Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament), 8 November 2023

257 contributions from 46 members. The official report.

1. Questions to the Minister for Finance and Local Government

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon's Plenary session. The first item will be questions to the Minister for Finance and Local Government, and the first question is from Delyth Jewell.

Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)

1. What discussions has the Minister had with the UK Government ahead of the Chancellor's autumn statement to ensure the Welsh Government gets a fair share of UK public expenditure? OQ60204

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

Further to discussions at the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee in September, I have written to the Chancellor and met with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to outline the priorities for Wales at the autumn statement. It is essential that additional funding is provided to maintain vital public services and to support the most vulnerable people impacted by the cost-of-living crisis.

Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)

Thank you for that. I welcome what you’ve said. Wales should be able to expect fair funding for its own public services but also for its own infrastructure, and I’d be grateful if you could set out, in addition to what you’ve written to the UK Government, the programme of work that you expect your Government will undertake to secure that fair funding. You’ll be aware that my Plaid Cymru colleagues in Westminster have outlined the need for a fair funding Bill for Wales in their alternative King’s Speech. I’d be interested to hear if you think that that would be necessary.

The unjust underfunding of Wales has to be assessed, like the denial of funding that arises from projects like HS2, where it’s clear that the Barnett formula has just failed us. We have to change the way that Wales is funded for as long as we remain in this unequal nation, and that warrants strong demands from the UK Government. It warrants action from them, because Wales should be funded based on need, not population. So, would you support that need for that Bill? And do you agree that, whatever colour the next Government in Westminster is, they have a duty to secure a prosperous future for Wales? And how do you think the Welsh Government will pursue those demands as far as possible, please?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I’m very grateful for the questions. I’m sure that we do have a lot of common ground on this issue in terms of ensuring that Wales gets its fair share. The current UK funding arrangements, set out in the statement of funding policy, are imposed by the UK Government and that’s done with little meaningful consultation with the devolved Governments and they’re certainly not jointly agreed.

We set out in ‘Reforming our Union’ in 2021 the need for a new, principles-based approach to UK funding and fiscal networks, enshrined within a new fiscal agreement, overseen and operated by a body that would be independent of the UK Government. As a matter of principle, we believe the allocation of resources across the UK should be based on relative need to enable all parts of the union to provide an equivalent level of public service, taking into account the relative needs of the population, and that would involve replacing the Barnett formula with a new rules-based funding system, as part of creating a new fiscal arrangement jointly agreed by all four nations. So, I’m sure there is plenty of common ground between us.

Gareth Davies (Conservative, Vale of Clwyd)

Of course, what we’ve seen over the last 24 hours in the inaugural King’s Speech from the UK Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is bold leadership in tackling some of the biggest issues facing the UK as a whole in 2023. And all Keir Starmer, the Labour Party in Wales and Plaid Cymru can do is continue to snipe from the sidelines while the Conservatives are delivering and getting on with the job. And for every £1 spent in England, Wales gets £1.20. So, it’s shocking to see Welsh Labour once again cutting the health budget and compelling health boards to make difficult decisions when they are already struggling, after nearly 25 years of Labour running our NHS into the ground. So, what further discussions and collaborative work will the Minister undertake with No. 10, the Treasury, the Wales Office and other relevant UK Government departments, to enhance Wales’s prospects in devolved areas so that we can improve the lives of the people of Wales rather than continue with the current status quo of failure and blame-gaming?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I have less in common with this Member’s contribution this afternoon. And I just want to correct the record, because I do think it is wrong that the Welsh Conservatives do, week after week, mislead the Welsh public. It is not the case that we have cut the Welsh budget; we sat here just a week or so ago and I announced another £425 million going into the Welsh NHS as a result of the severe pressures that public services are facing in Wales. This Welsh Government will always work to protect the Welsh NHS and public services.

Now, if the UK Government wants to do something useful, it has that opportunity on the twenty-second of this month. It has a fiscal event; it’s got the autumn statement—an opportunity to invest in public services. But I’m not hopeful. The UK Government has had dozens of fiscal events since 13 years ago, and, at every one of those, it could have had the opportunity to invest in public services. It’s time to right that wrong now and start investing so that we’re able to provide the NHS with the funding it so desperately needs.

Rhys ab Owen (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

2. Will the Minister provide an update on the development of the proposed council tax reforms set to be introduced in 2025? OQ60201

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I will be making a statement to the Senedd next week, on 14 November, providing an update on our important work to make council tax fairer.

Rhys ab Owen (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

Diolch, Gweinidog. I was pleased to see that there's going to be a statement next week. As you're well aware, the valuation of almost all properties in Wales is based on 2003 prices—that's well before the 2008 financial crisis, Brexit, COVID-19, and even many years before this place was even called the 'Senedd'. We've heard already this afternoon yet again of the huge pressures on public bodies, and, since 2010, local authorities have really been struggling due to Westminster austerity, and now the high interest rates have worsened this crisis. According to analysis by the Wales Governance Centre, by 2027 we can expect a funding gap of £744 million for local authorities, which is bound to impact the most vulnerable in our society. Their report suggests that one answer to this is a rise of 5 per cent in council tax. Will the Welsh Government then commit to reforming the council tax bands as soon as possible to assist struggling local authorities? Diolch yn fawr.

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I'll begin by saying and recognising the fact that we are working on 2003 valuations for properties at the moment. That can't be right, to be working on a system that is 20 years out of date. But, that said, in England and Scotland they're working on valuations based from 1991, so we have come a step further, but I think that now is the time to start making some real progress in terms of making council tax fairer. I do want to take this opportunity to emphasise the point that the overall aim of the exercise is not to raise a single penny more overall. I know that lots of people are concerned because, as the Member sets out, the value of their property has increased over the last 20 years. They're concerned that that means that the amount that they'd be expected to pay in council tax will also increase. That's not necessarily the case—what matters is the value of your property relative to all other properties in Wales. So, I think it's important just to set that out and just to be clear with everybody in those terms.

One of the things that we are looking at, of course, alongside the new revaluation, is band redesign, and it's the intention in the consultation document, which I'll be launching next week, to say a bit more about how we might go about redesigning those bands. I'd be very keen to hear from the Member, and all other interested Members in the Chamber, what they think about the potential ways forward that we're demonstrating next week. It will be accompanied by a really insightful report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and that gives some more detail to those proposals, setting out potential increases to council tax in certain bands or decreases in others. It really puts some flavour on the options that we'll be looking at, and it sets out as well some of the distributional impact in geographical terms. So, I know that all colleagues will have a keen interest in that.

Joel James (Conservative, South Wales Central)

If I could, to start, I'd like to say 'hello' to my old comprehensive school, Bryn Celynnog, which are in the public gallery as I speak. I met with them earlier and I'd just like to say 'hello' again.

Minister, I'm keen to know whether or not your proposed reforms will look at the vast sums of money that are currently lying dormant in local authority bank accounts. As you know, Minister, the three councils within my region of South Wales Central have almost £0.5 billion in combined usable reserves, yet they continuously plead poverty and raise their council tax rates year upon year. Minister, I fail to see how this is fair on hard-working, hard-pressed families within my region. So, with this in mind, what commitments will you give to look into this aspect of local authority financing when looking into council tax reform? Thank you.

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I'm not going to conflate the two issues of local government reserves with council tax reform. I think that that would be a dangerous thing to do, because I think that it is important to keep the two things separate. Council tax reserves are in many ways a reflection of the decisions taken by councils over a number of years, and I think that respecting that local autonomy is really important. But we also need to consider reserves in relation to the overall budget for local government. So, at an all-Wales level, the level of general or unallocated reserves would cover just 10 days of the costs of delivering local government. So, I think that we do need to keep it in perspective. Reserve levels are not taken into account when determining funding in England either, and we have to recognise as well that reserves in England have increased by 50 per cent over the last two years. And I think that's a reflection of the extraordinary couple of years that we've had.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Questions from party spokespeople now. The Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Peter Fox.

Peter Fox (Conservative, Monmouth)

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, I'll start by building on, perhaps, the first question you had today, and a conversation in here between Rhun ap Iorwerth and the First Minister yesterday. We know that, in 2016, the current First Minister, then finance Minister, signed the revised fiscal framework for Wales, which included the Holtham review recommendation for a needs-based element to be included in the Barnett formula for Welsh Government settlements from 2018 onwards. The formula has resulted in Wales receiving, as we've heard, around £1.20 for every £1 spent on health and education in England, but this needs-based factor—we keep hearing there is no needs-based factor—recognises that the people of Wales are deemed to be at a higher need for funding and public services. We all agree. With this in mind, do you, Minister, agree with the First Minister when, in your role, he said, and I quote:

'I am pleased we have been able to reach agreement about a new fiscal framework which puts our funding on a stable and long-term footing. This is an agreement which is fair to Wales and the rest of the UK'?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I'm grateful for the question, and I think that one of the important things there to recognise is that that agreement was made back in 2016. But the framework and the statement of funding policy haven't evolved to meet those challenges and to recognise all the changes that have happened since that date. And I say that because, when you look at the Wales reserve, for example, that was set at £350 million back in 2016. It would have grown, if it had grown in line with inflation, by 17 per cent in this year, and that would give us much more flexibility to manage our budget.

And I would say the same also for borrowing. So, those tools that we have haven't moved in line with inflation and with the changes that we've seen. And, of course, the Scottish Government has just undertaken a review of its fiscal agreement with the UK Government, and it's agreed—the UK Government has agreed—that Scotland is able now to borrow in line with inflation. It's able to have its reserve increased in line with inflation. Those are simple things that the UK Government should also give to us, and we'd really welcome cross-party support for those simple, pragmatic tools.

Peter Fox (Conservative, Monmouth)

Well, thank you for that, Minister. It's surprising, actually, that the Government at that time were making that forward assessment, thinking that there was enough going forward, and, clearly now, it seems that we need to revise that again, and I hope that will be something you'll be taking forward, then, if that is the case.

But, Minister, I've repeatedly raised my concerns regarding the failure of successive Welsh Governments to fully fund our NHS here in Wales according to its need. In my mind, it seems strange, then, that it's recognised that there is a higher needs base for funding on health and social care in Wales compared to the rest of the United Kingdom, but the Welsh Government's spending priorities do not reflect this. If you'd spent even a fraction more of the funding provided on health and social care in Wales on a needs-based assessment, we'd have a far more resilient health service, which would not be facing an £800 million deficit, albeit you've reduced that deficit by some £425 million. Going forward, as you plan your next budget, what consideration is the Welsh Government giving to gradually increasing spending to reflect the needs of people in Wales?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I'd be very keen for the UK Conservative Government to answer that question through increased funding for Wales in the autumn statement on the twenty-second of this month, because, at the end of the day, we only have a finite amount of money available to us to meet all of those needs. And we've seen that, in the health service, there is increasing demand all the time. We're seeing the impact of inflation in the NHS service, particularly on pay. We've had lots of discussions in this Chamber about how important it is to pay our public sector workers with respect, and also to ensure that they have decent pay settlements. But all of that now we have to pay for. The majority, actually, of the funding that goes to the NHS goes to pay, so even a 1 per cent increase causes huge pressures, and we've obviously seen much higher increases than that. So, now is the time that we have to focus in on how we go about paying for that. That's one of the reasons why we undertook that cross-Government piece of work to reallocate funding towards the NHS—an additional £425 million. Demand in the NHS is ever growing. I don't think it's fair to make a direct comparison across the border with England, partly because we measure things differently here in Wales and we take a much more joined-up and integrated—where we can—approach to health and social care.

Peter Fox (Conservative, Monmouth)

Well, thank you for that. But, clearly, the needs-based elements of the formula were enabling money—more money—to be invested in those areas, which are now lacking, and it all comes—. Governance comes down to making choices and prioritising, and clearly the Welsh Government is willing to find money to pay for certain things at the cost of others.

I have to mention the concerns around the cost of 20 mph zones and that is not a people's choice. Four hundred and sixty thousand people told you that. Irrespective of whether or not then you agree with the policy, the fact remains that this policy will have deep and long-term financial repercussions. Many councils, now—we know they're already doing it—will be planning to undo this default speed limit on many stretches of their roads, but this will run into millions of pounds of cost to do so. So, with this in mind, Minister, and recognising that Welsh Government's put the councils in these positions, who will foot the bill for reverting specific 20 mph roads back to 30 mph? Is it the local authorities? And, if so, what funding is the Welsh Government making available to councils to make these changes?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

Well, the area where I would agree is that there will be long-term financial impacts, and we'll see those impacts in the £93 million a year that the NHS is going to save in terms of dealing with the awful aftermath of car accidents. So, we will continue to see the benefits of this policy: £93 million going back into the NHS every year as a result. And we've just heard the initial questions from the opposition spokesperson—all concerned about money going back into the NHS. Well, here's a policy that puts money back into the NHS.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Peredur Owen Griffiths (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to start today with the recent update on the Government's budgetary readjustments. We were initially informed about the £900 million gap in the Welsh Government's budget back in August, and that that matter had been discussed at a Cabinet meeting at the beginning of that month. The accompanying statement also mentioned that the Cabinet would be working throughout the summer to mitigate these budgetary pressures. Given the apparent magnitude of the deficit, I would have assumed that this would have entailed regular discussions of the matter at all subsequent Cabinet meetings.

It came as something of a surprise, therefore, as confirmed by a freedom of information request submitted recently, that the issue of budgetary pressures was not discussed again until the Cabinet meeting on 11 September, and then on 18 September. Given the unprecedented nature of the financial challenge facing the Welsh Government, as well as the cross-cutting implications of mid-year budgetary adjustments to each portfolio, I would have expected some effort to organise more regular Cabinet decisions during that time. Furthermore, there were no further Cabinet discussions on the matter from 18 September until the Senedd announcement on 17 October, which gives the impression that it was not really a priority for the Cabinet agenda during the first month of the new term either.

This was in stark contrast to the urgency and panic in the public sector, where the real prospect of in-year cuts was raised with me by anxious senior staff after the announcement was made to the press. Could you therefore confirm the number of times the Cabinet met between 1 August and 17 October, and why the matter of budgetary pressures was only discussed on three separate occasions?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I think that you answered that question in your question, in the sense that you referred to Cabinet making decisions and Cabinet discussing with a view to making decisions. Well, that's what the purpose of Cabinet is. There are so many other meetings that go on outside of those Cabinet meetings. I have bilateral meetings regularly with my colleagues, and particularly so with those who have the biggest spending areas. So, I meet very regularly with the health Minister, for example, the Minister for Climate Change, to discuss the pressures and opportunities and so on within their particular portfolios.

