throughout the Committee Stage on this, to explain why I don't think this is needed. There are indeed ways that we can make this happen, but I understand the spirit in which this has been moved and what you're trying to do, and I think I can give you three primary reasons why this is not necessary.

Firstly, because of the work that we've already done with stakeholders, including environmental non-governmental organisations, and with committee members and colleagues, that gives me the full confidence that the provisions that we've put in place in Part 1 will be effective in achieving the policy intent, including that contribution to a high level of environmental protection and improving the environment pursuant to the environmental objective. Now, that's very clear. It's all the work that we've done on this Bill, including the improvements and amendments as well, and the creation of a mandatory report, as envisaged by this provision—it's unnecessary, not least because it suggests that we don't have sufficient confidence in this legislation that we're taking through, which isn't actually the case, and I notice the broad welcome of the ENGOs and others in what we've done, because we've done this together, and I have confidence in this legislation.

But, secondly, just as a matter of course, we will indeed review the implementation of legislation and its policy effects to ensure effective delivery. We've purposefully expressed in the explanatory materials that we will monitor the impact of the provisions in Part 1, and the accompanying environmental principles and the integrated environmental protection statement and guidance, through continued engagement with stakeholders. So, that's spelt out. And this includes, by the way, work assessing the efficacy of those very principles.

But thirdly and importantly, it must also be borne in mind that the Office of Environmental Governance Wales itself will have an important role in assessing whether the principles are effective, providing advice and recommendations to the Government from time to time, as it sees fit—this question we've always had about the OEGW having the independence to say that, to speak the truth to Ministers, as it sees fit. Now, this could indeed include recommendations for potential changes to legislation. So, I'm concerned that an amendment of this nature, whilst well intended, might actually affect the OEGW's role in this respect.

Finally, it's an important issue, but it's a technical issue. There's a technical issue with the amendment, as all of the Act that we have in front of us does not come into force on the same day. So, as such, it's not quite clear when the five-year period within which the report must be made, which the amendment indicates should begin when the Act comes into force—when it would actually commence. So, there's a technical deficiency here as well. For these reasons—why we can do this in a different way, and also that technical deficiency—I can't support this amendment, but I do actually understand the great intentions behind this. I hope that that helps explain.

Delyth Jewell to reply.

I thank both Members for that. I did think, and I still think, that it was important to have this discussion on the floor of the Senedd to ensure that those points are on the record and that they're heard, and how important it will be for that to happen. I do take the points that the Deputy First Minister has put forward for consideration, particularly the two final points on what has been made clear in the explanatory memorandum and also the point about the need to empower the OEGW, and of course the technical point too. So, in that context, I'm happy not to move this to a vote.

Right. The amendment has been moved. Unless there is any objection, we will not move to a vote on the amendment, as the Member has stated that she is happy to withdraw. If there is no objection to that, and there is no objection, we will agree that that amendment is withdrawn.

We will move now to group 3. The third group of amendments relates to the establishment of the Office of Environmental Governance Wales under Part 2 of the Bill, and related matters. The lead amendment is amendment 33. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to speak to the lead amendment. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd. This amendment requires the Welsh Ministers to consult the Senedd's prevailing environment committee before making regulations to change the number of permissible non-executive members of the OEGW. This is a distinct and strong measure to protect the independence of the OEGW. Amendment 25 disqualifies a member of staff of the Welsh Government from being a member of the OEGW. Again, this is a measure to protect the independence of this body.

Amendment 26 calls for the OEGW to be funded from the Welsh consolidated fund and Senedd budget motion. This amendment will require Senedd Cymru to examine and review the expenditure and functions of the OEGW regularly. I thought, at one stage, we were going to try and change that acronym, but heigh-ho. It is due to this that my Welsh Conservative colleagues and I will not support amendment 32, as we believe that our amendment 26 encapsulates the intention of amendment 32. Thank you.

We support amendments 33 and 25 in Janet's name, although we do oppose amendment 26.

I'll speak to the amendments in my name in this group. Firstly, amendment 46 would ensure that any non-executive member of the OEGW can only be appointed with the Senedd's approval. This would be a straightforward safeguard that would strengthen the body's independence, I think. It would mean that Welsh Ministers could not appoint members alone, and would ensure greater transparency, democratic oversight and public confidence in the OEGW from the start. Having said that, I do appreciate some of the points that have been made at Stage 2, and, again, I would be interested to hear the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog's response on that point.

To speak to amendment 48, now that would remove the OEGW from section 6 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. I have tabled this as a probing amendment only. I will not be pushing this to a vote. Now, the reason I've tabled it is that the OEGW is an oversight body, not a service delivery body. So, technically, including this reference could potentially distract from its core functions. It was a point that was raised with us during scrutiny at committee level. The auditor general confirmed that it is more comparable with bodies like the ombudsman and that it could not reasonably be expected to set objectives across all well-being goals. Its relationship with the future generations commissioner is already covered through requirements in the Bill to avoid duplication. Now, I wanted to make this point, Llywydd, as it was raised during scrutiny, but I do anticipate similar points might be made in response to those that were made at Stage 2 about the optics. And, of course, I firmly support the idea of the well-being of future generations Act. I'm not currently minded to push this to a vote, though, because of those technical points that were raised with us, I thought it was important for us to air these during Stage 3, merely to get on the record how the OEGW and the office of the future generations commissioner will interact. Diolch.

I'd like to speak to amendment 32 regarding sufficiency of funding for the OEGW. This amendment would mean that, if the OEGW considers that Welsh Ministers have not provided sufficient funding, and chooses to reflect this in its annual report, then the OEGW must submit the report to the Welsh Ministers. This is in addition to the existing requirement to lay annual reports before the Senedd. The intended outcome is to strengthen safeguards around the OEGW's funding by increasing accountability and heightening political scrutiny on the funding arrangements if the OEGW considers there to be a deficiency. The fact that the amendment sets out the consequences of an annual report indicating that the OEGW considers that it has not received sufficient funding also makes clear that the OEGW's existing reporting and ancillary powers allow it to express its views on sufficiency of funding. And importantly, this will remain a discretionary matter for the OEGW.

It's important that the OEGW has the power to give its view on funding, and this amendment sets out an additional requirement when it does so for the purposes of increasing accountability and scrutiny. This is an important measure, and I encourage all Members to support this amendment. Thank you.

During Stage 2, Janet Finch-Saunders proposed an amendment that would have ensured that the office would not only have a website but, more importantly, would include on that website a list of the public authorities that are subject to the oversight of the office. And I think this is important in the name of transparency.

I didn't think that there was a problem with the amendment, but it didn't receive majority support. It follows, therefore, that I’ve considered how we could actually achieve the legal aim, namely to ensure that the office does have a website that’s visible to the public. And there is precedent here, as you full know, Deputy First Minister—the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Act 2025. Part 71 says this:

'The Authority must establish and maintain a website, or other electronic facility (such as a software application), which the public can access without charge.'

If you’re not going to support the amendment—and from the slip here, I see the red markings very clearly next to my amendments—would you be as kind as to explain why the website is necessary in relation to disused coal tips, but not to this office? And why will you not ensure that the office takes advantage of good practice from the offices in England and Northern Ireland? Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. First of all, thanks to all Members for moving these amendments. It’s a bit of a mix here, so I'll try not to take too long, but I'm going to begin on the positive. I'm going to turn to Janet's amendment, first of all, amendment 33. Janet, I'm pleased to say I fully support this amendment in your name. [Interruption.] Yes, I know. [Laughter.] Indeed, Janet brought forward an amendment at Stage 2 that would have required the Welsh Ministers to consult with the committee of the Senedd with the remit for environmental protection before making regulations to change the number of non-executive appointments. I outlined at Stage 2 that I thought there was merit in her proposal, but we actually thought the provision could even go further and include a requirement to also consult the OEGW and any other persons the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate. So, given the inclusion of consultation with the OEGW in your amendment, I'm pleased to be fully able to support it, and I would urge other Members to do the same.

If I can turn then, having started on a positive, to amendment 25, which is an amendment similar to one that was tabled and rejected during Stage 2, the purpose of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which this amendment would amend, is to disqualify members of certain public and/or political offices from being members of the OEGW. This is because there could be a direct conflict of interest in these cases, particularly in relation to organisations that the OEGW is directly overseeing. Now, there is currently no provision to disqualify members of staff of those organisations, as we consider it appropriate for any conflicts of interest to be managed through the appropriate administrative procedures. We just do not consider there to be a strong rationale to single out and disqualify Welsh Government members of staff. Any potential conflicts of interest here can be, and indeed are, managed appropriately as would be done in the case of members of staff from local authorities, NRW or any other organisations listed where holders of public office are disqualified.

Furthermore, the regulation-making power at paragraph 3(1)(i) will enable the Welsh Ministers to amend the list to include members of other organisations and those organisations' members of staff if that were considered necessary in the future. So, there is provision to do this. This will enable Welsh Ministers to maintain a watching brief as to whether more disqualifications are necessary in future. So, for those reasons, I don't consider this amendment appropriate to be made.

If I turn to amendment 46, again this was tabled at Stage 2, or a similar one, but was withdrawn during the session based on the arguments we outlined at the time. But, if it helps again, Delyth, and also the wider Siambr, I'm very happy to lay out the rationale again for why I wouldn't support this. So, requiring Senedd approval for the appointment of five to seven non-executive members could indeed add delays into the process. They may be short, but they could be significant, bearing in mind the way that the Senedd works and the process works.

During Stage 2, we did a number of things. We strengthened the independence and the integrity of the appointments process through amendments that we brought forward to require Welsh Ministers to have regard to the OEGW's independence when exercising their functions in relation to it, including in appointing non-executive members, and by requiring the appointment panel to include a Senedd Member. So, we strengthened these aspects as we went through Stage 2. Now, this is in addition to the requirements on Welsh Ministers to consult the relevant Senedd committee before appointing or reappointing a chair and a deputy chair. Now, we feel strongly that these measures are a much more practical way to enhance the appointments process whilst also ensuring we get timely appointments and no delays, aligning, by the way, with the established process used for roles such as the Welsh Language Commissioner. So, that's why I wouldn't support this amendment.

Janet Finch-Saunders to respond.

Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for giving way on that amendment. And also we will be supporting you, Delyth, on the one that you put forward. Diolch.

The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. [Interruption.]

Yes, 33. Any opposition? No.

Amendment 33 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 25.

Amendment 25. Is it being moved, Janet Finch-Saunders?

Move.

Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore open the vote on amendment 25. The vote is tied, and therefore I will close the vote and exercise my casting vote against amendment 25. And therefore, the amendment is not agreed, with 24 in favour, no abstentions and 25 against.

Amendment 46. Is it moved by Delyth Jewell?

No.

It is not moved. So, there will be no vote on amendment 46.

Amendment 26.

Amendment 26. Is it being moved, Janet Finch-Saunders?

Move.

Yes, it is.

Are there any objections to amendment 26? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 26. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 35 against. The amendment is not agreed.

Carolyn Thomas, amendment 32.

Is it being moved, 32?

Yes.

Are there any objections to amendment 32? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 32. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, no abstentions and 12 against. Therefore, amendment 32 is agreed.

Amendment 8, Rhys ab Owen. It is not moved. So, there will be no vote.

We'll now move to group 4. And the fourth group of amendments relates to the general purpose of the Office of Environmental Governance Wales. Amendment 36 is the lead amendment. And I call on Delyth Jewell to speak to the lead amendment.

Thank you, Llywydd. I move the amendments in my name in this group, amendments 36 and 47.

I'm grateful to the Deputy First Minister and his team for their assistance and support in looking at how this could work. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a more focused general purpose for the OEGW. The amendment maintains symmetry with the environmental objective that's set out in section 1 of the Bill, which includes reference to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, by referencing the attainment of a high level of environmental protection and an improvement of the environment, whilst emphasising the OEGW’s role in ensuring compliance with, and effectiveness, implementation and application of, environmental law.

I'm also grateful for their support looking at, after Stage 2, how what I put forward in amendment 47 might work. That is consequential to the previous amendment 36. It reflects that the OEGW must set out in its strategy how it intends to comply with its duty to exercise its functions for the general purpose set out in section 10(a), and not the 'environmental objective', as previously drafted. Diolch.

Everyone will be pleased to hear that I don't intend to rehearse all the comments that I made in favour of these amendments at Stage 2, but I do propose that the new office should operate in accordance with the Aarhus convention. What would that mean, I hear you ask? Well, it ensures three rights for the public on environmental issues: a right to receive information on the environment held by public bodies; a right to participate in decision making around the environment; and, third, a right to have a review by a court or another independent body to ensure that public bodies respect the rights that I have outlined, and environmental law more generally. How often do we receive correspondence from constituents on these issues?

Now, in response to my amendments at Stage 2, the Deputy First Minister explained that, in his view, it is not appropriate to ensure that the office should act in accordance with Aarhus. This is despite the fact that the convention is an international agreement that has been supported by the United Kingdom. Last year, a decision was taken by the convention compliance committee saying that the UK was failing in terms of its compliance. In my view, the stance of the Deputy First Minister and the Welsh Government on my amendments is evidence that not only is the UK failing, but Wales is also failing to comply with the Aarhus convention.

In accordance with article 10 of the Aarhus convention, parties review the implementation of the convention in an ongoing manner on the basis of regular reports from parties. For example, the 2021 report for the UK notes, as evidence of compliance with the convention here in Wales, our Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. So, I kindly ask you to consider why this environment Bill should not be included in that list and, therefore, support my amendments. Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Llywydd. First of all, if I can turn to amendment 36 and the consequential amendment 47, the Bill as introduced and as amended at Stage 2 aligns the OEGW's general purpose with the environmental objective set out in section 1 of the Bill, which includes, amongst other things, a reference to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. But we did hear at the earlier stages, and indeed from the ENGOs as well, concerns that this approach is not as focused as it could be on the environment. So, having listened to these concerns, I am really pleased that, Delyth, we’ve been able to work together effectively to develop this appropriate amendment that addresses those concerns, whilst also maintaining that necessary clear focus on a high level of environmental protection and improvement of the environment. So, in this way, this amendment maintains the symmetry with the environmental objective, but places focus on the role the OEGW will have in supporting the environment through its oversight of environmental law. So, on that basis, I’m very pleased to support this amendment and encourage other Members to do so, and the consequential amendment as well.

Rhys, I feel really bad now, but I am going to explain why I don’t think these amendments are appropriate. These were indeed the amendments, or similar, that were tabled and rejected at Stage 2. It’s because it would be inappropriate for this provision to be added to the OEGW's general purpose. Although we’re supportive of the Aarhus convention, it’s a question of how it fits within this legislation.

The Aarhus convention, as we all know, is an international treaty ratified by the UK Government. It sets out broad principles rather than precise statutory duties. If we required the OEGW to exercise its functions in accordance with the Aarhus convention, it could open the door for some quite substantial interpretation disputes and, indeed, potential challenges. The Bill already sets out effective ways to ensure citizens are empowered to engage with and be consulted by the OEGW.

Furthermore, the OEGW's remit is to oversee environmental law, which in this context means devolved provisions relating to the environment. Now, Aarhus obligations often require systemic measures such as access to courts, which are beyond the OEGW's powers and resources. So, if we impose this duty it would lead to, quite frankly, unrealistic expectations of what the OEGW could and should do.

To add to this, monitoring compliance with Aarhus is already handled at a UK level and by the UNECE compliance committee. Whilst the OEGW will oversee domestic environmental law, which reflects the Aarhus convention, it should not be expected to, nor indeed could it, be an oversight body for UK-wide obligations, because this oversight already exists. So, it’s not out of any lack of sympathy or obligation towards our obligations on the Aarhus convention; it just doesn’t fit within the OEGW's role within this devolved context. But that's already provided for. I hope that explains it.

Delyth Jewell to reply.

Thank you to those who have taken part in this short debate. I'm very grateful to the Deputy First Minister for his supportive remarks on the amendments in my name in this group, and I hope that the balance will now work well. There are some interesting points that have been raised, I think, by Rhys about his amendment on the Aarhus convention. I also recognise the challenges that could arise if this were to pass, so we will abstain on that amendment. But I think, if it wasn't for those challenges, we would have supported it.

The proposal is to agree amendment 36. Does any Member object? No, there is no objection, therefore the amendment is agreed.

Rhys ab Owen, amendment 1. Is it moved?

It is. If amendment 1 is not agreed, amendment 7 falls. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 1. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour two, 11 abstentions and 35 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

Amendment 47. Is it moved, Delyth Jewell?

It is. Are there any objections to amendment 47? [Objection.] There are objections to amendment 47. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 47. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions and two against. Therefore, amendment 47 is agreed.

Group 5 is next. The fifth group relates to the strategy of the Office of Environmental Governance Wales. The lead amendment is amendment 27. Janet Finch-Saunders to move the amendment.

Thank you. I move amendment 27 in my name. Amendment 27 ensures there must be engagement with counterpart environmental governance bodies in relation to matters connected to its functions that fall outside devolved provision. This will ensure that there is more effective management. Amendments 28 and 29 add the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Water Services Regulation Authority to ensure that there is no overlap with their functions and the functions of the OEGW.