I've also been quite clear with everybody that we knew, even going in to this financial year, that things were going to be difficult in terms of managing and balancing the budget because of the impact of inflation, and I had early discussions with officials. We've been monitoring it very, very carefully as we go through the financial year, and then we decided this the point at which we need to take active action collectively. But just because we're not discussing those things in a Cabinet meeting, doesn't mean that work is not going on in huge amounts outside of those meetings. And that's the point of those Cabinet meetings, to discuss and to decide, whereas the work that goes on in terms of individual portfolios going right through their budgets, looking for areas where they're able to release funding, ideally in the first instance because they're finding underspends, but otherwise just the simple act of reprioritisation, all of that work is very intense. It goes on. Individual Ministers will be meeting and having detailed discussions with their officials as well. So, I just don't want to give the impression that this piece of work was just done in a few conversations; it was a huge piece of work involving lots of people and over a long period of time.

Peredur Owen Griffiths (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)

Thank you for that response and for giving us an idea of what is happening.

Peredur Owen Griffiths (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)

I'd like to explore a little bit more the timing of the announcement, which was just before the Eisteddfod this year. That was less than two months after the publication of the first supplementary budget for 2023-24. I'm struggling to understand what changed between the first supplementary budget and that announcement at the beginning of August. It's worrying that the Government waited until then, and maybe were blind-sided by the significance of the budget black hole. That miscalculation raises some question marks about the latest information that was provided about the budget. With that in mind, can you categorically state that the extra money announced for Transport for Wales and the NHS, which amounts to not an insignificant £550 million, will not be baked into next year's bottom line as a result of miscalculations? And, if it's going to be a regular thing, will it cause further budgetary issues and accounting problems for the Government?

And, looking at the net position from the documentation, it says that you've found an extra £409 million. So, if there was a £900 million gap and you're able to find an extra £409 million to pump into the NHS and into Transport for Wales, does that mean that there's now a gap of £1.3 billion?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

Thank you for the questions. Just to confirm that—I think you used the word 'blind-sided', but we absolutely weren't; we saw this coming in terms of there being severe pressures on the budget before we even entered this financial year. So, I think that it's important to recognise that. And then also to recognise how early within the financial year we started to take action, because we recognised that the size of the challenge wasn't something that we could just manage through our normal in-year budget management processes. We knew that we had to take some positive action to address it. And that's the work, then, that we were looking to do over the summer and which we've updated the Chamber on.

It is important to recognise as well that that is a snapshot. So, that's a snapshot of where we were within the financial year, but we knew that the changes were so significant, it was only the right thing to do to bring that to the Senedd, and I also look forward to coming to the committee for scrutiny on that as well. But I really do think that we did act transparently and we acted early, and I know that this is a problem affecting other Governments in the UK, and they'll be dealing with it in their own ways as well. But I do think that the transparency that we've brought to this and the way in which we've acted early is actually in our favour.

John Griffiths (Labour, Newport East)

3. What assessment has the Welsh Government made of progress in the work of corporate joint committees in local government? OQ60195

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I remain grateful to local authority partners for their work and progress in establishing corporate joint committees. The Welsh Government is working closely with CJCs to support their ongoing implementation, both in relation to their statutory planning duties and economic well-being power.

John Griffiths (Labour, Newport East)

Thank you for that, Minister. I think it's two and a half years ago now that corporate joint committees were established, and obviously where they work together, local authorities within the CJCs, if it works as it should, they will add value to whatever area of activity is concerned in that CJC area. And I just wonder, Minister, what your assessment is of how well the south-east Wales corporate joint committee is working in terms of economic development issues, and to what extent Welsh Government works with the CJCs and that CJC in terms of taking that economic strategy and policy forward effectively. Is it really adding value across the area?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I'm very grateful for the question. My own role in respect of CJCs is really in terms of the establishment and the governance of CJCs, but of course, I work very closely with my colleagues who have those portfolio interests. Myself, the Minister for Climate Change, the Minister for Economy and the Deputy Minister for Climate Change all met with the chairs of the CJCs earlier on this year to talk about their planning, economic and transport functions.

I know that the Minister for Economy has recently set out the progress made in order to have that stronger economic development across Wales. In doing so, he talked about support for CJCs. He said that he welcomed the south-east Wales CJC undertaking a lift-and-shift exercise to bring the Cardiff capital region growth deal governance arrangements alongside the other strategic planning for the region, and that seems like a very sensible thing to do.

I know that he was also talking in the Chamber yesterday about the Welsh Government's work on investment zones. Again, I think that that was an area where he recognised the good work of CJCs and opportunities there to manage those kinds of interdependencies between economic investment programmes and ensuring that those investment zones are delivering for those communities. So, I think that these are still very early days, but I think that we can be pleased with the progress.

Altaf Hussain (Conservative, South Wales West)

Minister, the corporate joint committees support and encourage greater collaboration between local authorities. To date, there has been little evidence of that, particularly when it comes to promoting the economic well-being of their area. Across my region, which is split across two CJCs, there has been very little progress. Minister, do we actually need this additional involvement of local government, which does little more than duplicate functions and dilute democratic accountability?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

Well, I would disagree that it duplicates functions. Instead, it puts those functions into a structure and framework where those functions are best deployed. I think that it is important to give local authorities the ability to work across those local authority boundaries for the interests of their communities. It seems to me obvious that land use and transport and economic development are three really important functions where they are, perhaps, best delivered on that more regional footprint to allow authorities to work together and develop that shared vision for the future.

I think that the comments that I mentioned in relation to the question asked by John Griffiths, when I talked about what the economy Minister has been saying lately, do show that there is real value to CJCs. These are still really, really early days—I have to emphasise that. We have been working with the UK Government, I have to say, to ensure that CJCs are treated at the same VAT status as local authorities, for example. That required the UK Government to lay some legislation, which it has done. So, I think that, again, that gives CJCs more confidence now to plan for the future.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Question 4 [OQ60192] has been withdrawn. Question 5, Sam Rowlands.

Sam Rowlands (Conservative, North Wales)

5. What plans does the Minister have for further devolution from the Welsh Government to local authorities and regional bodies? OQ60185

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

The Welsh Government believes in the principle of subsidiarity, that Government responsibilities should be allocated to the most local level at which they can be performed effectively and efficiently. The relevant portfolio Ministers will always, therefore, consider any proposals from local government for the devolution of powers to CJCs or to local authorities.

Sam Rowlands (Conservative, North Wales)

Thank you, Minister, for your response. I would certainly agree with you that power lies best where it is closest to the people making those decisions. Interestingly, yesterday, I was at an event talking about community assets and the potential, perhaps, for town and community councils to be more involved in acquiring some of those community assets. I know that that is something that you would be likely to support as well.

I just wanted to pick up a point that you made in a response to John Griffiths earlier about the corporate joint committees, and the announcement yesterday from the Minister for Economy on the two investment zones supported by the Welsh Government. As you said, the current trend thought seems to be that the corporate joint committees, the CJCs, would be the most likely forum for that governance to take place.

It may not always make sense for those investment zones to be governed within the corporate joint committees. In particular, at the moment, at CJCs, the voting rights there sit with the local authority leaders. The involvement of business is fairly limited. So, I wonder whether you would be open to looking at alternative focused governance arrangements for investment zones, perhaps in line with the free-port structures that are in place at the moment in Wales also, to make sure that there is real focus from a business side as well for those investment zones, so that we see the best possible outcomes. Is that something you'd be open to discussing?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I think that that's really a question to my colleague the Minister for Economy, who will be making those choices, but I'm more than happy to make that case on your behalf in the discussions that I will have with him.

I just also should mention the work that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is doing with the Welsh Government, and also with the regions and delivery partners, to help enhance the governance of regional development and public investment in Wales. That includes through the CJCs. That work will be supported by action plans, then, to help CJCs and local authorities achieve their aims, so I think that anything that we can do to support and bolster the governance in those bodies is going to be really important, and I think the work with the OECD is going to be really instructive in terms of how we get the best governance for bodies, going forward.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

6. What discussions has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues regarding financial support for local government? OQ60180

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I discuss support for local government with Cabinet colleagues regularly, most recently as part of the in-year budget reprioritisation exercise and as part of the work on the Welsh budget for 2024-25.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

That's good to hear. My question is to ask the Minister to continue that dialogue, because there is no doubt that none of us in this Chamber can ignore the fact that the last 10, 12, 13 years have hollowed out aspects of local government. And this isn't just the potholes and the pathways or the town centre investments; it is crucial services such as children's services, social services, the ability to invest in youth services and in communities that face real disadvantage. So, could I seek her assurance that as we face another budget round and some very difficult decisions, the Welsh Government will, in concert with local government partners across the whole of Wales, in every part of Wales, try and make sure that we get the investment, even in difficult times, going to those services? They're often the services that many people do not see, but they are the services that hold our communities together, so anything the Minister can do in concert with Cabinet colleagues to keep that investment going would be very welcome indeed, and life-saving to my communities.

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I'm very, very grateful for the question. Obviously, protecting public services is always right at the heart of everything that we seek to do, and particularly so through our budget choices. I think, though, that there are other ways in which we can help local authorities as well, and one of those is through reducing the administrative burden on local authorities. When we did a piece of work asking treasurers and others what they felt the main burdens were, it was of course all around grants, and perhaps requiring, potentially, too much information in terms of monitoring grants—perhaps excessively so, they felt, in terms of some grants. And then they saw opportunities for amalgamating other grants. You might get a number of grants dealing with the same issue—tackling poverty, say, for example—so they would ask us then, 'Are there ways in which you can amalgamate some of those grants?' So, that's a piece of work that we've been doing recently. The intention is, at the draft budget, just to provide details of those grants as we normally would, because I want to be transparent with local government, but then at the final budget, hopefully through the partnership council's finance sub-group, to come to an arrangement where we can put some of those individual grants into the revenue support grant, or, in other cases, perhaps amalgamate some grants into a larger grant. So, even though that doesn't involve more money for local authorities, it certainly will allow them to be looking at ways of being more efficient with the money that they do have.

Tom Giffard (Conservative, South Wales West)

Bridgend County Borough Council—Labour run—continues to increase council tax, year after year after year. In doing so, they blame a lack of financial support from the Welsh Government as the rationale for doing that. But I wanted to focus specifically on our town and community councils, because they're often the hidden bit, if you like, of the council tax bill that comes in every year. I wanted to highlight the independent-run Bridgend Town Council, which charges £106.20 a year, the highest, or one of the highest, in Wales. Meanwhile, neighbouring Brackla Community Council charges just £42. And I'll declare an interest in that last statement, Llywydd, because I led Brackla Community Council. We froze council tax year after year after year. I wonder, from your assessment, Minister, and working with local government, do you think it's fair that councils, and particularly town and community councils, continue to make up shortfalls in their budgets by putting it on the back of council tax payers?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

That's a very bizarre way of looking at how we fund local government here in Wales. We fund local government here in Wales through the RSG and through specific grants, and then local authorities also raise council tax. That's just part of the way in which local authorities are accountable to their local communities. It is through council tax, and it does give people that tie to their local services, and we'll talk about that more next week when we talk about making council tax fairer. I will say that the amount of council tax that local authorities and town and community councils decide to charge really is a matter for them. The Welsh Government will only step in if we believe increases to be palpably excessive. I do think that the setting of council tax locally is an important part of local democracy, and it would only be in more extreme circumstances where we would look to exercise powers.

Jack Sargeant (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

7. What additional allocations will the Minister make to the climate change portfolio to aid local authorities in supporting communities affected by the risk of flooding? OQ60188

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

The Welsh Government is already investing £75 million as part of our flood programme for 2023-24, with £5.25 million revenue funding available to local authorities. We've also made £12 million capital funding available to support the development and delivery of construction works, for which local authorities can submit applications.

Jack Sargeant (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

Can I thank the Minister for that answer? The Minister will know that communities in Alyn and Deeside were flooded during storm Babet a few weeks ago. This is the second time some home owners were impacted in the last three years. I understand from what you've just said, Minister, that Welsh Government support is available and allocated through funding bids from local authorities as the risk management authority. This means that local councillors do have a key role in advocating for funding bids. Will you use your office to work with Flintshire County Council to ensure the maximum support is sought and granted?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I would always encourage local authorities to apply for any of our flood schemes where they think it would be of benefit to their communities. And then, of course, we have the emergency financial assistance scheme, which is available for local authorities should they experience an emergency above that which they would normally be expected to respond to. So, again, I'd just remind colleagues of that.

And then, for individual households, of course, we still have our discretionary assistance fund. So, it might be that people are eligible for an emergency assistance payment to help meet some essential costs if they have been affected by an incident such as a flood and they are experiencing severe financial hardship.

Mark Isherwood (Conservative, North Wales)

Although the UK Government has announced support to help communities in England recover from storm Babet of up to £500 for flooded households for immediate costs and up to £5,000 to make their homes more resilient, with funding from existing budgets, for which the Welsh Government also received consequential funding at the time, the Welsh Government hasn't announced any additional funding for Wales. And as you know, Minister, there's a difference between departmental budgets and new Treasury money.