[Inaudible.]—amendment 27. I would also like to provide my support for amendment 34 in the name of Joyce, which is in this group. Amendment 34 would require the OEGW to set out its strategy for how it intends to work with the CCC. That is similar to an amendment that was tabled at Stage 2, and I'm supportive of that. While the OEGW will be working with a large number of bodies—. I see the Llywydd—. Do you want me to continue? While the OEGW will be working with a large number of bodies, this amendment would offer clarity and will improve accountability regarding the relationship with this crucial body. It will also help the OEGW to have this collaborative arrangement, so I am supportive of that amendment.

Joyce Watson.

Diolch, Llywydd. I am going to move the amendment in my name. It requires the Office of Environmental Governance Wales to set out its strategy on how it will exercise its function in a way that avoids overlap with the functions of the UK Government on climate change. Schedule 2 to the Bill includes provision for the content and procedural requirements of the strategy that the OEGW is required to prepare and publish under section 11. The strategy will outline how the OEGW will fulfil its statutory duties without overlapping with the roles of other oversight bodies. The amendment adds the UK Committee on Climate Change to the list of bodies in relation to which the OEGW strategy must set out how it will avoid overlapping functions.

I'd like to thank the Deputy First Minister for listening to stakeholders after Stage 2, and for working with us to develop a suitable amendment to ensure that the Bill expressly requires the OEGW to avoid overlap with the UK CCC specifically, given the potential overlap in functions, albeit quite limited.

The Cabinet Secretary, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. If I can turn, first of all, to amendment 27 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders, this is, again, similar to an amendment that was tabled, debated and then rejected at Stage 2, but I'll explain why—our reasoning. The OEGW can rely on its supplementary powers to enter into any agreements with relevant bodies that it considers necessary, such as investigations into areas of common concern that apply in relation to Wales. Putting an express requirement of this nature within the Bill will likely, just to be clear, require the consent of UK Ministers. Now, this has sometimes happened, but it’s in no way guaranteed. In that respect, I do not consider it necessary or desirable to seek consent for a provision that wouldn’t improve the effectiveness of the OEGW, and could, indeed, impact, just to be clear, the Bill’s timely passage through this Senedd, as we sit in deliberation here at this time.

The interim environmental protection assessor for Wales, the interim body, already has a memorandum of understanding with the Office for Environmental Protection and Environmental Standards Scotland, the England and Scotland counterparts, and a very good working relationship. This is really effective, and the IEPAW isn't even yet a statutory body, so it just shows why this provision isn't actually needed as well.

If I turn to amendment 34 in the name of Joyce Watson, Joyce, my thanks for moving this, but also for the way this has been brought forward collaboratively with the ENGOs and stakeholders, and working with my officials. It's after that listening to ENGOs and committee members further on the matter after Stage 2 that we believe that adding the UK Climate Change Committee to the list in paragraph 1(1)(e) of Schedule 2 would provide greater clarity, and ensure that the OEGW will be required to set out how it will avoid what we believe, by the way, will be limited overlaps—how it will avoid those overlaps between the OEGW and the UK CCC. So, we'll be supporting that amendment, and I would urge Members to do so.

If I can turn to amendments 28 and 29 in Janet's name, in response to those amendments we believe there is limited overlap, to be frank, between the functions of the OEGW, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Office of Water Services. However, I have previously agreed with this principle of requiring the OEGW to articulate in its strategy how it intends to exercise its functions in a way that does not overlap with the functions of any organisation, not just those listed specifically. This is reflected in paragraph 1(1)(e)(vi) of Schedule 2, which we inserted during Stage 2 proceedings in response to some of these discussions. This gives sufficient scope and clarity, and requires the OEGW to articulate in its strategy how it will seek to avoid overlap with public authorities, but based on its own independent expertise and its independent professional judgment, which is something that committee members stressed they wanted repeatedly.

Janet Finch-Saunders to respond.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you for those explanations. I, therefore, am going to withdraw 27, 28, 29 and 30.

Okay, so, 27 is the main amendment. It's not being pressed to a vote, unless anybody wishes to do so. I see nobody wanting to do that, so consider it not voted upon.

Joyce Watson, amendment 34.

Thirty-four. Is it being moved?

Move.

Yes, it is.

The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. So, we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 34. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions and two against. Amendment 34 is agreed.

Amendment 28, I think, isn't being moved by Janet Finch Saunders—no?

Sorry. What number?

Twenty eight.

No, that's withdrawn.

It's not being moved.

Amendment 29. Is that being moved, Janet Finch-Saunders? I think you said 'no'.

It's withdrawn, and 30 is withdrawn.

And 30 is also not being moved.

That's the end of group 5, therefore.

Group 6 is next. This group relates to monitoring and reporting by the Office of Environmental Governance Wales. Amendment 37 is the lead amendment, and Delyth Jewell will move this amendment.

I'll be speaking to amendment 37.

This would require a public authority, including Welsh Ministers, to respond to a report that is issued by the OEGW using its section 12 monitoring powers. These reports would cover matters relating to the compliance, application and implementation of environmental law. The purpose of the amendment would be to increase transparency and accountability. After the long delay that we saw before passing this Bill, the OEGW, of course, will have its work cut out for it, with plenty of environmental laws to get to grips with. While the design of the OEGW’s monitoring and compliance functions is, of course, bespoke for Wales, there are similarities with section 29 of the UK Environment Act 2021, under which the Office for Environmental Protection can publish reports on the implementation of environmental law.

In many cases, these have dealt with highly complicated technical matters of interpretation of environmental laws, such as the water framework directive. The UK Government’s response to these reports, which it is compelled to make, has been an important element of the accountability cycle there and visibly informed the next steps that the OEP has chosen to take when it comes to the use of its other powers. Without the benefit of knowing what the public authority thinks of its recommendations, the OEGW would be at a significant disadvantage, as it may well not have sufficient information to deploy its compliance or improvement functions with confidence and ensure their effective and proportionate use.

My fear is that the current approach in this Bill could disadvantage public authorities as they would not get the opportunity to set the record straight on any potential misunderstandings, or to add useful evidence to inform the OEGW’s next steps. At worst, the lack of a specific duty to respond to the OEGW’s recommendations and reports under section 12 could result in a regulatory stalemate. At best, it could lead to confusion, inefficiencies and missed opportunities. I hope that it will get some support, at least for the principle of it.

The Cabinet Secretary to respond.

Diolch yn fawr, Delyth. I understand why you are moving this, but I'm going to try and give you some reassurance here of why it's not necessary. The reports produced under section 12 of the Bill provide one of the bases for the OEGW to act where improvement is necessary or where there's potential non-compliance. They are intended to complement the targeted functions of the OEGW, which require—require—the public authority to act, such as the provisions that address non-compliance or drive improvement to environmental law, or which require public authorities to respond to recommendations about their application or implementation of environmental law. Now, this intention is further supported by the existing duty for the OEGW to publish any reports, as well as lay copies of those reports before Senedd Cymru, enhancing, therefore, the accountability and transparency to both the Senedd and the public, as well.

Enabling the OEGW to impose an additional duty on the Welsh Ministers and other public authorities to respond to reports does not, in my view, add anything useful to the OEGW’s toolkit, which is already there. In particular, section 14 of the Bill already provides for the OEGW to issue guidance or advice to public authorities on any matter relating to environmental law, including recommendations relating to the authority’s application or implementation of environmental law. And more than that, the OEGW can require the authority to respond to the recommendations within a period specified by it. It remains firmly my view that the requirements on the Welsh Ministers and public authorities to respond to the OEGW are well established in the Bill through these other provisions and in accordance with the intended escalatory approach to taking action, working with people to try and avoid the necessity of taking action, but if you need to, you can tell them to take it and be very transparent in it.

Just one other observation, which is on a more technical matter, is that the amendment as currently drafted does not set out expressly at what point in the process the OEGW may request that the public authority respond to a report. So, if such a request is made, the authority must respond within three months of the publication of the report and not three months from the date of the request. This could potentially lead to issues of fairness if the OEGW were permitted to publish a report on date A but then not make the request for a response until date B, later in the three-month period. It's a technical flaw within it. I'm sure that isn't the intended effect, necessarily, but it appears to me to be the effect of the amendment as it's currently drafted. So, for those reasons, that's why I can't support this amendment.

I'm happy—well, no, not happy, but I'm grateful to the Deputy First Minister. I'm not happy with what I've heard, but I do recognise the technical points that have been made. I am happy, therefore, to not push this to a vote.

The proposer has stated that she does not want to press 37 to the vote. Unless there is an objection to that, we will assume that there is no vote necessary on amendment 37.

Group 7 is next. This group of amendments relates to representations made to and investigations undertaken by the OEGW. Amendment 38 is the lead amendment. Delyth Jewell to move the amendment.

Thank you, Llywydd. You're hearing from me again, I'm afraid. I'm grateful to the Deputy First Minister and his officials for their help with amendments 38 and 39, and I do move those amendments.

Amendment 38 clarifies that a person may make representations to the OEGW in relation to the matters that the OEGW may investigate. I feel very passionately about this because I think it's really important that this is on the face of the Bill. It would put beyond doubt that individuals and organisations will be able to raise concerns directly with the environmental governance body, rather than that right simply being implied or left to procedural guidance alone. It is about democratic accountability. It is about giving people a voice.

Amendment 39 is a consequential amendment that reinserts the requirement for the OEGW to prepare and publish a document setting out the procedure to be followed when representations are made. Together, these amendments would ensure both clarity of right and clarity of process. The ability for people to make representations is a fundamental part of effective environmental governance. Communities are often the first to experience environmental harm, whether that is through pollution, flooding or failures in enforcement. Therefore, making it explicit on the face of the Bill that people can make representations and that there must be a clear published process for doing so would strengthen transparency, accessibility and public confidence in the OEGW's role. I hope and trust that the Senedd will support this.

Transparency is at the heart of amendment 2. In response to this amendment at Stage 2, the Deputy First Minister said that there was a risk that this change would cause the office to make decisions at too early a stage. I didn't understand that at the time, and I still don't understand it, so perhaps you could explain that to me in greater detail. One Labour member of the committee said that we sometimes have to remember that people who raise environmental concerns get unfavourable publicity and comments, and, clearly, we don't want that to happen. But, I think, to respond to that concern, this amendment will be subject to section 27, which relates to the confidentiality requirements of the office. So, I don't think we need to be concerned on that point.

Amendment 3 would introduce a register of representations. I've taken time to look at the OEP website, and I can see that they publish regular reports on that website, detailing the complaints that they deal with. For example, there are current investigations into DEFRA, the environmental agency, on water quality and altering special areas of protection in England, and the same in Northern Ireland. The clear benefit of this, of course, is that it reduces the need for others to introduce complaints on issues that are already being investigated. It would save time and resource for the office. Indeed, people won't need to make a complaint because they will be able to see that that complaint is already being investigated according to the register, or that the issue has already been considered or has been rejected for an appropriate reason. So, I think that this could save a great deal of time for the office and make its work far more efficient, and make the office far more transparent to the public too. I encourage the Senedd to ensure that the office does learn from good practice from other offices in England and in Northern Ireland. Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary to contribute, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. If I could turn to amendment 38 and consequential amendment 39 first of all, I do indeed support these amendments, because even though I believe they don't provide the OEGW with any additional functions, it's that question about being explicit, which is what we heard in earlier committee stages. Individuals, we believe, can already make representations through the Bill as introduced, but that strength of feeling from both wider stakeholders and, indeed, committee members as we went through Stage 2 about this means we can see the benefit in making this explicit within the legislation. And it's worth ramming home that we see enhancing citizens' access to environmental justice as a real priority within this legislation. I am pleased that we've worked again constructively with committee members and with the Member moving this motion on an amendment that clarifies appropriately that a person, be under no doubt, may make representations to the OEGW and the grounds on which those representations may be made. So, I'm very happy to support these amendments and I would urge other Members to do the same.

If I turn to amendment 2, in Rhys's name, I'll try to explain again why we don't believe it is necessary or desirable to require the OEGW to publish reports on all investigations, although I have to say we consider that, in most cases, the OEGW will want to publish reports, but not in all cases, to force them to do it, and I'll try to explain why. There may well be some cases where the OEGW itself, in its independent expertise and view, does not consider it reasonable or in the public interest to do so, and where the OEGW does consider it reasonable to publish a report, it should have the discretion to publish it at the time it considers appropriate. Why is this important? Because, within the Bill, it adopts this escalatory approach to enforcement that is intended to enable co-operation and collaboration wherever possible to resolve environmental concerns, rather than automatically progressing up the scale to formal enforcement action. So, there may be very good reasons in this scenario why the OEGW would exercise its discretion and choose not to publish a report, or to choose it at a certain point in time, especially if the OEGW and the relevant public authority are working through an appropriate resolution together to its concerns without resorting to formal mechanisms. So, requiring the OEGW to publish reports on its investigations in this way could lead to a reach to those premature conclusions, which would, in my view, reduce the chance of what could be swift and more effective resolutions. It may, in fact, force the OEGW into those formal mechanisms where this otherwise might not have been needed and there could have been swifter resolution.

Delyth Jewell to reply.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm grateful again for the Deputy First Minister's comments. With the amendments that I have in this group, this is one of the reasons why I prefer the Welsh word 'gwelliant' to the English word 'amendment', because sometimes there is a way to improve the legislation. It's neutral in English, where we say,

'We are amending'. In Welsh, we say that we are improving the legislation.

Transparency, of course, is vital, and I think that that's the intention of every amendment in the group.

The measure of the success of this Bill and the body it establishes will be the extent to which members of the public and communities feel empowered. It should not just be about processes, it should be about people—people who've seen their land, their water, their air polluted and exploited for generations. I hope that these will be supported.

The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 38. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, two against. Therefore, amendment 38 is agreed.

Amendment 39. Is it moved?

It is. Are there any objections to amendment 39? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We will therefore open the vote on amendment 39. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, two against. Amendment 39 is agreed.

Amendment 2. Rhys ab Owen, is it moved? It is not moved to a vote.

Next is amendment 3. Is that moved? No. Amendment 3 is not moved.

We will move to group 8. This group of amendments relates to biodiversity targets under new section 6B of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 40, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move the amendment.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm grateful once again to the Government for its support with some of the amendments in this group—not all of them, of course, but some of them.

Amendment 40 would ensure that, when setting biodiversity targets, Welsh Ministers can consider not just halting and reversing loss but also restoring biodiversity to resilient levels. This matters, because simply preventing decline would risk hindering our ambition. Recent reports from NRW on the state of our natural world have made clear how perilously precarious our environment in its current state truly is, how seriously at risk of harm from flooding, erosion, pollution we are as a result.

Plaid Cymru believes that Wales should aim higher, ensuring that ecosystems recover, that they support communities, store carbon and protect against flooding. This amendment would make clear that our goal is not just survival but true restoration. Of course, this must be done in collaboration with sectors, including, of course, farmers. They are some of the front-line workers who will be managing how this works. Their input would be essential to ensuring that our natural world thrives for the benefit of all.

To turn to amendments 42, 43 and 45, these are consequential to amendment 40. They would ensure that Welsh Ministers consider whether biodiversity targets contribute to restoring biodiversity to resilient levels when reviewing effectiveness, when making decisions about revoking or lowering targets, and when preparing the biodiversity plan. These amendments would make clear that restoration and resilience are not just aspirations when targets are first set, but must remain central to ongoing decisions and planning. This would strengthen long-term accountability and ambition for Wales's natural environment.

To turn to amendment 54, there was much excitement about a similar amendment at Stage 2. I hope Members will be supportive of this principle. Perhaps we can have a discussion about what might be possible as a next step. Swifts are an iconic Welsh summer species, but their numbers have declined by 75 per cent in the last quarter of a century. Amendment 54 would ensure that targets under this Bill support a thriving swift population each summer. That would mean healthy habitats, rich in flying insects, as well as nesting opportunities. Incorporating swift bricks into new buildings would be a key measure to provide homes for returning swifts and secure their future in Wales.

I do take on board what was said at Stage 2 about singling out one species and, indeed, how not all migratory birds would benefit from swift bricks alone. They could, of course, be a cornerstone—a corner brick, if you will—or the first brick in the wall of support given over to our most iconic and endangered species, those species whose very survival is under threat. I'm aware that in Scotland, of course, they have found another way of protecting swifts using building regs, and that they're looking at the design of a swift brick that would also be of benefit to other migratory birds.

So, I have a request of the Government. As I know there would be a great deal of support for the idea of introducing changes to our built environment that would protect not just swifts but other migratory birds, pollinators and other endangered species, I wonder whether there would be a willingness from the Government to look at this in a cross-party way, in a cross-governmental way.

I realise we're running out of time in this Senedd, but could a meeting be held with those of us who would want to find solutions as early as possible to help protect these—I use the word 'iconic' again—truly iconic species from extinction? I would appreciate hearing again from the Government what actions it would intend to take to protect these species in the future, and I really do look forward to hearing what other Members have to say on this.

Our amendment 5A amends amendment 5 to move the target for improvement in the status of species and ecosystems from 2030 to 2035. As we're hearing from stakeholders themselves that 2030 is now becoming unachievable, the additional five-year term will set a more realistic target. I urge you to support amendment 5 tabled by Rhys ab Owen, and also mine, amendment 5A. But also, I'm going to be supporting Delyth regarding the swift bricks—brilliant. My only concern is when you say that it may be open to other species. As long as we're not putting bricks in that allow larger birds that we would not be wanting to incorporate—those that are predators for swifts. [Interruption.] I was going to say seagulls, but I thought it would make everyone laugh. I think we've just got to be mindful of how carefully we proceed with other birds so that we're not actually undoing the protections for swifts. Diolch.