Responding at the Broughton flooding public meeting, at which Jack Sargeant was also present, 11 days ago, a Flintshire council official stated they'd be submitting bids to the Welsh Government for both a Mold flood alleviation scheme following a 2017 study and subsequent modular work on this within the council, and for works identified by the section 19 flood investigation they're now launching with other agencies after properties in Broughton and Bretton were again flooded. Again, both Jack and I pledged to raise this with you. So, what prospect, given the resources you have available, do such bids, if properly drafted, worked up and evidenced, have of being successful?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I think that would be more a question for the Minister for Climate Change, in whose portfolio the funding for flooding sits. But I can say that we are providing £34 million in capital funding to our risk management authorities this financial year as part of our commitment to ongoing sustained investment in flood and coastal risk management. And as part of our multi-year settlement in 2021, we agreed a three-year capital budget, totalling £102 million, and that allows us to better plan our investment across those three financial years to support at-risk communities. But I probably shouldn't comment on the merits of individual schemes because I know that they'll go through the proper application process.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

8. What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister for Climate Change regarding making additional funding available to retain programmes like the Fflecsi Bwcabus service? OQ60199

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

The Fflecsi Bwcabus service was introduced as a European funded initiative. Unfortunately, as the UK Government has not maintained its commitment to replace this funding, and budgets continue to squeeze, we will be unable to support many initiatives previously supported through EU funding.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

As you will be aware, Minister, the Fflecsi Bwcabus situation has been raised in this Siambr by several Members—by Cefin Campbell most recently—and the response that we've received from the Deputy Minister to date is that he acknowledges how important the service is, that he wants to retain it, but that he doesn't have the funding to do so at the moment. He said perhaps one option would be for local authorities to source that funding. Wearing your other hat, Minister, you'll know how challenging the fiscal situation for local government is. Only this week, Carmarthenshire County Council said that they had £120 million less in real terms as compared to 10 years ago. Shouldn't we recognise, perhaps, that this is a national responsibility, because of the importance of public transport and the Government commitment to investment in rural transport? If there were a proposal following the discussions ongoing between the Deputy Minister, the Community Transport Association and local authorities, would the Minister be willing to look again at the situation, to see whether we can find a solution?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

I'm very grateful for the question. I don't want to mislead colleagues as to thinking that there is any funding available at the centre now within the Welsh Government in order to provide funding for new—I appreciate this is a continuation of an initiative—things that we're not currently planning to fund. I say that because we've talked already about the gap that we have in our Welsh Government budget as a result of inflation, and the extraordinary work that we've had to do to try and provide additional funding for the rail services and then also for the NHS. Even with all of that work that I've described previously, there are still risks. So, we still don't know yet how much additional funding we'll get from the UK Government in respect of NHS pay. We made some assumptions in the work that we did to try and close that £900 million gap, but that remains a risk. There's also, I think, a risk around whether or not the health boards are going to be able to deliver what we've asked them to do; we've asked them to do very, very stretching things, despite the additional overall funding that's going into the NHS. And, of course, there remains a risk in respect of whether or not the UK Government is going to agree to the capital-to-revenue switch. So, I think it would be irresponsible of me to try and agree to additional funding, no matter how worthy the cause, given the overall state of finances and the opportunity, I suppose, that there is to find out more at the autumn statement. So we can look again if there's news there. But, unfortunately, it will be February before we actually get our final total of our budget for this financial year, and I think that's quite late then to start making allocations.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I'm grateful to Adam Price for submitting this question. Expanding the theme on bus services ever so slightly, I've had a number of constituents contacting me with concerns with regard to bus services for their children to access Welsh-medium education in their preferred location and school. So, can I ask what conversations you're having with the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language in ensuring that there is enough provision for schoolchildren to be able to access bus services to get to the school that they wish to get to? Diolch, Llywydd.

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

That would, I think, really be a matter for discussion between the education Minister and the Minister for transport; that's where the budgets sit for these particular discussions to be had. Of course, I have individual meetings with all of my colleagues, and they raise a whole range of pressures within their portfolios at those meetings, but I think that, to do the question justice, it should be probably asked to one of my colleague Ministers.

Jane Dodds (Liberal Democrat, Mid and West Wales)

9. What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding Welsh Government financial support for the childcare sector? OQ60207

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

We provided increases of £100 million to support capital and revenue programmes supporting both childcare and Flying Start for the current three-year budget period. I continue to engage regularly with the Deputy Minister for Social Services, who is responsible for childcare, as part of the ongoing budget-setting process.

Jane Dodds (Liberal Democrat, Mid and West Wales)

Thank you very much for the response.

Jane Dodds (Liberal Democrat, Mid and West Wales)

Thank you very much for the response. It's great to hear that there are those discussions around the funding gap, because at just £5 an hour, Wales has the lowest funded hourly rate for childcare for three to four-year-olds across all four UK nations. With the overheads rising faster than wider inflation, the modest uplift announced last year has really already been rendered inadequate. The same survey found a shocking 88 per cent of nurseries are expected to either barely break even or make a loss this year. In our childcare report, 'Minding the future: The childcare barrier facing working parents', which we released earlier this year—which we're very happy to send you a signed copy of, of course—we aimed to do just that, by calling for the rising of the hourly rate to £7 an hour, with biannual reviews to track against inflation and staffing ratios. The funding gap, as it stands, does put a strain on these small businesses, which is what they are, which are the bedrock of our childcare system. So, therefore, could I just ask you what are you able to do further, to address that funding gap within the budgetary preparation for the forthcoming year? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

Thank you for the question. I'd be very keen to have a copy of the report to which you referred, to study it more carefully. You do mention the increase to £5, which was an increase, I think, of 11 per cent at the time, and we have committed to reviewing the rate at least every three years. I appreciate that we're still early on into this three-year period. We have taken a number of other steps, though, to try and support the sector where we can, so, for example, in trying to reduce the overhead costs, through the extension of 100 per cent business rates relief for registered childcare premises. The extension of the rates relief now is until March 2025, and that will save registered childcare providers in Wales £9.7 million in overhead costs. So, I think that that was a creative way in which we were able to support the sector. But I do look forward to reading the report.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Finally, Gareth Davies.

Gareth Davies (Conservative, Vale of Clwyd)

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased this subject has been raised this afternoon, as I quite often speak about it, and against the Welsh Government's ambition to eliminate private childcare provision for looked-after children in Wales, in this Senedd term, in an ideological vendetta against a sector that makes up 88 per cent of childcare provision across the country. And the additional disappointment of this policy has been the lack of engagement from the Welsh Government with the sector on how it intends to deliver on its plan, resulting in anxiety amongst sector leaders and people who have made a significant personal investment into these businesses over many years and decades. So, what assessment has the Minister made on the potential financial impact of this measure in terms of the increase in public money needed to fund this policy, given the current financial pressures, and what discussions are you having with the Deputy Minister for Social Services to make sure that the finances would be available to nationalise looked-after children's care? And if it can't be afforded, will you indeed scrap this policy and let the private businesses get on with the job?

Rebecca Evans (Labour, Gower)

Well, I know this is an area where the Member takes a very different view of the provision of care to the most vulnerable children in Wales, as compared to the Welsh Government. I think the question, again, I'm afraid, is best given to the Minister for Social Services, who is leading on this piece of work, and she will have much more in-depth knowledge than I do of the impact assessments that she has undertaken, because that's her role in the sense of being responsible for the policy. I think it's difficult for me to answer that question when I'm not responsible for it.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I thank the Minister.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

And may I congratulate her on answering all the tabled and all the supplementary questions put forward today? A 100 per cent record.

2. Questions to the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, and Trefnydd

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Item 2 is questions to the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, and Trefnydd. Question 1, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

1. What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister for Climate Change about reducing the impacts of agriculture on water pollution? OQ60181

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

I work very closely with the Minister for Climate Change in addressing water pollution affecting the environment across the whole of Wales. This includes working in partnership on relieving pressures on special areas of conservation river catchments, to protect these important habitats and support the delivery of affordable housing.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Thank you, Minister. On 10 October 2023, you issued a written statement, Nutrient management'—Managing the application of livestock manure sustainably'. It's fair to say—. I mean, I've read through that statement, and I've had a lot of correspondence now from not only farmers who are very committed to reducing livestock, but also from environmental organisations saying that—I'm trying to state this diplomatically—they have a high level of concern that what we've done is kicked things further down the road once again. And we've even diluted the approach to tackling what is a clear issue that we need to do, alongside sewage outfalls, alongside many other sources of river pollution, but we need to tackle this.

I wonder, Minister—you do state within that statement that you will continue to welcome proposals to deliver the outcomes we seek at any time. So, can I ask you genuinely, for those out there who are concerned that in delaying and diluting some of the measures here—which is what is proposed as a result of the co-operation agreement discussions, I've no doubt, and we want to see farming on a sustainable footing for the future, of course, but we need to see our rivers having a sustainable future as well—how do those organisations now seek to influence these proposals, and how long-lasting are these proposals? Can they be strengthened? Can they, working with farmers and others, actually be strengthened so that we save the rivers that we all love?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Thank you very much. Obviously, we have been out to consultation, and the written statement to which you refer, and the enhanced nutrient management approach announced within it, is consistent with the proposed licence conditions that we did consult on. So, anybody—any stakeholder, any partner, any environmental non-governmental organisation—could have, obviously, put a response into that consultation. What we want to do is absolutely minimise the environmental risks associated with higher levels of manure being applied to our land, and, as you say, I'm working in close partnership with Cefin Campbell as part of the co-operation agreement in relation to this.

I think the principles that we did consult on were overwhelmingly supported by those responding to the consultation, and that did include the majority of environmental sector representatives. I took on board the feedback that we had via the consultation and enhanced the environmental controls, where appropriate. Farms applying higher levels of livestock manure will be required to notify Natural Resources Wales of the intention to do so, and submit supporting evidence to demonstrate the crop need for nutrients within the manure. I think that's a much more pragmatic approach. It does ensure that resources are dedicated to the enforcement of the regulations, rather than having to look at issuing licences.

So, in my mind, I think that will help things along the way, but you're quite right—I'm very interested if there are alternative proposals. Officials have had a few submitted and have worked through those, but we are open to any ideas, because, as you say, the outcome that we want is better water quality; that's what we all want. So, I'm very keen to continue this conversation.

Janet Finch-Saunders (Conservative, Aberconwy)

We're all wanting better water quality. However, though—and it's a result of this co-operation agreement—it's disappointing that a Member of the same party of our Government brings into question the actions of our farmers, who are facing a really tough time at the moment. Now, I've had some of my farmers raise concerns with me about the frequency of the closed periods for—I know it as muck spreading. So, from 1 August 2024, the spreading of slurry will be prohibited during the following periods: on sandy or shallow soil, grassland, 1 September to 31 December; tillage land, 1 August to 31 December; and other soils, grassland, 15 October to 15 January; and tillage land, 1 October to 31 January—quite a lot of that out of the calendar year. Now, we all know that as a result of climate change, arbitrary dates such as this, for what is important work for our farmers, are impractical and not based on any science. So, Minister, we can't judge the seasons now with climate change. Will you look again at the requirements of these closed periods or, better still, could you perhaps adopt a more balanced approach and work with our farmers better to allow greater flexibility in the spreading of manure? Diolch.

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

As Huw Irranca-Davies alluded to, there isn't one area that causes pollution to our waters. I think you were implying that we are picking on farmers. I will just say we are still getting just under three substantiated agricultural pollution incidents a week—a week. Three a week. That hasn't improved over a decade. So, I absolutely recognise that water pollution comes from many different sources, and that's—. I think the original question did ask me what discussions I have with the Minister for Climate Change because, obviously, it's really important that we work together. So, as you say, it is part of the co-operation agreement, and I do work very closely with the designated Member in this area. We have looked very closely at closed periods, and these are the regulations that have now been brought forward.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

2. How is the Welsh Government improving the welfare of companion animals? OQ60196

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Our priorities for animal welfare are set out in 'Our Animal Welfare Plan for Wales'. We are working to launch a 12-week public consultation before the end of the year to fulfil a programme for government commitment to develop a national model for the regulation of animal welfare.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Now, last week the UK Government provided an update regarding the banning of American XL bully dogs across England and Wales, confirming that it will be illegal to own a dog of this breed unless it has exemptions that are applied for and followed from 1 February 2024. Now, this has come following many abhorrent attacks and deaths involving this breed. Considering the brutality of these attacks, I believe the steps taken by the UK Government are appropriate and necessary to safeguard the public and other animals. The exemption list needed to be allowed to keep an XL bully is that they must be microchipped, neutered and muzzled. This will allow them to see out the rest of their lives. However, it is sadly likely that many owners may choose to abandon their dogs rather than comply with this new law. So, Minister, what additional resources are being made available to ensure that, when the new law is enacted, it is enforced here in Wales, and if we see this likely rise in abandonments, that local authorities and charities such as the RSPCA are supported by the Welsh Government accordingly. Diolch, Llywydd.

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

I should point out this is a wholly reserved matter, and you may have seen the announcement that was made by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last week, that they are offering £200—I think the word they use is 'compensation'; I don't particularly like that word in relation to this—towards the cost of having a dog euthanised. There is no funding, as far as I know, that is coming forward in relation to enforcement. Whilst I do welcome this announcement—it’s something that you know very well I have been lobbying for for a long time—because we have seen, as you say, very brutal and sometimes fatal attacks in relation to XL bullies, I was concerned that the announcement came—. I met with the DEFRA Secretary of State, I think, on the Wednesday of the week that the announcement came from the Prime Minister on the Friday, back in September. It’s really important that our officials work closely together on this, because obviously, as you say, it’s going to have a massive impact on Wales. I do have a meeting in the diary—I don’t think it’s until the beginning of next month—with Richard Benyon to discuss this, because I am concerned about unintended consequences, and you’ve just related some. There are others as well. What about puppies? What about breeding bitches that are currently pregnant? I’m not sure it has been thought through in the way it should have been, and it has all been very rushed, I think it’s fair to say.

So, whilst I do welcome it, I am concerned about unintended consequences. Both the chief veterinary officer and his other officials in his office try and attend as many meetings as we’re invited to to discuss this further, but I’ll be very happy to keep colleagues updated on this very important issue.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Questions from the party spokespeople now. Conservative spokesperson, Samuel Kurtz.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I thought someone would come in with a supplementary on the question on dogs.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Minister, my analysis of the Habitat Wales scheme, the replacement to Glastir, hasn’t changed since I questioned the First Minister on it a couple of weeks ago. It has been a shambles. That certainly was my takeaway, too, from the NFU Cymru conference last week. This has been further backed up by the fact that, in a written answer, you confirmed that no economic modelling was done to inform the development of the scheme—pretty poor, really, if you ask me. But what really caused me concern was the reference made in the same written question to the apparent engagement your officials had with stakeholders during the development of this scheme, something that is fiercely contested by stakeholders. So, Minister, can you confirm what engagement you or your team had with the farming unions not after, but during the development of the Habitat Wales scheme?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

So, I disagree with you completely that it's a shambles. This was something that, actually, the farming unions, particularly NFU Cymru, wanted me to bring forward, and I remember having an initial conversation when we all recognised—and everybody in this Chamber recognised—that Glastir would be coming to an end on 31 December this year. I haven't withdrawn it, I haven't cancelled it: Glastir came to an end, let's be very realistic here, because we left the European Union, and that funding ended. If people wanted a seven-year predictable budget, then they should have stayed in the European Union, because that's what we had when we were in the EU and we had that funding year on year, and I could roll it over, and I could extend it. That's gone—that flexibility has gone.

So, the reason there was no economic analysis was because we did it very quickly, because I was asked to do it very quickly. It was in discussions with NFU Cymru that the idea for the Habitat Wales scheme—I don't think that was the name of it—came forward. So, I believe that officials engaged frequently over the summer recess period. I certainly had discussions with the farming unions over the summer during the agricultural show season and those conversations carried on into this term of Government. It closes on Friday, the applications. I think it's really important to say we've had over 1,600—I think it's 1,600— applications now. What really pleases me is that 40 per cent of those applications are from farmers who were not in Glastir. Over the past few years, I've heard a lot of, 'We haven't been able to join Glastir'. Everybody can try and join this scheme and, as I say, we've had over 1,600 applications.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Thank you for that answer, Minister. You mentioned that Glastir couldn't have been rolled over. Within your powers, you could have continued Glastir. We've seen that in Scotland; we've seen that in England. That post-EU funding—okay, not maybe available from the EU, but the scheme itself could easily have been rolled over maybe at a 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 70 per cent funding rate. And that's something that the unions were actually calling for.