I don't think a pigeon would fit into a swift box, but anyway.

As Delyth Jewell has said, their numbers have tumbled 75 per cent since the beginning of this Senedd, and what have we done about it? Nothing. In the last 10 years alone, we've lost more than half our swifts. Swifts nest almost exclusively in cavities of tall buildings, often just below the roof line or under the tiles. Renovations make them homeless, and new builds rarely offer artificial cavities like swift bricks.

I raised this in Plenary in June 2021, and the then Minister for Climate Change told us that the Welsh Government was incorporating swift bricks into the innovative housing programme, with swift bricks going up across a number of social houses across Wales. Fantastic. She also said that the then Deputy Minister, Lee Waters, was looking at biodiversity across roads and rail routes, including incorporating swift boxes and other nesting boxes, as appropriate, along those routes. I was reassured by this. In Plenary in July 2024, I praised the work of the Welsh Government on swift bricks and the work done by Julie James, I thought, to make it mandatory for new buildings over a certain size to include swift bricks in their eaves.

I was raising the lack of clarity on how and by whom this compliance was being tracked. I asked for a statement to identify how the new building regulations were going to make a difference on improving the future for swifts in Wales. Response came there none, because, obviously, the regulations hadn't been changed. It was only during the debate on the petition, signed by nearly 11,000 people, calling for legislation to ensure swift bricks are installed in all new buildings, that I realised the Welsh Government had not and still has not changed Part L of the building regulations to ensure that all new buildings of a certain size would require a swift brick or bricks into its construction. I'm not unhappy about having more than one family of swifts, but I think it's one home, one brick, for one pair of swifts, and then another brick for another pair of swifts. They can't live together, and indeed, they cannot live with other species.

In her contribution to the debate on the petition, I was, I have to say, underwhelmed by the argument made by the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Energy and Planning. Obviously, there's nothing stopping a responsible developer from installing a swift brick, as well as a separate home for the amber-listed house martins. But the idea that installing a swift brick might prevent house room being given to house sparrows, blue tits and nuthatches is not a very impressive argument, as these species fly at very different altitudes and require homes that are at very different levels. So, I'm struggling to understand how that argument had any merit.

What about finches?

Finches too. I'm not discriminating.

I get it that this measure doesn't actually require primary legislation and is not the remit of the office of environmental governance, though it will be highly relevant to their setting of stretching targets. All that is required, therefore, is a modest amendment to Part L of the building regulations. In the middle of a global biodiversity emergency, where Wales has obligation to play its part under the well-being of future generations Act, is it too much to expect of the Welsh Government, in the five sitting weeks remaining of this Senedd, to finally get round to amending Part L of the building regulations to attempt to reverse the 76 per cent biodiversity decline of swifts, before another Government comes in, which may or may not regard reversing the biodiversity crisis and think it's for the birds to sort out for themselves, on the grounds that a £25 swift box would get in the way of the profits of developers?

I hear that Scotland is stuck on the design of a brick that would accommodate a swift or a house martin. I think that is a very difficult argument to make. We will need both swift bricks and house martin bricks. I want to know what the Government is going to do, and I hope that I will hear something that makes me feel positive about this.

I want to speak briefly to amendment 54 as well. Eleven thousand people signed a petition calling for swift bricks to be installed in all new developments. It's a way of developers showing that they care about nature. Scotland brought it in through legislation, in building regs. So, I just want to say, Cabinet Secretary—. Delyth mentioned having a cross-Government meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Housing, the Cabinet Secretary involved with planning and yourself, inviting the RSPB and all the Members here, including the swift champion, that are interested in this, so we can look at having nature-friendly buildings going forward, including hedgehog corridors, as well as swift bricks. Thank you.

I won't be talking about swift bricks, Alun Davies, but I have spoken in favour of swift bricks before. I'm going to talk about gwelliant rhif 5.

I'll turn to Welsh. Now, amendment 5 is important. It is not only a test of the value of the word of the Welsh Government, it also tests us as a Senedd. What's at the heart of my amendment—unlike Janet, I stick to 2030.

Janet, you might be for turning, but I will not be. I will be sticking to 2030.

That was the commitment of this Senedd to support the 30x30 target. In December 2022, the UK agreed to the biodiversity framework. Section F of the 2050 vision and 2030 mission sets out clearly that we have to live alongside nature by 2050 and take urgent action to stop the decline and undo the biodiversity decline, putting nature on the pathway to recovery by 2030. Not only has the UK agreed to that vision and that mission, but one of the Ministers of this Government was in attendance at that conference representing the Welsh Government. Further, on 11 February 2022, our Minister for climate change at the time published a statement saying that she was there to influence the framework and to sign up to her commitment to hasten nature recovery in Wales, including the 30x30 target.

In January 2025, the climate change committee published its report 'Halting and reversing the loss of nature by 2030', with the view of the Welsh Government that its commitment to 30x30 not only stood, but was still strongly in place. That is what they said back in January 2025. Even on 30 September 2025, the Deputy First Minister responded to my question as to how the Welsh Government intended to deliver the target, as was outlined in COP 2022, making reference to the framework that outlines the way of delivering 30x30. But two months later, as we discussed my amendments at Stage 2, the Government had changed its tune.

In my view, without giving any proper reason, the Minister was not only opposed to my amendment, but as a result turned against the international biodiversity framework that was agreed back in 2022. The rest of my amendments in this group relate to the duty to make regulations that set targets. Amendment 31 will make it a requirement to have targets in relation to increasing the contribution made by non-statutory sites. The sites listed reflect part 6.4.31 of 'Planning Policy Wales', edition 12, and this is what is noted in the document, that the sites

'make a vital contribution to delivering an ecological network for biodiversity and resilient ecosystems, and they should be given protection in development plans and the development management process.'

Why? Why do we need such targets? Well, the answer is in a petition that we received as a Petitions Committee recently, calling on the Welsh Government to legislate to ensure that local nature reserves, including one that is local to this place, are given full consideration. In response to the petition, the Deputy First Minister wrote to the Chair of the committee on 27 November, noting, and I quote:

'While the Bill does not create new duties specific to LNRs, its provisions will reinforce the requirement for public bodies to consider biodiversity in decision-making and planning processes.'

Finally, the Government's response to amendment 4 at the second stage was that it did not need to do that, because it had the target to reduce pollution, and that will cover my amendment. Well, respectfully, I don't agree with that. The Bill, as it stands, does not define pollution, it simply asks Welsh Ministers to set a target within the priority area of reducing pollution. Yet there are multiple types of pollution for future Welsh Governments to pick and choose from. Microplastics—as you know, Dirprwy Brif Weinidog, I have raised microplastics on a number of occasions. I believe microplastics are forgotten about, microplastics are not taken seriously enough, and microplastics will cause a huge problem for us in the future. Microplastics should fall under the first three priority areas of this Bill.

Regarding extinction of native species in priority area 1, microplastics cause disorders in all systems of animal bodies, including functions vital to life. If any species loses numbers due to microplastics, it will have a destabilising effect on our ecosystems, which then relates to priority area 2. Microplastics are pollution, which is priority area 3. I believe that microplastics belong in this Bill. There are studies, limited studies, I concede, but there are clear studies that show that microplastics increase risks of heart attacks, stroke and deaths associated through them. Amendment 6 guarantees that Welsh Ministers will have to take responsibility with regard to this. Diolch yn fawr.

I look at the amendments, and I was reading the Bill before coming here this afternoon, and I'm very concerned—and the Deputy First Minister is aware of my concerns on this matter—that we are setting targets that will simply never be met. We are setting targets that will achieve nothing, or very little, because, all too often in this place, we have created a plethora of bureaucratic tools rather than streamlining governance to enhance democratic accountability. My concern is that, over many years, this place has passed a significant body of legislation that has achieved very little in terms of affecting my constituents—and, I would suggest, the constituents of many others here—and has simply not achieved the objectives that have been set for that legislation. This place—not the Government, the Senedd—has not taken sufficient time to examine and review legislation, to actually examine whether that legislation is fit for purpose of meeting the Government's objectives for it.

So, what will happen tonight? I have no doubt that these amendments and this Bill will be passed. We will set these targets, or set the framework for setting targets, as we have done before, as we did when we passed the future generations Bill, as we did when we established NRW and set objectives for them to set targets and area plans, as we have done on numerous other occasions, and, in reality, we will not achieve the objectives that people here wish to achieve—and I believe the motives are good—because we haven't got the courage, and sometimes the guts, to face up to the issues of governance that we've ducked, and we've ducked them consistently. It's the one thing that unites parties across the whole of this Chamber, in fact, because the opposition parties have ducked it in the same way as the governing party has ducked it.

My concern is that we don't set more targets that will never be met, that we don't establish new structures and frameworks and ways of working that will create more of an industry of bureaucracy, that we actually reduce the bureaucracy we have in Wales, and we actually create more accountability for the structures we have. What I hope we will be able to do, and what I would ask of the Deputy First Minister—he might agree tonight but he hasn't got time to do it—is to look hard at how these targets will fit in with all the other structures, processes, plans, objectives and ideas that we've already passed into law or produced regulations on, and how we will create a coherence in governance in Wales. [Interruption.] I can't see him but I can hear him, and I'll take an intervention from him.

I may have missed a few papers. I've not seen your amendments to this effect.

You haven't seen my amendments to this, but I think you've heard the contribution that I've made in a very considered way over a number of years. And the problem is, Llyr, when I've talked to members of Plaid Cymru about it, they agree with me in private, but they've never made a speech on a public platform as I'm doing this evening. And I think that's a weakness of politics in Wales. And you're not alone in that, Llyr, don't worry.

So, I hope what we'll be able to do this evening—. I've no doubt at all that these amendments and the substantive legislation will be passed, except Rhys won't pass any of his amendments this evening, and I hope that the Deputy First Minister will write to Members consequent to this debate. I hope he will write to us explaining how he sees this Bill, these structures, these targets, fitting into all the other processes and structures we have created over the years, and how he will create coherence in administrating that. And he might even explain how he intends to meet at least one of these targets and objectives.

The Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm very happy to rise to that challenge immediately, Alun, and we have discussed this previously. But I just want to lay out specifically what this legislation has done, why it has been so long awaited and so widely supported as well, because it puts in place three fundamental pillars. One is an independent, expert-led organisation that not only can pursue policy makers like me to actually say, 'You're not hitting the targets, your environmental credentials are shot, you need to do better and do more'—. And it won't be an ENGO out there, and it won't be wider stakeholders, although they will have a voice, as we've previously discussed this afternoon, being able to say to the OEGW, 'We want you to pursue an area where we think pollution is happening', in soil, in microplastics, as has just been said, or elsewhere.

So, this sets up an independent, expert-led body, and I would say as well, as I said in introducing this earlier on, we've learned from the experience in Scotland and England as well. And Alun, I know how passionate you are about making sure that we do not lose some of the advantages that we once held when we were within the European Union—that ability, actually, for citizens to challenge environmental failure. Well, that's what this Bill does by setting up this organisation, by establishing the second pillar, which is the environmental principles that underpin it, and then setting the targets.

But I'll be clear with you, Alun, this is not duplicating targets that have been there before. In fact, one of the criticisms we've had, Alun, and the challenge that we've had, is that we take a bit too long in getting those targets. Well, the reason we want to take the appropriate amount of time is so that we get those targets exactly right. That is being driven through the OEGW when it sets up, but now through the biodiversity taskforce and others, to get the targets right, because we could pick a target like that and achieve it—an easy output target—but what we need are meaningful outcomes that deliver river quality improvements, soil health quality improvements, that deal with microplastics and so on. So, I'm happy to set that out once again for everybody, the importance of this. It's not duplicating, it's not adding complexity. It will add real accountability, Alun, to how we are held accountable as policy makers in this theme.

If I can turn to amendment 40—and my thanks to Delyth for moving this amendment—I'll fully support this amendment because it does, indeed, address concerns that were raised by stakeholders and by Members of the Senedd during Stage 1 and Stage 2 about that need to make express provision for restoring biodiversity in the Bill. And I would simply say to all Members: please support this amendment.

If I turn to amendment 5A in Janet's name and amendment 5 in Rhys's name, I'm afraid I can’t support these amendments, because linked to this is—. I support amendment 40, tabled by Delyth, to add 'restoring biodiversity to resilient levels' to the criteria in section 6B(2) of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 so that Welsh Ministers can only set biodiversity targets if achieving such targets will contribute to halting and reversing the decline in biodiversity or to restoring biodiversity to resilient levels. This is real clarity on what we are trying to set out to do. These are not just another raft of targets that we'll never do, and there is an accountability driven through it. In addition, section 6C(1), as amended at Stage 2, sets out a requirement for Welsh Ministers to set a long-term target, at least 15 years after the date on which the target is set, and a short-term target, a specified date being less than 15 years after the date on which the target is set, for the priority areas of reducing the risk of the extinction of native species and the effective management of ecosystems.

For amendment 6 in Rhys's name, this amendment is linked to amendment 4, and, for the same reasons, that's why I can't support it.

Amendment 31. I don’t support this amendment, because section 6C(2) sets out priority areas on which Welsh Ministers will be required to develop targets before the end of two years beginning with the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. One of the priority areas is the effective management of ecosystems, which includes statutory and non-statutory sites. So, I understand the intent behind this amendment, but it's already covered within the Bill.

On amendments 42, 43 and 45, these are consequential to amendment 40, so I would urge all Members to support those.

Let me turn to the issue of swifts and amendment 54, which we've had several speakers on. First of all, can I thank Delyth for moving this amendment, but also for supporting the principle, or, as you said, the idea behind this amendment, to take action on swifts? I note as well the support from the species champion, Jenny Rathbone, over many years, frankly, on this issue—she's frequently laid out her case—and also Carolyn too and others. Now, there has been a lot of significant interest in the role of the swift bricks. It was the subject, as we've been told, of a petition earlier in this year. Indeed, we discussed the merit of such a target during Stage 2 proceedings. I really do understand the good intent behind this amendment and why this is being utilised as an opportunity to highlight the need to actually restore this iconic species of swifts, amongst other, I have to say, threatened species as well. We should not lose sight of that. There are many species champions within this Chamber on things like bats, dormice and other species as well. But I hope to explain—I hope to explain—why this is not the legislative vehicle for a single species target on the face of this primary legislation. But I will explain as well how swifts can indeed benefit from this legislation as well.

I understand. Obviously, we need to protect all our species, but will you agree with me that this requires an investment of £25 for a new building?

I note that, and you've made that point very, very coherently. I think that's why bringing the heads into a room and saying, 'Right, how do we deal with this?', is the right way forward. Diolch, Llywydd.

Delyth Jewell to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Firstly, to respond to Alun's challenge, who I can’t see because of the layout of the room, but, Alun, there was a moment of jeopardy there. We thought you were all going to vote against for a second, but you’ve reassured us that you're not going to. There is a serious point here, though—there's a serious point—because I think it would be worth reminding Members that the purpose of this Bill is to close a governance gap left by Brexit. It’s about empowering Welsh citizens in the wake of that disastrous decision, not throwing up our hands in despair or ennui, but about looking at the alternatives, about looking at do we want to take this urgent action or do we want to see further degradation of our natural world. This Bill must pass for that reason.

And I just want to respond quickly to amendment 54.

I’d like to thank Jenny, firstly, the species champion, for her passion about the swift, for her determination on this topic. We do have to find a solution, not just for this one species, of course, but, looking at different migratory birds, looking at changes that can be made to the built environment. I remember something that Jenny had said in another debate—I think it was some years ago, when you said that we have to tread more lightly on this earth. I think that that is very relevant here in terms of the changes we can make too that are relatively small changes to the built environment that can literally help species from extinction.

I also thank Carolyn.

Thank you, Carolyn, for signalling your support of this principle as well. I do welcome what the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog has said. I know it is clear that there are a number of us as Members in this Chamber, not least the Members I’ve just mentioned, who will want to be a part of this. I will not put this to a vote, because we are putting our trust in the Government here that these changes can be found. Many people in Wales feel strongly on this and, on that basis, I hope and trust that something can be done in the remaining weeks of this Senedd.

The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 40. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, two against. Therefore, amendment 40 is agreed.

Rhys ab Owen, amendment 4. Is it being moved?

Yes, it is. Is there objection to amendment 4? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection to amendment 4. So, we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 4. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, 13 abstentions, 23 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.

Amendment 5. Is it being moved, Rhys ab Owen?

Yes.

It is. Before we dispose of amendment 5, we will first dispose of the amendment to that amendment.

Janet Finch-Saunders, is amendment 5A being moved?

Move.

Yes, it is.

The question is that amendment 5A be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. Therefore, we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 5A. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, 11 abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 5A is not agreed.

Amendment 5. Is there objection to amendment 5? [Objection.] Yes. Therefore, open the vote on amendment 5. Close the vote. In favour 12, 11 abstentions, 25 against. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed.

Delyth Jewell, is amendment 54 being moved?

No.

Amendment 54 is not being moved.

So, we'll move on to amendment 6. Rhys ab Owen, is that being moved?

Amendment 6. Is there objection? [Objection.] Yes, there's objection. Therefore, we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 6. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, 13 abstentions, 23 against. Therefore, amendment 6 is not agreed.

Amendment 31, Rhys ab Owen. Is it being moved?

Yes, it is. Is there objection to amendment 31? [Objection.] Yes, there is. Open the vote on amendment 31. Close the vote. In favour three, 11 abstentions, 34 against. Therefore, amendment 31 is not agreed.