You mentioned that 1,600 farmers have signed up. Three thousand Glastir contracts in Wales; 17,000 registered farms in Wales—1,600 applicants is a damning indictment of the status of this Habitat Wales scheme at the moment. And what I think really happened, Minister, was that your officials presented a scheme as a fait accompli to stakeholders, having not actively worked with them to design something that would have avoided some of the glaringly obvious mistakes that we’ve seen, such as the mapping errors. And I know that this is a feeling that is shared by the farming unions.

But I’m really worried, Minister, by that low amount of farmers who’ve signed up to the scheme, firstly, because of the lack of support Welsh agriculture will have to achieve agri-environmental targets, but also that the Welsh Government may use this perceived lack of interest and lack of take-up as a reason to further cut the agricultural budget in the future. And because we’ve yet to see what the final budget will be for the Habitat Wales scheme, can you confirm today that you will allocate at least as much funding to the Habitat Wales scheme as was allocated to the Glastir schemes that preceded it?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

So, I completely disagree with your assessment of what took place. I told you what took place. If you don’t choose to believe me, that’s your choice. But I am telling you what happened. I cannot confirm the budget yet—you’re aware of the budget and the financial difficulties we have as a Government—I will only be able to do that once discussions with my Cabinet colleagues have finished.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

It's depressing, really, the situation that Welsh Government have put farmers in. I mean, if the Welsh Government want to achieve their own targets around climate, nature and biodiversity restoration, then they need to support farmers accordingly to achieve this. The irony is that, by not supporting farmers, Welsh Government will fail to meet the targets that it has set itself. And it's not just the environmental benefits of supporting farmers; it's supporting the highest quality food producers here in the United Kingdom and the wider economic benefits that come from a vibrant agricultural industry. Every £1 spent in Welsh agriculture is worth £9 to the wider community, and I challenge anyone to find a better return on public investment than that.

So, Minister, you've been unable to commit to the Habitat Wales scheme having the same funding as the Glastir schemes that came before it, but can you provide at least some certainty to the industry by confirming today if the basic payment scheme budget for next year, 2024, will be maintained at current levels?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Well, let's look at your perceived lack of support, shall we, for farmers. So, I've protected the BPS. What have they done in the UK Government? [Interruption.] What have they done in the UK Government? They've cut BPS by—[Interruption.] They have cut BPS in England by 55 per cent.

Now, you were at the NFU conference last Thursday where you heard farmers say how glad they were that they were in Wales, not in England, so, let's just think about that, shall we? What about the number of schemes that the UK Government promised to open for farmers that have now been just quietly shelved, to one side? So, this perceived lack of support for farmers, I really don't recognise.

I have protected BPS. I know—[Interruption.] When discussions have finished—[Interruption.] If you let me answer the question, I will answer the question, rather than shouting more questions at me. Next year's BPS is obviously subject to next year's budget, and I am doing all I can to make sure that we can protect BPS, because that, I believe, is the best way of supporting farmers, because farmers tell me that that's what they look to for that stability and that security that, frankly, leaving the European Union has taken away from them.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Llyr Gruffydd (Plaid Cymru, North Wales)

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, you've disputed the earlier description of the Habitat Wales scheme as a shambles, so, let's be kind: you have to admit that it's been rather discombobulated, shall we say, certainly in terms of the way that some of the mapping issues have played out; there have been concerns about the levels of funding, and all that. And frankly, one person's shambles is another person's non-shambles—that doesn't work in my book, really. We know, just working it out briefly from the figures that you've quoted in terms of applications—the 1,600, 40 per cent are from outside of Glastir—that means, I think, that around about only a quarter of those currently in Glastir have applied to be in the Habitat Wales scheme. Now, we know that the potential income from that will be 45 per cent lower, but it actually means that three quarters of those who are currently in Glastir are not applying to the Habitat Wales scheme. What does that tell you about the Habitat Wales scheme, and what impact will that have on the decades of investment in agri-environmental work that has happened previously, that is now, clearly, just going down the pan?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Well, I think there are two ways of looking at it. What you have to remember is that farmers are very aware that their Glastir contracts, which they signed whenever they took them out—so, seven years ago, we rolled them over a few years, so maybe they've had it for eight years, maybe they've had it for 11 years—they knew that that contract was coming to an end on 31 December 2023. So, it could be that that's all been part of their business plan. So, I think that that's one way of looking at it. I'm very pleased that 1,600—. I absolutely take on board what you say about the criticism about mapping. We could have paused it, but I thought it was really important to continue so that we can open the windows and look at that in the beginning of January, so we don't have that gap between Glastir finishing and the Habitat Wales scheme beginning in January, because you'll be very well aware that UK Climate Change Committee, that was one of their recommendations to us.

Llyr Gruffydd (Plaid Cymru, North Wales)

The question in my mind is: where does this leave us now in terms of the sustainable farming scheme? Because the FUW have told us that they estimate that 70 per cent of the Habitat Wales scheme forms that they've analysed include serious errors in terms of habitat mapping, and there are serious capacity issues, I believe—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—in terms of being able to process those contracts, in terms of correcting some of the errors and faults that have been discovered. So you can tell me whether it's capacity or incompetence that has led us to where we are in relation to much of this. But what does that tell us, or how does that give us confidence, moving forward? Because the sustainable farming scheme, of course, is 12 months away from being, or needing to be, operationally ready. So, can I ask how confident are you that we won't be facing similar discombobulation, or shambles, depending on which way you want to look at it, when it comes to the sustainable farming scheme? What additional capacity, if any, will you have, because obviously the scale of that is going to be considerably more substantial than what you're struggling with at the moment? And when exactly will we see the long-awaited next consultation, which is to be launched before, I believe, the end of this year?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

So, in relation to the second part of your question, we will be launching the final consultation, I'm hoping, mid December—certainly before we finish for the Christmas recess. I've had several meetings, just in the last week, around making sure the consultation document—again, speaking with Cefin Campbell, as the designated Member. I think, in some ways, we need to learn lessons from what's happened with Habitat Wales, and, as you say, the mapping. I don't think it's incompetence. When you say about capacity, obviously, we can all have bigger capacity, can't we, we'd all welcome bigger capacity, but I've been reassured that that is not an issue. But I think that we do need to learn lessons, because, as you say, SFS is going to be so much bigger, and I think that's what officials will do.

Russell George (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

3. How will the Habitat Wales scheme support farmers in Montgomeryshire? OQ60193

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Thank you. The Habitat Wales scheme is available to all eligible farmers to apply. Scheme payments will support them to maintain and protect key habitats already under management, as well as new areas of semi-natural habitat not previously under active management. I encourage all those interested to apply by 10 November.

Russell George (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

Thank you, Minister, for your reply. I met with FUW officers and officials last week, and the frustration and concerns around the Habitat Wales scheme were made clear to me. Additional to some of the other points that have been raised today, issues were raised around mapping errors, reduced payment rates, and, as they put it, a cliff edge for organic producers, making it difficult for farmers to make use of this scheme. Now, those in Glastir are facing cuts in their payments, I'm told, of between 65 per cent and 90 per cent if they decide to apply to the scheme, which, as you just pointed out, must be done by 10 November. So, with that in mind, Minister, how will the Welsh Government ensure that farmers in Montgomeryshire are offered effective support to continue with their environmental work and sustainable farming practices ahead of the launch of the sustainable farming scheme?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Thank you. Well, I don't think I can say any more on the mapping issues; I think I answered both Sam Kurtz and Llyr Huws Gruffydd in relation to that, and on the budget also. I think the point you raise about organic is a fair one, and I've asked officials to look to see what we can do specifically for organic farming. I'm trying to identify a separate pot of money, if you like, specifically for organic farmers to apply for, and I'm very hopeful that that will happen, because I've been able to find some funding for that.

I think it's fair to say—and our farming unions recognise this—that we all knew Glastir was ending this year. I've made no secret of that. You will have not heard me say anywhere that Glastir wasn't ending. We couldn't extend it; we didn't have the European funding. And, as I say, if people wanted to stay in Glastir, then they should have stayed in the European Union.

Jane Dodds (Liberal Democrat, Mid and West Wales)

Good afternoon, Minister. I'm afraid it is the Habitat Wales-fest this afternoon, because I did want to follow up on the question asked by Russell George. Many of us living in rural areas have had the opportunity to hear from farmers. I've met quite a few; they've asked for a meeting. I met one female farmer and her daughter, and she was in tears, because she and her daughter are really not sure how they're going to keep the staff and the community that they live in, given that they are losing such a high degree of funding. I have to say that that farmer volunteered to me how she had voted in the EU referendum, which was to remain, and how frustrated she felt that losing the EU funding meant that she was going to be significantly affected.

You've answered a lot of questions on this, and I've been crossing out a lot of my questions to you as we've been going along this afternoon. But the one thing that I have raised previously is that my understanding is that you can't amend the expression of interest that farmers have put in. It's a very complex scheme. It's a significantly lengthy document, and, as well as the stress that farmers are feeling, to then commit themselves to what they understand may now be a permanent scheme going forward is a significant stress for them. So, I just wonder: are there any flexibilities? Is there anything that, certainly cross-party, we could be thinking of, working with you, within the constraints, to really help those farmers, some of whom are really feeling that they are going to lose their business and are going to be laying off quite a few people? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Thank you. I don't underestimate the issues. Everybody's facing financial difficulties—it's every Government, it's every individual, I think it's every business. Obviously, everybody is affected by it. And I'm afraid, coming out of the European Union, this is the new world we're living in, and I've been trying to ensure that everybody within my portfolio, all the stakeholders, absolutely recognise the difficulties that we're all facing. But this is the new world and we have to get on with it. So, I'm very sorry; I can only imagine—. And I've had farmers say the same to me, 'We now recognise'—whether they voted leave, whether they voted remain, they absolutely recognise that this is the new world we're living in.

As I think I previously answered to you, there is no flexibility. This is a scheme we've had to bring forward very quickly. We tried to make it as simple as possible, but, when you come to allocating public money, you know yourself, it's a very complex area; you have to make sure that every 'i' is dotted and every 't' is crossed. But I think the simpler—. One of the things that farmers said to me was they wanted to leave the European Union—not all of them, obviously—when we had the vote back in June 2016 because of the bureaucracy. So, I really believe it's imperative that we as a Government make life simpler when it comes to form filling et cetera. But I'm afraid—. This is, hopefully, a scheme that will help with that gap, and I do hope that the farmer and her daughter that you referred to do apply to be in this scheme.

Peter Fox (Conservative, Monmouth)

4. What assessment has the Welsh Government made of the impact of the end of the Glastir scheme on farmers who receive funding from it? OQ60203

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Thank you. No assessment has been made on the impact of the end of Glastir on farmers who receive funding from it, because Glastir participants signed a contract with the Welsh Government with an end date aligned to the end of the rural development programme, and we are adhering to those contract terms.

Peter Fox (Conservative, Monmouth)

Thank you, Minister, and you've answered lots of questions already on this today, and I want to pick up on the theme that my colleague Russell George made. Minister, I wrote to you in September around one organic farmer. I'm yet to receive that reply, but I'm sure it's on it's way. But I've been in contact now with another constituent, who farms organically, striving to deliver everything you wanted for a sustainable farming system, and he's been adamant to do that and he's done a brilliant job. Now he feels this is totally under threat. He's broken on it. The financial support that Habitat Wales is offering him he feels is just an insult—an absolute insult. His farm will receive around £700 from the Habitat scheme and you've got to jump through hoops to get that. Whereas, prior to this, on Glastir and Glastir Organic, he would receive £16,000, so being paid out at about £69 per hectare. How can this farmer afford to continue as an organic producer and keep his employee? Minister, I'm pleased to hear that there will be some sort of funding possibly available for organic farmers to bid for, but what this farmer told me is it takes at least two years to turn the ship around. And, whilst there is an end to the contract, it's been accepted that it's being rolled on, and not enough notice—. This guy is switched on and he just feels so let down. So, Minister, given your environmental commitments, what advice can you offer an organic farmer in Wales who faces a cliff edge, especially when his neighbours in England still get organic support and he has to compete against them?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

I disagree that they didn't get enough notice. As I say, this was a contract that every farmer will have signed with the Welsh Government and the end date was 31 December this year. So, I completely disagree with you that not enough notice was given. There will be some specific funding for organic farmers. I absolutely recognise the case that they put forward to me, and I have been able to identify a small pot of money, which I do hope will help. But, as I say, the assessment—you asked what assessment had been done about the end of Glastir—was done at the beginning when we signed those contracts with farmers and they all knew, unfortunately, when they were going to end. I wish I had the same amount of money that we had when we were in the European Union; I simply don't.

Rhun ap Iorwerth (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I receive a lot of contact from farmers in Anglesey who are so concerned about the new scheme that they're considering not applying at all. So, what's the Minister's message to them to persuade them that there is a means of saving this scheme? But this is my main question: we hear from the Minister once again today that farmers knew that Glastir was coming to an end, and we're also hearing the Government saying that they had to introduce this change in a hurry. Well, surely then the Government had enough forewarning in order to put a better scheme in place. The Government can't have it both ways.

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Well, it's not a matter of having it both ways, is it? If I had the same budget, I could have done it. I have had to identify that budget from somewhere else. There's no funding. There's no domestic funding, is there, because the UK Government didn't give us the same amount of money. You remember 'not a penny less'—[Interruption.]—not a penny less. No, that wasn't your question. Not a penny less. I'm telling you, and you know, the UK Government did not give us the amount of funding that we would have had had we remained in the European Union. So, I accept what—. I said that we had to do the scheme quickly over the summer; we didn't have to do a scheme at all. I was asked to do a scheme and we did a scheme—[Interruption.] Well, I didn't, did I, because I have prioritised the basic payment scheme. I wish I could have carried on with Glastir with the amount of funding—. And if the UK Government had given us the funding that they promised they would, I could have done it. So, this is the issue. We did it quickly because we were asked to do something, so as not to have a gap between Glastir and the sustainable farming scheme coming in. I really wish I could have that same funding to carry on. I simply don't have it, and I don't know why nobody recognises in this Chamber on the opposition benches that that is the case. If we'd stayed in the European Union, we would have had that funding: predictable, every year, seven-year budget—every year. And I'm sure you recognise it on this side, but they don't recognise it over on the Welsh Conservative benches.

I've had to find that funding, and what we all have to realise is that predictability of budget has gone. And any domestic funding that now comes through for the agricultural sector will be on a year-by-year basis. We are completely beholden, aren't we, to the UK Government giving us the funding. They've let us down in the first few years. Who's to say what the funding will be next year? I have to work out my basic payment scheme budget on what I assume I'm going to get. I don't know yet what I'm going to get, and this is why I'm having those conversations. But, this is the reality. This is the new world, and the sooner people grasp it, the better.

Jack Sargeant (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

5. What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister for Climate Change about supporting councils in north Wales to prevent flooding? OQ60189

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Thank you. I speak regularly with the Minister for Climate Change about a range of issues, including the impacts from recent storms across Wales and the support available to local authorities to reduce the impact of flooding.

Jack Sargeant (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

Can I thank the Minister for her answer and the conversations that she does have with Cabinet colleagues? The Minister will be well aware that, three years ago, homes in Sandycroft, Mancot and Broughton in my constituency were flooded, and, following that, a series of steps were agreed from various agencies including National Resources Wales, including the local authority as the risk management authority, and including Welsh Water, and they were agreed to ensure work was carried out to protect these communities. But last month, sadly, again, during storm Babet, these communities were flooded for the second time in three years. At the public meeting that followed storm Babet, residents expressed their frustration that the work that was previously agreed by these various agencies had not been fully completed in the time necessary. Minister, will you, or will the Welsh Government—if it's not your portfolio, but the Minister for Climate Change's perhaps—contact all key stakeholders, including NRW, and express the need for this work to be carried out as quickly as possible?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Thank you. I know the Minister's officials are in regular contact with risk management authorities to provide that advice and guidance on the application process, for instance, for Welsh Government funding. It is for each RMA to put forward proposed schemes for that funding. As you know, the Minister for Climate Change provided significant funding and almost doubled revenue funding for each local authority to £225,000 each, and I know that she's maintaining that amount again. It's very distressing when you're flooded and I can only imagine, when you're flooded for the second time in three years, how distressing that is.

Mark Isherwood (Conservative, North Wales)

Ground-floor flats in Mold were affected by storm Babet, roughly the seventh flood in seven years, with the most recent in 2021. Yet, a 2017 Mold flood alleviation scheme study, commissioned by Flintshire council, recommended that the report be submitted to the Welsh Government for confirmation that £5.5 million of funding was available. When I raised this at the Broughton flooding public meeting 11 days ago, a council official stated that they'd broken this down into modules on which they were working, prior to submitting bids to the Welsh Government. After I pursued flooding issues in Broughton on behalf of affected residents in 2021, I had to wait 19 months for a full response from Flintshire council. But that included, and I quote,

'Where possible, the Council will give priority to elderly and vulnerable residents, and to known flooding black spots'.

However, after storm Babet, I was contacted by, and on behalf of, elderly and vulnerable residents living in known flooding black spots who'd been unable to get through to the council or to access resources, including sandbags, who'd been flooded again. At the public meeting,a council official stated they were now working with other agencies to develop a section 19 flood investigation report prior to submitting a bid to the Welsh Government. So, what discussions, following my question to the finance Minister earlier, have you had with the climate change Minister regarding how timely and promptly the Welsh Government will respond to such bids, and the sufficiency of funding for them?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Well I haven't had a specific discussion with the Minister for Climate Change on the points that you raised, but I will certainly bring your question to the Minister for Climate Change's attention and ask her to write to you. I think that's probably better than me giving you the answer that's in front of me. I think it's a very specific question you ask, so I'll ask her to write to you.

Sam Rowlands (Conservative, North Wales)

6. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that proposed Welsh Government budget cuts will have on the agricultural sector? OQ60186

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

The Welsh Government prioritised the £238 million basic payment scheme budget, which supports over 16,200 farmers in Wales. Funding reprioritised from rural affairs budgets relates to updated forecasts, resulting in minimal implications to the delivery of current established schemes, and no impact to any beneficiary where an agreement is already in place.

Sam Rowlands (Conservative, North Wales)

Thank you, Minister, for that initial response. We've already heard this afternoon a number of concerns about budget cuts more generally. You mentioned the rural affairs budget cut there, which is going to be a £37.5 million cut, and there are farmers in rural communities out there who are concerned about this £37.5 million cut. Naturally, this risks having a negative impact on relations within communities and puts pressure on farms and farmers. And, as you would acknowledge, certainly, they do a huge amount of good work not just in feeding our nation, but also managing about 80 per cent of the land area of Wales. I had some other questions, perhaps, but just taking into context some of the questions that have already been asked today and the overall picture around funding that you are dealing with, and absolutely understanding some of the difficult decisions that Government is having to take with competing pressures, are you comfortable that our rural communities and our farmers seem to be disproportionately affected by Welsh Government funding decisions?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Well, I really don't think that's the case. Do I want to make cuts in-year in my own budget? Absolutely not. Do any of my colleagues want to make in-year cuts to their budgets? Absolutely not. But I think the First Minister and all of my ministerial colleagues have been very open about the serious financial situation that the Welsh Government faces. It's not just the Welsh Government; the UK Government will be making the same decisions and the Scottish Government will be making the same decisions as well. I think this is the toughest financial situation we've had since devolution back in 1999.

So, absolutely, I don't want to make cuts to my budget—of course I don't. I've only been able to do it by reprioritising funding, looking at our capital funding, and you heard the Minister for Finance and Local Government say in her questions that we still don't know if that's possible yet; it's up to the UK Treasury to decide on that. But this is the way I had to look, to make sure that not just farmers, as I've got fishers in my portfolio—. You know you can have an animal disease outbreak very quickly, and I have to always make sure that there is funding in that area. I've got food and drink in my portfolio, and we've seen the success that we've had there and that needs supporting as well. So, it's not just farmers; it's all parts of my portfolio. Where would I take that funding from? I had to find it. We have a collective responsibility as Ministers, each of us, to find reductions in year. It's very, very difficult. I've never had to make in-year cuts to my budget in the way that I've had to this year.

Altaf Hussain (Conservative, South Wales West)

7. What action has been taken by the Welsh Government to protect inland and coastal fisheries? OQ60198

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

The Welsh Government continues to work with Natural Resources Wales to implement a plan of action to restore salmon and sea trout stocks. Building on recently introduced adaptive management measures, the Welsh Government has embarked on an ambitious programme of fisheries management plans, the first of which we plan to publish before Christmas.

Altaf Hussain (Conservative, South Wales West)

Thank you, Minister. Of course, the best action the Welsh Government could take would be to clamp down on untreated sewage entering our waterways. The fact that Welsh Water has been able to continually release sewage into rivers such as Towy and Ogwr is bad enough, but when they get away with it scot-free, with no enforcement by the Welsh Government, what kind of message does that send? Minister, what assurance will you now give to the people who fish the rivers and beaches of my region that you're doing everything in your power to stop discharges and protect our fisheries?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Well, this matter falls within the Minister for Climate Change's portfolio. I don't think she will let them get off scot-free; we all know the Minister for Climate Change and I don't think that that will happen. I will continue to have discussions. You heard in my earlier answer to Huw Irranca-Davies that pollution of our waters is cross-Government. I work very closely with the Minister for Climate Change, and it's really important that we treat every source of pollution.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Finally, question 8, Rhys ab Owen.

Rhys ab Owen (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

8. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the UK Government’s upcoming ban of American Bully XLs on the animal rescue sector in Wales? OQ60200

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Full details of how the ban will be implemented by the UK Government are yet to be finalised. I am aware there will be an impact on rescue centres, and my officials will work closely with the third sector in Wales to minimise the impact of any unintended consequences of this legislation.

Rhys ab Owen (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

Diolch, Gweinidog. As you're well aware, animal rescue shelters, local authorities and police forces are under increased financial pressure. As you're also aware, last Tuesday, it was announced that these pressures were going to get even worse with the XL bully ban by the end of this year. It's the statutory duty of local authorities to pick up stray dogs, and with this ban coming into force, we can probably expect more abandoned XLs roaming our streets. Many dog shelters are already full, they have little space to expand, to have larger kennels to accommodate the size of this breed. This probably means that many local authorities may be required to euthanise these dogs. Is the Minister aware that either the UK Government or the Welsh Government will be providing extra resources for animal rescue shelters and local authorities to ensure that they can continue with their duties and support them during the introduction of this ban? Diolch yn fawr.

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

Thank you. You will have heard me say in my earlier answer to Sam Kurtz that I am very concerned about the unintended consequences of this legislation, and the last thing we want is XL bullies roaming the streets because they've been abandoned. So, it is really important that the UK Government work out the details of this ban. As I say, I very much welcome the statement, but I would have liked a bit more contact between myself and Ministers. The DEFRA Ministers, clearly, I think, were caught by surprise as well. It is a wholly reserved matter, and they will be bringing forward the £200 support cost or compensation. I think we need to have further conversations around will they be giving further funding so that this can be enforced, because any new piece of legislation—when the Welsh Government brings forward a piece of legislation, you look at the enforcement costs.

You may be aware, I know many colleagues attended and are also very aware, I had a summit on responsible dog ownership a couple of weeks ago, and speaking to the police who were present at the summit, speaking to our rural crime and wildlife co-ordinator, these are real concerns now going forward. So, I do have a meeting with Richard Benyon, who's the Minister in DEFRA in relation to this matter, next month, where I will be pursuing these points. They are bringing forward statutory instruments; I think they're bringing forward three statutory instruments, and each one will set out far more detail about the ban, but the devil as always is in the detail, isn't it, and we really need to see that.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I can just squeeze in question 9. Joyce Watson.

Joyce Watson (Labour, Mid and West Wales)

9. Will the Minister make a statement on the implementation of the Hunting Act 2004 in Wales? OQ60208

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

The Welsh Government does not have legislative competence over the Hunting Act 2004; it is a non-devolved issue and a matter for the UK Government. The Welsh Government would strongly support strengthening the Act to tackle its known deficiencies and enable it to succeed in preventing unnecessary and cruel hunting.

Joyce Watson (Labour, Mid and West Wales)

I thank you for that answer, Minister. It's nearly 20 years since the UK Labour Government banned fox hunting, but all the evidence suggests that some hunts circumvent the law behind the smokescreen of trail hunting. Because of this loophole, chief superintendent Matt Longman, the National Police Chiefs Council lead on fox hunting, has said that

'The Hunting Act is not working effectively and illegal hunting is still common practice.'

Wales and the Welsh Government, of course, have a proud and progressive record on animal welfare, and trail hunting has been banned on land owned by Natural Resources Wales for two years. But do you agree with me, Minister, that all persecution of animals in the name of sport should be banned, and will you therefore urge the UK Ministers to strengthen the 2004 Act to end hunting with hounds in Wales for good?

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

I certainly would urge the UK Government to strengthen it. The deficiencies of the Hunting Act are quite often brought to my attention, and I'm sure that Joyce Watson is aware that the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill was passed in January 2023, and it became an Act, I think, two months later. I have asked my officials to liaise with Scottish officials to discuss the process that was undertaken.

I wish I had the powers to strengthen the Act. I go back to the conversations I had at the responsible dog ownership summit, where we talked about the too many livestock attacks we've had, and then it always goes on into hunting as well; it's just a natural progression. And I don't think there was anybody in the room that didn't think that the Act needed strengthening. So, I will continue to speak to DEFRA Ministers—I think Michael Gove was the first Minister I raised this with—because they do have the powers to do it; I wish I did.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I thank the Minister.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I only wish that the rural affairs Minister of 2009 could have foreseen this session when she introduced Glastir nearly 15 years ago, and was given a pretty rough time in this Chamber, only to have, 15 years later, its demise decried in such a way in this session.

Lesley Griffiths (Labour, Wrexham)

That's politics for you. [Laughter.]

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Yes, indeed.

3. Topical Questions

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

So, topical questions now. Russell George, who has the first question to be answered by the Minister for health.

Russell George (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

Diolch, former Minister—[Laughter.]—and Presiding Officer.

Russell George (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

1. Will the Minister provide an update on the University Hospital of Wales issuing a black alert regarding a significant and sustained adverse demand on services? TQ902

Mair Eluned (Labour, Mid and West Wales)

Yes. Cardiff and Vale University Health Board yesterday reported a business continuity incident. This was triggered by increases in demand for patients with complex needs and challenges with patient flow. I made an unannounced visit to the site last night, and saw first-hand that the organisation is managing the position well and they will de-escalate when ready.

Russell George (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

Thank you, Minister, for your answer, and of course this is, I’m sure you would agree, an extremely concerning situation, because we’re not yet in the depths of winter and perhaps we would have expected this to happen later in the season, so there is, of course, that concern. And it would seem that staff will now be diverted away from planned operations to support the current position. So, I wonder, Minister, if you could outline what that actually means in practice. And of course, we’re aware of the wider issues here: we’ve got one in four patient pathways already on an NHS waiting list, so how will that impact in that regard?

But also, Minister, the health board has said itself that prolonged patient stays in hospital are contributing to the adverse demand on services at the hospital. So, it’s clear that that situation does need to come under control. I was pleased to hear that you did pay that unannounced visit to the health board. But can you set out, Minister, specifically what does it mean in this regard for this situation? What does a black alert actually mean? How is the Welsh Government supporting the health board? What demands are there on other organisations, either being made by the Welsh Government or the health board, and, for example, will the military be asked to assist in some way, either by you or by the health board, or will other organisations be called in to help with this situation?

Mair Eluned (Labour, Mid and West Wales)

Thanks very much. Well, I was very pleased to see last night that, actually, the situation was relatively calm, but in fact, there were only about 80 or so patients, which was in contrast to the about 160 waiting in the emergency department the previous evening. The situation was quite calm; there were only two ambulances there. One had only just come in, so a very, very different situation from I think what they'd had the previous day.

What they are obviously doing is following an escalation framework. That’s done for a reason: it’s done in order to make sure that you don’t get to a place where the system falls over. So, what you do is you make sure that you pull people in and divert them from perhaps other work that they were doing. So, the health board is obviously considering a number of elements. They still haven’t de-escalated and they won’t de-escalate until they are confident that they won’t revert to that escalation any time after that.

So, the kinds of questions that they’re asking are: do the predicted discharge levels allow them to stop the prolonged waits in the emergency unit, and to de-escalate the volumes in the emergency unit? Can they maintain sufficient specialist capacity to admit patients like stroke patients and vascular patients? Have they got a line of sight in terms of a robust weekend plan? So, it is not unusual to have more pressure on a Monday, so they just want to make sure that they don't see a repeat of this the following Monday. So, they just want to make sure it's all belt and braces, so you don't bounce straight back into that. And, have they put in place sufficient changes to ensure reverting to business as usual doesn't result in the same outcome? So, those are the kinds of issues that they are considering before they come out of that business continuity situation, and there is no plan at all to involve the military.