Group 9 is next. This group of amendments relates to setting and reviewing biodiversity targets. Amendment 14 is the lead amendment.

Janet Finch-Saunders to move the amendment.

Diolch, Llywydd. Amendment 14 enforces Welsh Ministers, before making regulations, to consult a committee of Senedd Cymru with the remit for environmental protection and members of the public. This way there is greater accountability. Amendment 15 makes sure that meeting the target would not have an impact on biodiversity outside of Wales. Amendments 16 and 20 ensure that regulations will not have a materially negative impact on agricultural output, to ensure that the agricultural community and our hard-working farmers are not disproportionately impacted. Amendment 17 ensures there is a balance of targets at land and sea. Too often, we concentrate our efforts on terrestrial land, when we know that our marine environment is really effective in not only protecting our marine environment but can also help us with our carbon-zero emissions. Too often, it's overlooked. Amendment 18 will ensure that the targets are reviewed every Senedd term. Amendment 19 changes the date of the first review—which I cannot believe it's even documented—from 2041 to 2032. It picks up on the point that Alun Davies made earlier: we're doing all this now, we want to get on with it. We're late with it, so why are we talking about the first review from 2041? We believe it should be put back to 2032, and that will be four years from when the regulations are put in place in 2028. Diolch.

Just to speak briefly to amendment 41, which is consequential to amendment 36, it would clarify that the OEGW must set out in its strategy how it intends to exercise its functions in line with the general purpose set out in section 10(a), rather than the environmental objective as currently drafted.

And just to speak briefly on some of the amendments in Janet's name and to explain why we will not be supporting them. Those amendments would aim to limit the scope of biodiversity targets where they can be said to have an effect on agricultural production. Now, as I set out at Stage 2, this could have—well, it's likely it would have—detrimental effects on the farming industry and would be flawed on several grounds: firstly, on the presumption that biodiversity targets would have a negative effect on output, which is not tested; secondly, that they would provide a perverse incentive for farmers to focus on the quantity of output rather than anything else, as though that were a proxy for economic resilience; and thirdly, by the fact that during the intervening time since these amendments were first considered at Stage 2, the Welsh Government has published their sustainable land management indicators and targets. Now, this framework would, as I understand it, operationalise this Bill's targets with respect to land management, and would do so in a way—well, they will do so in a way—that takes account of agricultural output. So, it's for those reasons, Llywydd, that we will not be supporting those amendments.

Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'll try and go through these as quickly as I can while still making sense. First of all, I'm really excited about this, because I got an amendment down. I'll come to that in a moment.

If I can turn to 14 and 41, first of all. I don't support these amendments, because I don't consider that this express duty to consult before setting targets is required, because appropriate consultation is already provided for within the Bill. So, when making regulations, the Welsh Ministers must (1) apply the principles of sustainable management of natural resources, which include making appropriate arrangements for public participation in decision making, which ensures appropriate, meaningful and proportionate consultation will be carried out, and (2) seek independent expert advice. To strengthen those consultation requirements, an amendment was passed at Stage 2 that added a requirement for Welsh Ministers to publish a report summarising the consultation carried out in connection with the regulations and any representations received as a result of the consultation. So, actually, this isn't necessary and, indeed, there's a danger of causing confusion or undermining the existing legislative process, if an express duty to consult is placed on the front of the Bill alongside an existing duty to apply the principles of SMNR.

If I turn to amendment 15, Llywydd, I can't support this amendment, because there are existing processes in place to assess the impact of targets. Regulations will be supported, of course, by robust impact assessments. Now, due to the broad, extensive and potentially territorially long reach of this amendment, I have real concerns that this amendment would be outside the legislative competence of this Senedd, as it would require Welsh Ministers to exercise their functions by reference to matters otherwise than in relation to Wales and extend beyond the scope of this Bill.

On amendment 16, I don't support this amendment, because there are, indeed, as has been mentioned already, existing processes in place established through the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023 that address the principle behind this amendment already. So, the role and contribution of our land managers will be critical in the delivery of biodiversity targets. My officials are working closely with representatives from the agricultural sector on the development of targets. Before setting targets through regulations, Welsh Ministers will, in accordance with those SMNR principles, carry out a consultation that will enable views to be considered. This provides a mechanism for any concerns to be raised and considered in target development. And indeed, I brought forward amendments at Stage 2 to require Welsh Ministers to publish a summary of that consultation, providing even more transparency over what views and concerns have been raised during consultation. In addition to that, the regulations setting targets will be supported by robust impact assessments and will include a sustainable land management assessment, if it is identified that any proposed policy or regulation will impact positively or negatively on agriculture or other activities carried out on land used for agriculture.

Janet Finch-Saunders to respond.

Move to the vote.

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will open the vote on amendment 14. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions and 36 against. Therefore, amendment 14 is not agreed.

Delyth Jewell, amendment 41. Is it moved?

It is. Are there any objections to amendment 41? [Objection.] There is objection, so we will move to a vote on amendment 41. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions and 25 against. Therefore, amendment 41 is not agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 15?

It's being moved.

Are there any objections to amendment 15? [Objection.] Yes, there are. So, we will open the vote on amendment 15. Close the vote. In favour 22, no abstentions and 26 against. Therefore, amendment 15 is not agreed.

Amendment 16. Is it being moved, Janet Finch-Saunders?

It is. Are there any objections to amendment 16? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 16. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions and 36 against. Therefore, amendment 16 is not agreed.

Is amendment 17 being moved, Janet Finch-Saunders?

It is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore open the vote on amendment 17. Close the vote. In favour 10, no abstentions, 38 against. Amendment 17 is not agreed.

Your little amendment, Cabinet Secretary, is it being moved? [Laughter.]

Amendment 35.

Is it being moved?

Move.

Yes. Look at me. Look at me. [Laughter.]

Move.

The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 35 is agreed.

Amendment 42. Is it moved, Delyth Jewell?

It is. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will vote on amendment 42. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, and two against. Therefore, amendment 42 is agreed.

Amendment 18.

Is amendment 18 being moved, Janet Finch-Saunders?

Yes, it is.

Are there any objections to amendment 18? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 18. Close the vote. In favour 10, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 18 is not agreed.

Amendment 19. Is it being moved?

Yes, it is.

Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 19. Close the vote. In favour 10, no abstentions, and 38 against. Therefore, amendment 19 is not agreed.

Amendment 43, Delyth Jewell.

It is moved. Are there any objections to amendment 43? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 43. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, no abstentions, three against. Therefore, amendment 43 is agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 20.

Move.

It's being moved.

Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 20. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 20 is not agreed.

Is amendment 21 being moved?

Yes, it is.

Is there any objection to amendment 21? [Objection.] There is. So, we will open the vote on amendment 21. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 21, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 21 is not agreed.

Group 10 is our next group, and these amendments relate to Welsh Ministers' plans and reports under section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. Amendment 49 is the lead amendment, and I call on Carolyn Thomas to move the amendment.

Diolch, Llywydd. I want to speak to amendments 49, 50 and 51 together, please, and these are on the OEGW role in biodiversity targets. The Bill requires the OEGW to set out in its strategy how it intends to monitor statutory environmental targets. The explanatory materials clarify the expectation that the OEGW will use its independent expertise to determine which targets to monitor and to what extent. However, some have called for the Bill to go further. These amendments seek to balance the call for more detail on the face of the Bill in terms of the OEGW's role in respect of biodiversity targets, against the importance of protecting the OEGW's ability to choose their own priorities and areas of focus based on their expertise. To that end, the amendments place a duty on the Welsh Ministers to consult with the OEGW when they are preparing a section 6 plan. This express provision provides a clear opportunity for the OEGW to shape the content of the plan before it's finalised. It also has the added benefit of resolving any concerns around potential non-compliance or the effectiveness of the law at an early stage.

This consultation provision is complemented by the requirement for the Welsh Ministers' report under section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, as amended by section 38 of the Bill, and the Welsh Ministers' evaluation report under section 6A of that Act, inserted by section 39 of the Bill, to be sent to the OEGW. These reports will, respectively, report on progress against the biodiversity targets and set out the Welsh Ministers' assessment of the impact and effectiveness of the proposals set out in their section 6 plan. The sending of these reports will, legally, also constitute a request for advice from the OEGW under section 13 of the Bill. The OEGW will be provided with the opportunity and the discretion to make a substantive response if it considers that necessary or not. If advice is provided by the OEGW, the Welsh Ministers must have regard to that advice. However, as with any other case in which the Welsh Ministers ask for advice from the OEGW, if the OEGW chooses not to provide advice, it must set out its reasons for not doing so.

These amendments are carefully balanced to respond to environmental NGOs' concerns, and strengthen the Bill. As such, I encourage all Members to support.