Mabon ap Gwynfor (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

At the end of December last year, we witnessed the unprecedented situation whereby all seven Welsh health boards were at the highest level of escalation. It's no exaggeration to say that our health service faced an existential crisis at that time, from which it has yet to fully recover. As such, the declaration of a black alert at the University Hospital of Wales—the first such incident of the winter—should act as a clear warning sign to the Government of the inevitable and profound challenges that lie ahead in the coming months. Yesterday, we heard Judith Paget, the NHS Wales chief executive, predict that winter pressures could reach similar levels to those experienced last year. Rowena Christmas, the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners in Wales, has echoed this by expressing her fears of a brutally hard winter for our NHS.

We've known for some time about the scale and complexity of Wales's particular health needs—our ageing population, the high prevalence of long-term sickness rates and the gaps in the workforce. What the people of Wales expect and deserve is a response from the Government that's proactive in mitigating these challenges and which shows an awareness to learn from previous mistakes to ease the immense strains that are being imposed on front-line services. On this basis, I'd be grateful therefore if the Minister could give an update on the roll-out of urgent primary care centres and same-day emergency care services across Wales. How many have been established so far and what is the expectation of the total number that will be in operation by the end of this year?

There's also the issue of finance. We've learned today that as part of the Welsh Government's re-budgeting exercise, health boards have been asked to make further cuts of £64 million to the current spending levels. As the health Minister has readily acknowledged, this may have a knock-on effect on the availability of extra beds at hospitals, which was a contributing factor to the declaration of the black alert at the University Hospital of Wales yesterday. So, what is the Minister's assessment of the impact of the re-budgeting exercise on the capacity of front-line services to manage workloads over the winter months?

Mair Eluned (Labour, Mid and West Wales)

Thanks very much. Well, what we know is that there is a huge pressure on the NHS, and we're expecting that pressure to be great again this winter. There was a time, for one week in December last year, where we saw GPs and GP practices seeing 400,000 people in one week; so, the pressure is intense. Let's not forget that, actually, huge and significant measures have already been put in place to try and divert people away from accident and emergency. So, the 111 service, for example, has diverted 75,000 callers directly away from A&E; about 15 per cent of those are then sent to A&E, so that's a huge number that are diverted. We know that about 15 per cent of ambulances now do not convey people to hospital, but they treat them and they deal with them in their homes.

We know that those urgent primary care centres are also making a difference. What we know is that activity has gone up by 9 per cent since last year, so I think that is significant. Ten thousand people a month are being seen in those urgent primary care centres. There is one, at least, for each area. I think it's a different model in the rural areas, though, because they are not necessarily appropriate in the same way in rural areas, so they have a different kind of system, but they're not necessarily—. They're just not called urgent primary care centres.

In terms of the same-day emergency care centres, there are 16 hospitals that now have same-day emergency care centres. There are 24 of them in total across Wales—that's two more since April last year—and two more are opening in November this year. And the great news is that what we're seeing—. One of the things that we did explicitly say that we wanted to see this winter was an extension in terms of the opening hours. I'm pleased to say that, now, we have got 91 additional hours of SDEC open since April 2023.

These were some of the questions that I was asking to them in the emergency department in the Heath yesterday: what difference is SDEC making? What difference is the urgency department making? What difference is 111 making? They were all united in their view that they are making a difference, and that they acknowledge that people are being diverted. But there are still a lot of sick people in our communities. What we do know is that respiratory viruses increase during winter, and we do have to take account of that.

Jenny Rathbone (Labour, Cardiff Central)

Minister, I'm very pleased that you went to the hospital of Wales yesterday in Cardiff. I'm sure that that was much appreciated by all of the dedicated staff. I am alarmed, I have to say, that the Heath hospital is getting into this much difficulty, given that they have done brilliant work on not keeping ambulances waiting in the past. Also, the patient flow has, in the past, been assisted by the pink army of social care workers, both in the emergency department and on the wards. So, are you able to shed any further light on why the patient flow has suddenly become so sclerotic?

Mair Eluned (Labour, Mid and West Wales)

Thanks very much. You are quite right. I think that the Heath has been an exemplar in terms of emergency department activity. They have been occasionally getting below the four-hour target in terms of the numbers of people being seen within that target. So, they have been really impressive. We have been sending people in there, but there has obviously been something going wrong with the flow in relation to this particular weekend.

It is something that, I think, hospitals are going to need to think about, recognising that flow out of hospitals on the weekend, because local authorities are not there to support that flow out of hospitals—that, actually, you do need to recognise that you do need to try and get more people out at the beginning of the weekend, in the knowledge that it is going to be difficult to maintain the position until Sunday.

I think that there will be some lessons for Cardiff to learn as a result of this. Certainly, what I can tell you is that the executive board have decided to remain in business continuity for the remainder of today and tonight. So, I would encourage the public not to use the emergency department in Cardiff unless it's absolutely necessary.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I thank the Minister. The next item will be the question from Heledd Fychan, to be answered by the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language.

Heledd Fychan (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

2. Will the Minister make a statement on the announcement by HSBC that they will be ending their Welsh-language customer telephone service? TQ906

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

This is very disappointing indeed. Increasing the use of the Welsh language has been a clear priority for me, as it has been for the Member, from the very outset. We have been in contact with the office of the Welsh Language Commissioner, and I understand that the commissioner will write to HSBC today in order to see what can be done about this situation.

Heledd Fychan (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

Thank you very much, and I appreciate that we speak with one voice on this. Clearly, it was very disappointing to receive an e-mail this morning, in English, from HSBC, that stated also:

Heledd Fychan (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

'We have confirmed that all customers are able to bank in English'.

Heledd Fychan (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

Bearing in mind their website, which states the following—

'We're committed to the life, culture and people of Wales and our aim is to embrace the Welsh language throughout all our branches in Wales, and, by doing so, provide the highest quality of service to our customers'—

I think that the letter shows, entirely contrary to that, that there is no understanding among HSBC in terms of what offering a bilingual service entails, and what the rights of people are to use the Welsh language here in Wales. So, I do hope that we, as Members of the Senedd, can speak with one voice in terms of writing and speaking to HSBC, to ensure that the views of all those whom we represent are firmly shared in that regard.

I'm sure that you will be aware, Minister, of the report by the previous Welsh Language Commissioner in 2015, in terms of the statutory review of Welsh language services at high-street banks in Wales. Although they aren't subject to the standards regime, clearly, there have been a number of conversations over the years with this sector in terms of the importance of the Welsh language.

One of the things that the commissioner said back in 2015 was that these changes that are taking place within the sector—. Clearly, in closing more branches, and with more people using apps and so on to contact their banks, there will be fewer opportunities for customers to use the Welsh language as they deal with their banks, and a number of recommendations were made in that report to increase the use of Welsh digitally, but also to ensure that they promote the services that they provide.

I think it's important to note, interestingly, that the majority of complaints received with regard to Welsh language telephone services were related to HSBC back in 2015, so there are questions to be asked about how they responded to that. But specifically, may I ask whether there have been any conversations between the Welsh Government and the banking sector as a result of the recommendations made? And may I ask, therefore, whether you feel that there is a clear case to extend the statutory responsibilities with regard to the Welsh language to private businesses such as banks?

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

I thank the Member for those supplementary questions. She knows that banks can't be subject to standards—they're not listed in the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 as a sector. She also knows that a work programme has been agreed with Plaid Cymru on extending the standards regime more generally.

What I would say is that this is not good enough from this particular bank. There are developments happening in terms of how services are provided. That is something that happens as a result of socioeconomic changes. But, as it happens, digital developments provide further opportunities to provide the kinds of services that are suited to individuals. That is an opportunity rather than a threat, and I would expect to see businesses of all kinds looking creatively at how they can use those developments to support people's banking choices in this context.

I am shocked, as it happens, that the numbers using the Welsh language phone line are as low as the letter states. I got the same letter this morning in light of my role as a Member of this Senedd rather than as Minister, and I was surprised to see that the numbers are so low. I wonder if that tells us something about how the service is being promoted and provided. Is it as easy to access the service through the medium of Welsh as it is in English, for example?

So, we need to be creative in this context. It doesn't cost more to employ someone who speaks Welsh and English than it does to employ someone who works only through the medium of English. The letter says that half the branches in Wales employ Welsh speakers. Can we look creatively at the contribution that they can make, perhaps? So, there are a number of things, and I would hope that a company with the kind of capacity and reach and resources as HSBC could look creatively at the way that they can reverse this decision, and look creatively again at how they can meet the needs of Welsh-speaking customers.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Thank you, Llywydd, for allowing this question. Minister, I'm very disappointed with the announcement today that HSBC will be closing its Welsh language customer telephone service in January, providing a call-back service alone. The closure of bank branches has left holes in our high streets and has posed many challenges for customers, particularly for those older people and those in rural areas of Wales, and now, it appears, for those who wish to use the Welsh language. For a bank that once described itself as 'The world's local bank' and which provides services in a range of different languages worldwide, the decision to target the Welsh language for cuts could be considered insensitive. The proposal of a call-back service, which could take up to three days after the initial call is made, could be seen as nothing else other than a token gesture.

What powers do you have as a Welsh Government, perhaps through the office of the Welsh Language Commissioner, to ensure that HSBC continues to offer a service to customers who wish to bank through the medium of Welsh on an equal basis to those who wish to bank through the medium of English? Also, was the Welsh Government aware of this decision ahead of time, and if so, what discussions have you had with HSBC to ask them to change their minds? Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

I received the letter this morning, as did everyone else. So, that was the first I'd heard of the decision by HSBC. Other organisations—. We've had a recent discussion in the Chamber on Duolingo. As it happens, they've agreed to a meeting in light of a letter that I wrote, to see what we can do in order to review that decision. I'd be happy to provide a report to the Senedd in due time once that meeting has taken place. But we do want to see as many opportunities to use the Welsh language in all aspects of our lives as possible. We must bear in mind that many of us find it easier to use the Welsh language in the context of something as important as our home finances, so there's a particular responsibility to provide services in that context. Setting standards on the banks isn't an option in terms of the Welsh language Measure, but the commissioner has a relationship with the sector in this area, and she will be writing to the bank.

Jack Sargeant (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

Weinidog, I am extremely disappointed in this decision by HSBC. It's one that they should reverse immediately. In their announcement in their letter to Members of the Senedd today, they have single-handedly failed to understand the importance of Cymraeg to the people of Cymru. Cymraeg is a living language. It's the preferred choice of many when accessing banking services. Weinidog, do you agree with me that this is another example of high-street banks letting communities down, and it should be a wake-up call to them? And our message to the banking sector should be that we expect more service in Cymraeg, including in person, online and phone services. And do you agree with me further, Minister, that this makes the case stronger for a fully bilingual community bank for Cymru?

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

I certainly agree with the last point that the Member made about the importance of a community bank for Wales able to provide the needs of customers in both languages in Wales—indeed, in a multiplicity of languages in Wales, as it happens. I do agree with him that the letter is disappointing. I think there's a challenge, isn't there, for banks to think imaginatively about how they can apply in a national context within the UK that which they are rightly so proud of delivering internationally—an ability for customers right across the world to have services in the language of their choice. That applies equally within the UK, in Wales, as it does in any of the many, many countries in which these banks operate very successfully and are very proud of the work that they do there. I think the challenge is for the bank to look again at how it can deploy the existing Welsh language workforce that it has, what thought has been given to the contribution that might be made in that context. If it is true to say, as the letter sets out, that they are getting 22 calls a day, one would not have thought that the requirement to resource that was so burdensome as to put it beyond their capacity to think creatively about this.

Rhun ap Iorwerth (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I'll declare an interest as a customer of HSBC and one who uses the Welsh language line. In my constituency, as across Wales, banks, including HSBC, have turned their backs on their communities in terms of the physical presence. But no matter, the banks say, you can bank online or by phone. As it happens, my branch is still open. Over the years I've always banked there through the medium of Welsh, and that's very important to me. I can't bank online through the medium of Welsh. I've asked HSBC why not. The suggestion is that they're working on this. But I have, to date, been able to bank by phone through the medium of Welsh. Not enough of us do that, according to HSBC. But in response to the Minister, no, it isn't as easy. There's a number on my bank card for how to contact HSBC. That's not the Welsh language line, but the English language line. So we need to work on that. But the service is closing in this way:

Rhun ap Iorwerth (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

'We have confirmed that all customers are able to bank in English'.

Rhun ap Iorwerth (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

(1) it's not true—there are some people who are far more confident banking through the medium of Welsh; and (2) if that's the attitude, why do anything through the medium of Welsh if we can all speak English? And this comes from a bank that has a very strong tradition of support for the Welsh language. The Midland, I think, the predecessor of HSBC, was the very first advertiser on S4C, and Emrys Evans, behind his desk, saying 'The Midland Bank has done its best for Wales over the years', if I remember that rightly. I'm quite sure that Emrys Evans would be very disappointed with this decision today. Does the Minister agree with me that this is a step that is contrary to the message the banks want us to hear, namely that when they close branches, that they do continue to serve the communities in alternative ways?

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

I do agree with that. It is also contrary to our aim as a Government, which is shared widely across this Senedd, that the Welsh language belongs to us all, and that people should have the opportunity to use the language in doing something as personal as banking.

Alun Davies (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

Like Rhun ap Iorwerth, I'm a customer of HSBC, and I'm disappointed with the letter that we received this morning—as the commissioner was before the committee answering questions on all of this, as it happens. I think we need to respond in two ways. First, as has been mentioned already during this session, the main method of banking at the moment is through apps and online and I think that we do need to emphasise the need for bilingual provision in the apps that we use. I think that's more important in a way than the telephone line.

And secondly, we need to have a discussion amongst ourselves as Welsh-speaking Welsh people to use more of the services that are currently available. Because one of the issues that we see, and you'll understand this, Minister, is that organisations provide a Welsh language service, but it isn't being used. And that's happened time and time again, because, as Welsh people, sometimes we choose to use the English language, and sometimes we feel more comfortable speaking English, and other times we don't know that the Welsh language provision is available. So, I do think we need to think about that and to ensure that the technology that we currently use is available through the medium of Welsh, and the apps, telephones and so on don't care what language you use, of course, and that's where the future lies.

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

Well, I agree with the Member on that and his commitment to Welsh-medium technology is well known and clear, and I share that commitment. We talk regularly, don't we, about usage, usage, usage being the way to ensure that our language prospers, and we have to look at that in the broadest sense, and what the Member said is quite right in that regard. We perhaps need, not just to use the Welsh language in our communities, but make the conscious decision—each and every one of us who can—to choose to use services in the Welsh language so that we show that the type of demand that is certainly true on the ground—that that happens in these services as well.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

And finally, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Mabon ap Gwynfor (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, I too bank with HSBC, and I and my family went to the Midland at that time because they provided services through the medium of Welsh and because they were supportive of the Welsh language. So, I've been very disappointed by this announcement on a personal level. But as you can imagine, Minister, in Dwyfor Meirionydd, there are Welsh-speaking communities with people who want to bank and want to live their lives through the medium of Welsh.