First, I support the amendments in the name of Carolyn, and just to speak to amendment 44, that would ensure that Welsh Ministers would consult on their biodiversity plan before it is completed. This would ensure that stakeholders, including environmental groups, experts and local communities, have the opportunity to shape the way in which it's developed. Consultation is an important part of policy making, especially in an area as complex as restoring biodiversity. This would help to improve the transparency and quality of the plan, and how practical it is, perhaps, and it would strengthen the public's confidence in the approach.

Janet Finch-Saunders.

No, I've nothing more to add. Thanks.

Can I, first of all, just thank Carolyn for bringing forward these amendments—49, 50, 51? I won't add to what you've already put, but this is a good example of working in collaboration with stakeholders, environmental NGOs, but also with committee members, as this has progressed through. I think you've laid out very eloquently why this is needed and why it's again strengthening and improving the Bill. So, I would urge Members to support 49, 50 and 51.

If I could turn to amendment 44, in the name of Delyth Jewell, there was a successful amendment that was tabled by my colleague Joyce Watson in Stage 2, which placed a duty on Welsh Ministers to apply the principles of SMNR, which I referred to earlier. They include making those appropriate arrangements for public participation and decision making when preparing the section 6 plan, and to publish a summary of the consultation undertaken and the responses received. Therefore, I don't think this broad duty to consult as laid out in amendment 44 is necessary, so that's why I won't support it. However, as stated, I do support the targeted duty to consult with the OEGW through amendment 49, which was tabled by Carolyn Thomas.

I turn to—although I don't know if it was moved; it's on the paper—amendment 22 in Janet's name. It wasn't spoken to, but it's on the paper. [Interruption.] Indeed. If I can just explain why I don't support this amendment, the purpose of section 6B is to strengthen the Welsh Ministers' section 6 plan by requiring it to set out, amongst other things, how the targets will contribute to halting and reversing the decline in biodiversity and how the Welsh Ministers intend to meet those targets. The section 6 plan is not an assessment tool. So, this amendment is outside the purpose of subsection 6B(a). But, in addition, in complying with the section 6 duty, Welsh Ministers must have regard to the latest sustainable land management report, published under the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023, which, amongst other things, will assess the cumulative progress towards achieving the sustainable land management objectives. Therefore, the framework within section 6 already provides for consideration of agricultural matters.

And if I turn briefly to amendment 23, again, I don't support this amendment, because the purpose of the evaluation report is to review the effectiveness of the policies in the Welsh Ministers' section 6 plan that are focused on maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and achieving targets aimed at contributing to halting and reversing the decline in biodiversity. So, for similar reasons that I gave in response to amendment 22, this amendment is outside the purpose of the evaluation report.

Carolyn Thomas to respond.

Move forward, thank you.

Okay. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Open the vote on amendment 49. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, two against. Therefore, amendment 49 is agreed.

Amendment 44. Is it moved?

Yes. Are there any objections to amendment 44? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. A vote, therefore. Open the vote on amendment 44. Close the vote—[Interruption.]

We didn't open the vote and, therefore, we cannot close it.

Open the vote on amendment 44. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 22 against. Therefore, amendment 44 is agreed.

Amendment 44 has been agreed.

In favour 26, no abstentions, 22 against.

For the record, I think I might have pronounced gwelliant 49 incorrectly. Just for the record, therefore, amendment 49 was passed.

Amendment 45. Is it moved?

Yes. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Open the vote on amendment 45. Close the vote. In favour 45, no abstentions, three against. Therefore, amendment 45 is agreed.

Amendment 22.

Amendment 22. Is it being moved, Janet Finch-Saunders?

Yes, it is.

Are there any objections to amendment 22? [Objection.] There are objections. Open the vote on amendment 22. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 22 is not agreed.

Carolyn Thomas, is amendment 50 being moved?

Yes.

Thank you. It is. Are there any objections to amendment 50? [Objection.] There are objections. Open the vote on amendment 50. Close the vote. In favour 45, no abstentions, three against. Therefore, amendment 50 is agreed.

Amendment 23. Is it being moved?

Yes, it is.

Are there any objections to amendment 23? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 23. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 23 is not agreed.

Amendment 51, Carolyn Thomas. Is it moved?

It is. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will therefore open the vote on amendment 51. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, two against. Therefore, amendment 51 is agreed.

We'll now move to group 11. The eleventh group of amendments relates to the meaning of 'public authority'. The lead amendment is amendment 52. Delyth Jewell to move that amendment.

Thank you, Llywydd. I speak to amendment 52.

This would require Welsh Ministers to report on progress in addressing the governance gap on reserved authorities operating in Welsh law—for example, the Crown Estate—at least once in every Senedd term. Currently, these fall outside the scope of the OEGW and its counterpart body, the Office for Environmental Protection. So, they fall in the gap. Closing the environmental governance gap is where this Bill began its being, and while I’m pleased to see it has expanded beyond that to allow us to set ambitious biodiversity targets, it would be ironic indeed if one of the few remaining issues that still needs addressing is an unfinished piece of business on this governance gap.

Now, whilst I appreciate that matters relating to reserved authorities are not straightforward and require time to address, an ironic benefit of the length of time it has taken to get to this point is that we should have been able to seek the relevant Minister of the Crown consents. I realise that we are now past that point, which is why my amendment 52 seeks to ensure that this important matter is not kicked into the long grass in the next Senedd. Instead, it would ensure that it must be returned to and that future Welsh Ministers must explain to the Senedd what they are doing to ensure that bodies like the Crown Estate and transport and energy authorities are held to account for their activities on the environment in Wales. My amendment is drafted so as not to cross that very delicate line of competence. I hope it can be agreed to today to ensure that this important conversation continues in the future.

And to close, Llywydd, this will be the last time for me to speak on this Bill during Stage 3. Could I therefore thank the committee team, the Commission, the Government team and the environmental groups that we've been working with—Wales Environment Link and Friends of the Earth Cymru in particular—and could I thank Niamh Salkeld and Lewis Owen in the Plaid office for their support? I hope that we will have strengthened and improved the Bill.

The Cabinet Secretary, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. I understand that the main intent of this amendment is to address those concerns around the gaps in governance that could arise in relation to reserved authorities operating in Wales who would not be subject to the oversight of either the OEP or the OEGW. It also relates to the definition of 'public authority' in Part 1 of the Bill, which helps to determine the scope of the duty placed on certain public authorities to apply environmental principles and integrate environmental protection when carrying out strategic environmental assessments. Now, I have previously clarified to the committee in earlier stages that we do not consider the potential governance gap to be substantial, and I consider there to be non-legislative ways of managing these concerns, as I've laid out before. Further, this amendment requires Welsh Ministers to consider adding to the list of public authorities, but the Bill itself gives them no power to do so. To amend the list of public bodies would require, to be clear, a further Act of the Senedd, at which point the matter of consent would also then become relevant.

I previously set out that the governance gap, as it exists currently, is not appropriately resolved by seeking consent in relation to all reserved authorities carrying out those functions in Wales that wholly or mainly relate to the environment, not least because there is limited political accountability in respect of some of those authorities. This is also, of course, a matter on which the OEGW itself may make recommendations in the future. Again, this would be, at that time, a matter for the future Government, and for the Senedd. As such, I don't believe it would be appropriate to place a legal requirement on Welsh Ministers to keep the Senedd informed on actions that are out of its control. I have committed the Welsh Government to keeping the impact of this governance gap under review from the outset of the OEGW's substantive functions. It's on this basis that I can't support this amendment, as there's no compelling reason to accept it in relation to either Part 1 or Part 2 of the Bill.

Llywydd, if I can take this opportunity on the final amendment on Stage 3 just to thank all Members who have contributed to the debate and the amendments today, and at previous stages as well. We have significantly improved this legislation as it has come through, by working in that collaborative space, including with stakeholders as well. I just want to put on the record my thanks to all those who contributed to it, but also to the very small team of officials, who are very expert and very passionate on this, and who have worked with all of us to make this. It came in as a good Bill; it's coming out of these stages—out of Stage 2 and now Stage 3—as a much-improved Bill, and it's a credit to the Senedd in the way that it's worked on this.

Does Delyth Jewell wish to reply?

Very briefly. I thank the Deputy First Minister for his response.

I do appreciate the points made. I appreciate that this governance gap might not be substantial. I would argue that it would be substantial enough still, owing to what those bodies would be, in particular the Crown Estate. So, I will still be pushing this to a vote. I hope that future Governments will return to this. But just to end on a positive note, my thanks again to all those who've worked together to improve this Bill.

The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will move to a vote on amendment 52. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, 25 against. Therefore, amendment 52 is not agreed.

Amendment 48. Is it moved? No, it is not moved.

There are no further votes this evening. We have reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill. I declare that all sections and Schedules of the Bill are deemed agreed. That concludes Stage 3 proceedings.