We've heard about banks closing time and time again, with HSBC coming to us to say, 'Well, don't worry, you'll have this provision on the phone, you'll have this provision through several other ways.' And now, the only provision that they have through the medium of Welsh, namely the phone service, is being closed, so they're letting our communities down once again.

I, as it happens, am one of those who banks with an app too. There is no Welsh-medium service there, so I would urge you to have a conversation with the bank to put pressure on them to provide these services through the medium of Welsh and to maintain that telephone service, particularly for those older people who feel far more comfortable banking through the medium of Welsh and who need this service.

But further to that, doesn't it show that the 1993 Welsh Language Act originally, which includes public services, is insufficient and that the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 isn't sufficiently robust and that we need to adapt this legislation to include essential services provided privately, such as banking, and ensure that banks are included in legislation to ensure that they provide Welsh-medium services and bilingual services?

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

Well, regulation is one approach. We have a joint programme to extend standards. I should declare that I don't bank with HSBC as it happens. [Laughter.] Everyone seems to be informing us of who they bank with, but just to be clear on that.

I would also say that what's encapsulated in the Member's question is this: there are changes happening in our communities and some of those changes are detrimental to people's relationship with their high street and with their wider communities, but there is also a broad understanding that changes at one level are inevitable. But in order to maintain people's faith in the commitments that companies and organisations make as a result of those changes, we must ensure that the promises made, in terms of service provision, are kept, and also, in going through that process, that these companies should seek creative, alternative ways of continuing to meet the needs that are so apparent, and they should do that by using technology and other approaches. So, I do hope that the bank can look again at this decision. And I will be having further conversations with the commissioner on that issue.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

I thank the Minister.

4. 90-second Statements

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

Item 4 is the 90-second statements, and the first statement is from Jane Dodds.

Jane Dodds (Liberal Democrat, Mid and West Wales)

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Malcolm Eager, known as Mac, has just retired after 34 years as a street cleaner. He joined Brecknock borough council in 1989, which then became Powys County Council. Mac's jobs were varied—he would cut grass, wash down the cattle market, put up and clear up after the market, empty our bins, grit our pavements and clean our streets. Every morning, he would get up at 5 a.m., and worked one weekend every month, whilst in work. This Christmas, following his retirement, will be the first Christmas he has had off. The Hay literary festival would bring extra challenges. He has worked every single festival, and extra hours, to empty the bins and ensure the town of Hay looks its best.

Mac has taken pride in his work, wanting to make sure the streets are clean and safe—in making sure, for example, broken bottles are cleaned up as quickly as possible. He has been trained in first aid, which meant that, early one morning, he was able to save the life of a gentleman who had collapsed, and he administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Mac has been awarded the citizen of the year award, shortlisted for the above-and-beyond award, and, in 2013, he switched on the Hay Christmas lights. Two years ago, he attended the royal Christmas carol service at Westminster Abbey. Today, I am pleased to thank Mac, on the record of the Welsh Parliament, for his public service, after 34 years as a street cleaner. Thank you, Mac. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

John Griffiths (Labour, Newport East)

This week is Living Wage Week. By paying the real living wage, employers are voluntarily taking a stand to ensure their employees can earn an amount that is sufficient to live on. It is calculated now to be £12 per hour, for 2023-24, up from £10.90 for the previous year, based on the rising cost of living. The rates were announced on 24 October, and employers have six months, until 1 May next year, to implement them. Here in Wales, this has meant that over 22,000 people will receive a pay rise, from 561 accredited employers, including 327 private sector companies, 49 in the public sector, and 185 in the third sector. As well as it being the morally right thing to do, there is a growing body of evidence demonstrating the business benefits of becoming a living wage employer. In 2018 analysis by the Smith Institute found a subsequent increase in wages, productivity and spending, delivering an economic boost. When workers earn enough to live, they have more income to spend in the local economy. I am proud that, in Newport East, there are a number of employers of all sizes who voluntarily pay their staff the living wage, including Newport and Monmouthshire councils, Shine Catering Systems, and Alliance Marketing Agency, to name just a few who go above and beyond to support their workforce.

Cefin Campbell (Plaid Cymru, Mid and West Wales)

A stone’s throw from the Dulas river, in a former quarry on the western fringes of beautiful Montgomeryshire, lies a small centre of international renown. I refer, of course, to the Centre for Alternative Technology—CAT—which is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary this month. I remember visiting the site decades ago, as a child, seeing with my own eyes the strange, unfamiliar concepts being demonstrated there by an alternative group of long-haired eco-activists—much to my own initial suspicion, and, to be honest, that of a number of others in the wider Dyfi valley community.

But little did I know at the time how advanced and innovative these ideas about the environment, sustainability and renewable energy would prove to be. And over the decades, it has been wonderful to see the centre, its ideas and its work going from strength to strength, earning its place in Montgomeryshire, and developing as a progressive cornerstone, not just in Wales, but the UK and the world, in striving for a greener future.

Today, as the climate emergency intensifies, and with the pressing need for us to decarbonise at an ever faster rate, the centre’s work is more important than ever, and it's responded by developing a wide range of training opportunities and innovative courses. The centre is also a very important employer and a major tourism resource for mid Wales, welcoming tens of thousands of visitors every year.

So, simply put, heartfelt congratulations to the centre on reaching this milestone, and the very best of luck to it in its future work.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

I thank the Members.

5. Debate on the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee Report, 'Post-EU regional development funding'

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

Item 5 is the debate on the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee report, 'Post-EU regional development funding'. And I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Paul Davies.

Paul Davies (Conservative, Preseli Pembrokeshire)

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I move the motion tabled in my name. Dirprwy Lywydd, examining how regional development funding is being delivered following our exit from the EU has been a big priority for our committee. Our report follows on from work by the Finance Committee to look at the quantum of funding coming to Wales under the shared prosperity fund, and other support programmes the UK Government has introduced as part of its levelling-up agenda.

Now, we made 24 recommendations, and notably, although a number of these were referred to the Welsh Government for a response, all 24 were also directed at the UK Government, given that post-EU funding is now being provided to Wales from a UK-level. We had invited a UK Minister to give oral evidence to our inquiry, and although this did not happen, we received written evidence from the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for levelling up, Dehenna Davison MP. Members can see that both Governments have responded to our report, and I welcome the Minister for Economy accepting those recommendations directed at the Welsh Government, and note he supports our findings.

We're all familiar with the arguments in this Chamber, and beyond, about whether the funds Wales is receiving through the shared prosperity fund match what we would have received if we were still in the EU. Like the Finance Committee before us, we were not able to fully answer this vexed question on which the UK Government and Welsh Government disagree. We heard a wide range of views on this issue. In the words of Professor Steve Fothergill, an expert in economic regeneration who gave evidence to us, and I quote:

'It's a very odd situation to be in, to say that both parties are right in all of this, but they are, because they're looking at rather different things. One's looking at actual spending in financial years, and, in that sense, the UK Government is correct; the Welsh Government is looking at financial commitments, which is a different measure, and Vaughan Gething is correct on that front.'

Our first recommendation was that before any further funding rounds are announced, both Governments seek to reach a common position on the timing of the roll-out and the quantum of funding. The UK Government’s response says that the terms for any future iteration of the UK shared prosperity fund will be guided by the development of the UK Government’s next spending review, and that the evaluation exercise for the current round, and the experiences and perspectives of local partners in Wales, will be taken into account. The response also says that the UK Government will engage with the Welsh Government on future decisions.

Our inquiry did not just look at the amount of money, we examined how the funds are being delivered. We wanted to know what has worked well and what hasn’t, and how we can be assured of efficient and effective delivery of future rounds of regional funding. We identified some teething problems with these first funding rounds, and some important lessons to be learnt for future rounds.

Now, one of the key themes emerging from the evidence to us was the need to make spending decisions at the right level. Welsh local authorities were pleased with the opportunity to decide priorities locally and to have control over delivery. However, tight timescales to develop investment plans, delays to approving these and the short time frame to spend funds have hampered their ability to plan and deliver projects that will transform their areas.

However, we also heard strong evidence from the Institute of Welsh Affairs, Universities Wales, Cwmpas and others that there is scope for greater collaboration to spend funds more strategically. We heard of the difficulties that organisations operating across more than one local authority area were facing in applying for funding. To strike a balance between these differing challenges, we recommended that both Governments review which elements of the shared prosperity fund should be delivered at a local, regional or all-Wales level. In response, the UK Government has pointed to its evaluation strategy as a tool for this, and to the autonomy of local authorities to make decisions on this.

We heard widespread concerns about the lack of Welsh Government involvement in the design and implementation of the funds, and the impacts this has had on delivery. Concerns were particularly focused on duplication, for example, with the Multiply programme, and in policy areas such as business support and skills. We recommended that the UK Government looks at how Welsh Government can aid in the design and delivery of future funding rounds to help address these issues, and the UK Government’s response recognises the Welsh Government’s role in that process. There are good examples of joint working between the two Governments, such as city and growth deals and free ports. That should be the starting point for determining future arrangements.

We made a number of recommendations relating to the importance of being able to plan on a regional basis, to allow for partnership working, prevent duplication and make the money work hard to address the key challenges. The importance of proper consultation with Welsh Government and between partners is something our report highlights. We heard concern about local authorities prioritising their own projects in some parts of Wales, and the ability of other organisations to effectively engage in the process of applying for funding. We want to be sure that all organisations have a fair chance of accessing future funds.

Recruitment and retention of staff in smaller organisations, due to the narrow funding windows, was a major concern. And the higher education sector and trade unions also expressed grave concerns about bridging the gap in funding after the European social fund programme ends, citing significant job losses and a loss of expertise. The UK Minister’s evidence pointed to the need for the higher education sector to adapt to a new funding landscape, but Members shared the concerns about potential job losses, and we recommended that both Governments work together, and, indeed, with the sector, to address concerns and to safeguard research and innovation here in Wales. Both Government responses on this last point are generally positive, pointing to the memoranda of understanding between Innovate UK and the Welsh Government. The committee will also be examining support for research and development in more detail at our next formal meeting.

While much of the evidence focused on the shared prosperity fund, the levelling-up fund was also raised with us. We recommended that it move away from an inefficient competitive approach to bidding, and that, if the fund continues, then future funding should be allocated to those areas that need levelling-up the most.

It is important that all levels of Government work together to contribute to a successful Welsh economy. To help deliver this, we also call for certainty about whether these programmes will continue beyond 2025, and for clarity about how much funding will be made available. So with that, Dirprwy Lywydd, I’d like to thank everyone who engaged with the committee’s inquiry, and also thank the team who supported Members with it, and I look forward to hearing Members’ views, and I commend this report to the Senedd. Diolch.

Luke Fletcher (Plaid Cymru, South Wales West)

I'll start by thanking, of course, Paul Davies, who chaired our inquiry, managed to keep us all in line a bit when we went a bit off track, and, of course, thank you to the clerks for putting this together, and all those who gave evidence.

The report really does set out, I think, that disagreement between the Welsh Government and UK Government around the quantum of funds made available to Wales through post-EU regional development funding. And I think the evidence we've received was interesting, to say the least, especially from Professor Steve Fothergill, who told the committee, as we've already heard, that both Governments were right in their views, because they were talking about different things and measuring in different ways. But, I think, whatever way you slice it, it is clear that Wales will lose out from the end of EU structural funding.

Even if we take what the UK Government is saying as right and we take them at their word that annual spending through the SPF will eventually match annual average EU funding in Wales, a key advantage of EU structural funding was its multi-annual frameworks, thereby allowing for longer term planning and budgeting. Now, as it stands, SPF funding doesn't act in the same way. It doesn't allow for long-term or strategic project design, and Universities Wales agreed, saying available grants were too small with too tight a timescale to allow for meaningful, strategic and joined-up bids to be developed. So this, for me, is a key point in our findings and a key takeaway. How can we best utilise funding meant for, at its base level, economic development, if we are running said funding on an annual basis? It doesn't make sense. And the reality is that we're already seeing the impact of the end of EU structural funding; it's meant, for example, the end of Fflecsi Bwcabus services in Ceredigion, sir Gâr and sir Benfro, which was previously in receipt of rural development funding. Now, governance and structuring are absolutely a critical issue with post-EU development funds. The roll-out of the schemes has been haphazard and delayed, with knock-on consequences for project timetabling, and, of course, the lack of role for Welsh Government in funding decisions has meant no capacity for joined-up approaches at a regional level, or even an all-Wales level. A competitive rather than a purely needs-based approach to funding applications has led to hours wasted filling in rejected applications, duplication of projects and poor value for money, and, crucially, the way the SPF and levelling-up fund has overriden the devolution settlement in Wales is nothing but a scandal. It's a demonstration in its purest form of the muscular approach to the union that has been taken by post-Brexit Governments, and which, according to recent polling, has, if anything, made the union less secure.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd—and this is for the Minister—we are told that a Keir Starmer-led UK Labour Government would return the power to make funding decisions under the SPF to Wales. So, taking this at its face value, it's welcome. But what does this mean in practice? What would this Welsh Labour Government do differently in terms of delivering post-EU funding? This is, I think, a particularly important question, given, as outlined in the report, the failure of Welsh Labour Governments to use EU structural funds to catalyse economic transformation in Wales. So, does the Minister acknowledge that the long-term impact of EU structural funds in Wales has been limited, and what would he do to ensure that any mistakes were learned from, if and when he assumed responsibility for delivering regional development funding, and how would he look to ensure no repetition of the kinds of UK Government overreach that have defined the SPF and levelling-up fund to date? Diolch.

Vikki Howells (Labour, Cynon Valley)

I'd like to begin my contribution today by also thanking everyone who has supported this inquiry, and all those who took the time to give us such valuable evidence. Along with other Members, I know I found this to be a really useful piece of work, and, when we consider some of the sums involved, it's also a crucially important area for us to be considering, to make sure the most effective use of this funding is found, to boost our economy, create jobs, and enhance the prosperity of Wales, and, of course, to do this in some of our most economically disadvantaged communities in particular, such as some of the ones that I represent in Cynon Valley.

What did our inquiry tell us? Well, many of our findings were well rehearsed, yet, in light of their critical nature, it's only right that they're stated and explored again. For example, the inquiry highlighted that use of this funding should be shaped and guided by the Welsh Government, who should have a key role in governance and allocation. This is, after all, the devolved Government that is accountable to us here in the Welsh Parliament. It's only right that any future delivery model hears and respects this voice and our priorities. If the devolution settlement is to be respected, decisions as to how this regional funding within Wales is allocated should not, and must not, solely be the preserve of MPs from Surrey and Yorkshire, especially when we've seen such ministerial churn in Westminster: four different Secretaries of State for levelling up since September 2021, supported by four different junior Ministers for levelling up over the same period, giving an average life expectancy in post of a little over six months.

Disappointingly, it was also clear that funding that had been allocated may not always have been used in a way that would deliver the greatest impact or in the way that would have delivered the most beneficial outcomes. Indeed, sometimes it was clear that our most disadvantaged communities, who were most in need of this spend, and should have really benefited from its allocation the most, often seemingly were afterthoughts in the allocation process, or even missed out altogether.

Witnesses told us about local authorities who weren't awarded any funding under the levelling up. That is shameful. Partly, it was due to rushed funding arrangements that did not always have the transparency we should be able to expect, and it was concerning that a paucity of information is also something that affects our understanding of how future funding schemes will work. Indeed, this was another point that came through clearly in our inquiry. I was very struck by some of the evidence from the stakeholders around the point of how accessible they found the funding process, particularly in terms of meeting need. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very accessible and 1 being the most inaccessible, the average score was a little over 2. Now, that is clearly problematic and needs addressing.

I also want to briefly address the response from the UK Government's Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to our report. I'm afraid I find their reply more than a little cursory. Indeed, it's disappointing that the UK Government has failed to adequately respond to the concerns raised by the committee. The response from the department to our report offers some warm words about their apparent desire to engage with devolved institutions, yet they've failed to properly engage with our scrutiny of this issue, just as they have continuously, time and again, failed to properly engage with the Welsh Government. This stands in stark contrast to the Welsh Government, and I thank them for their reply. I welcome the commitment contained in their response to work with the UK Government to deliver positive change for our communities, and I also thank them for the sympathetic way that they heard our recommendations. After all, it's about getting the best for the people we represent. Thank you.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I would like to start by thanking my colleague, the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, for his excellent chairing of the inquiry, and all those who gave evidence.

Over the course of the inquiry, we received some very good evidence, provided in a balanced manner, which helped to set out, in a clear and understandable way, the route forward for post-EU regional development funding. In previous rounds of EU funding, Wales received more per person from EU structural funds than any other UK nation or region, with nearly a quarter of Wales's small and medium-sized enterprises receiving support from EU funding streams. This money has been spent on providing skills training, business support development, and research and development, all of which, according to Federation of Small Businesses research, have a net positive impact on Welsh businesses and the local area. Money allocated by the European Union during our period of membership has benefited Wales. But, taking off our rose-tinted glasses, we must not pretend that all was hunky-dory with EU funding or that it always delivered value for money.

The Welsh Government, in their response to the report, have managed to target their fire on the UK Government, claiming that schemes such as the shared prosperity fund and the levelling-up fund have undermined devolution and resulted in growth and job creation in Wales being put under threat. This conveniently ignores the problems that they are currently experiencing with the introduction and management of post-EU agricultural support schemes, which, whilst being designed and run in Wales, seem to have united the agricultural community and environmental lobby against them. It's worth drawing reference to the comments of Professor Steve Fothergill, an economist from Sheffield Hallam University, who, in evidence to us in June, said, and I quote, continuing the quote that the Chair of the committee said:

'By the time you get to the next financial year, the amount that the UK Government is putting into the shared prosperity fund does pretty much match what the EU funds were previously worth, with a tweak for inflation.'

I know the Minister disputes this, and it falls down to different ways of calculating the funding, as we've heard, and whether legacy funding is included or not, but, as I'm a born optimist, I would rather remain hopeful that Professor Fothergill's assessment is correct, and the Welsh Government need to exercise caution when bandying around the figures that are disputed.

The same evidence session saw mention of £0.5 billion of underspend in structural funding that was at risk of being paid back. Both the Minister and his official disputed this would happen when the evidence was heard, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister if this has been ratified or concluded. The Welsh Government were careful to pick which recommendations they would respond to in our report, keeping their counsel on solely UK Government recommendations and maintaining a theme throughout that they should have more, and, at times, full, involvement in the decision-making process of where and how money is spent. Whilst I do feel that there are shortcomings in the Westminster Government approach, it does frustrate me how the Welsh Government thinks that it is they, and only they, that can serve the best interests of the people of Wales. I'm a devolutionist, a proud Welshman and a unionist, and I see no issue with the UK Government spending UK taxpayers' money in the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

The inquiry did highlight, especially in recommendations 3, 5 and 7, how engagement should improve between the Welsh and UK Government to more effectively deliver funding programmes. Problems caused by some local authorities not having the expertise available to effectively bid and deliver on large funding projects was mentioned. The UK Government's response to the report does outline how it was expected that Welsh Government officials would be working with local partnership groups to deliver on projects, and it is unclear whether this always happened. We have two great examples, as the Chair said, where a large-scale collaborative working approach between the two Governments and local authorities has been effective in both the awarding of two free ports in Wales and also the city deals, which have seen a number of local authorities come together to work with both the UK and Welsh Governments.

I was pleased to see the acknowledgement in the response from the United Kingdom Government that lessons learnt from the initial rounds of funding schemes will be implemented in further rounds of funding. European Union funding has been allocated in a similar way for so many years during the UK's membership of the EU that it is only natural that when structures and funding providers change, then teething problems will occur. It is important that we listen to the feedback and improve as we move forward, and I feel that this inquiry has helped set out routes to make that possible.

As a Senedd Member representing a rural constituency, I felt that I should conclude my contribution this afternoon by highlighting the Federation of Small Businesses's view that

'one of the greatest positives coming from the current post-Brexit funding is that it is open to more Local Authorities than EU Structural Funds which means authorities previously exempt by Objective One or Convergence Funding criteria, now have access to potential funding.'

This will open new opportunities to areas of rural Wales that were exempt from previous funding, and surely this can only be a good thing. I remain optimistic that the replacement EU structural funding will deliver for Wales. Were EU structural funds perfect? No. Has the first iteration of post-EU funding been perfect? No, but I strongly believe that our committee's inquiry will help improve collaborative working, push for learning from previous mistakes, and also improve the bang for our buck that we get from funding. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Alun Davies (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

I'd like to start by congratulating the committee on this report, but also by congratulating the Chair on his leadership of the committee. I think the Member for Preseli, whom I've known for many, many years, has always been a very impressive committee Chair and leader, and I think we should across the Chamber recognise his leadership role here as well. And it's a very timely report, of course, because it was published in September, just weeks before the United Kingdom Government cancelled the second part of the HS2 project. Now, there are many of us who believed that levelling up and the whole agenda of levelling up had died long before then, but even if it was potentially on life support, it was certainly buried by the HS2 decision. And it would be useful, I think, for us to revise our thinking on many of these regional policy issues in the light of that.

I'm always interested to take part in debates on this because I think there's always been this idea that EU funding—the structural funds, the cohesion funds—were some sort of panacea to all our economic illnesses—that, in some way, the funding we received through the EU sources would transform the Welsh economy in a matter of months or years. I remember the former First Minister, back here 20-odd years ago now, Rhodri Morgan, who always had a very good turn of phrase, but sometimes, unfortunately, it would come back to perhaps be remembered too literally. He said it was a once in a lifetime opportunity. I think that was back in 2000. The EU funding arrangements were put in place and the west Wales and the Valleys region was created in order to create the opportunity to achieve European funding through these particular mechanisms. There was never a belief that, in a seven-year period, you could change the economy of Wales, re-engineer a century of decline. That was never the belief, but somehow in public debate people believed that was going to be possible. And then, believing this false prospectus, we've had analysis after analysis explaining why this false prospectus, which was never going to succeed, hasn't succeeded, and the Member for south Pembrokeshire gave us an example of that muddled thinking earlier.

In terms of where we are, I believe that we need to think hard about how regional policy works. The fundamental part of European regional policy and of UK regional policy was always that of additionality, that this funding isn't provided to do what Governments were already going to do and should be doing, providing public services and the rest of it, but additionality, providing additional funds to do additional projects that would invest in additional wealth creation projects, whether that's infrastructure or investment in people, or other things. What we've never done is learn the lessons from that effectively, because the committee report says that there were teething issues in the shared prosperity fund, and that the UK Government response says lessons should be learnt. Lessons have been learnt, and this is what I find so extraordinary about this debate that we’re having today, as if we haven’t learnt any lessons over the years. And this is the real tragedy that the UK Government has made in terms of its approach to policy.

Reports were published a decade ago about Objective 1 and the failures and the lessons learnt from Objective 1, that it was a piecemeal programme, that projects were too small scale, led by local government, unable to work together, and that we needed longer term projects over a greater region, of greater scale. These lessons were all learnt. The UK Government just ignored those lessons in some frenzied ideological demand to exclude people from being a part of regional policies. We all knew this. Reports were published, laid. I’ve debated them before. We knew all of this, and yet it was ignored. And so these are not teething problems, they’re fundamental errors in the engineering of these projects.

So, what do we do? I believe that we need to do a number of different things, and one of them was referred to by the First Minister yesterday. We need to move beyond. The committee report sets a good basis for taking us forward on this. We need a multi-annual funding structure that delivers funds over a period of time to achieve particular objectives. We need a budget—and this is what the First Minister said yesterday. He made the point that the Barnett formula was out of date, was out of time and should be put into the history books. That is absolutely the case. We need a funding structure that is fair, that is based on need and that delivers for people in different parts of the United Kingdom.

We also need to move away from the complexity and confusion. There's the Multiply project in this report, and the report describes very well how that has created complexity and confusion, and hasn’t resolved it. But we need, more than anything, governance, and parts of the United Kingdom working together. We cannot have an arrogant Government in London dictating to the rest of the United Kingdom what levelling up means and what the post-EU project looks like. We need respect, and I’m old enough to remember David Cameron—we had conversations about it at the time—

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

The Member needs to conclude now.

Alun Davies (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

And I hope that what we'll be able to do with an incoming Labour Government is to have a respectful relationship across these islands, delivering resources and funding to where they're needed, managed collectively for the greater good. Thank you.

Carolyn Thomas (Labour, North Wales)

I would also like to thank the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee for an excellent report. Wales was a net beneficiary of EU funding, an estimation of £79 per head. Of course, not all benefits were monetary. There was also smooth movement and less bureaucracy as well. I'm pleased that the ETRA committee have recommended greater involvement for the Welsh Government and noted that stakeholders believe that the absence of Welsh Government-level co-ordination in the development of delivery of the shared prosperity fund has led to a negative impact.

Local authority officers I've spoken to have said that it has been like going back years to the start of European funding and starting all over again, as my colleague Alun Davies just mentioned. The SPF has led to issues with planning and delivering projects due to the short timescales put in place by the UK Government and concerns about the duplication of efforts by local authorities and Welsh Government. Higher education are concerned about missing out altogether on schemes such as the TRAC scheme, delivered across local authority boundaries in north Wales. Other regional and Wales-wide projects have been particularly affected. We recently heard of the collapse of Chwarae Teg and community buses, as Luke mentioned earlier. Universities are suggesting that around 1,000 jobs are at risk. Lead local authorities receive the funding, but then each local authority has its own priorities and delivery plans, and then it's divided up amongst themselves, so it's not working very well. A whole sector is missing out.

Regarding the levelling-up fund, the competitive bidding approach was criticised as being inefficient and not targeting areas most in need of support. There were two high-priority bids rejected in Wrexham and Flintshire. They were told they were excellent, but the funding was restricted and very competitive. It had taken a lot of valuable resources and collaboration with partners, including Transport for Wales, but they were rejected twice.

I am a member of the culture committee, which includes international relations, and we've been doing some investigations into post-Brexit impacts—and we have the Chair, Delyth, also sitting here—on relations between Ireland and Wales, and also on artists travelling across Wales, the UK and Europe. There are more trade barriers between the UK and EU post Brexit and, at the same time, EU funding programmes have ended, with the exception of Horizon, causing issues. Witnesses have told ETRA and the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee—long title—that replacement funds don't have an international dimension that supports collaboration, and amounts are much less, so only allow for small-scale cross-border and international collaboration. The UK is no longer part of the EU's INTERREG funding, which the Welsh Government says poses a considerable threat to the sustainability of many networks. All these need addressing so that Wales is not left behind, and important relationships and programmes can continue. We need long-term, fair funding, including all levels of government in partnership together. Thank you.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

I call on the Minister for Economy, Vaughan Gething.

Vaughan Gething (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to start by thanking the committee for their work and their report on post-EU funding in Wales and, of course, our partners across Wales who provided evidence to support the inquiry.

We accept the report's recommendations aimed at the Welsh Government and share the committee's concerns about the UK Government's approach to post-EU funding in Wales. Regrettably, many of the report's recommendations and acknowledgements echo points that we have been making for several years about the consequences of chaotic and unwelcome decisions made by the UK Government.

I'm pleased that the committee concluded that the Welsh Government should have been involved in developing and delivering this funding. Regional economic development and adult numeracy are plainly devolved areas. The UK Government's deliberate and unacceptable entry into this space, without the involvement of the Welsh Government or this Senedd, has created a fragmented and complemented funding landscape, as well as a host of other problems we've heard about in this debate and in the report that I am afraid will create lasting damage to important sectors of our economy.

Indeed, many of the problems highlighted in the report would have been avoided if the UK Government had respected the work undertaken in Wales and allowed us to manage full replacement funding through the framework for regional investment with scrutiny by this elected Parliament. That framework was developed in consensus with our partners and the OECD for the very purpose of delivering post-EU funding and it was supported by a public consultation.

I welcome the committee recommendation that there should be a review of whether the shared prosperity fund should have been delivered regionally and nationally as well as locally. Whilst the SPF has supported some positive local initiatives, there is no doubt that regional approaches to economic development have been set back by the fund's design.

Due to UK Government delays, of which there have been many, chaotic design, unfeasible timescales and annualised allocations, local authorities have been under pressure from the very beginning. They had to prepare investment plans quickly with funding rounds open at different times, with different arrangements, assessment criteria and decision-making timescales, and often then, as I said, a significant delay for a UK Government decision. And in this, Alun Davies and Carolyn Thomas are right. All of the lessons learned from previous EU structural funding rounds have been thrown overboard with the SPF. This has made Wales-wide, regional or cross-border projects virtually impossible, and that is not a mistake, it is a UK Government design choice.

As a result, the greater economic impact and legacy offered by larger scale projects has been lost, and as the Chair of this committee will know, that's part of what a recommendation that he has made in a previous Senedd was, that we should have larger scale, multi-annual projects for greater return. The committee also raises potential duplication as an area that requires ongoing work. Significant time is already spent by Welsh Government and local government officials to help avoid duplication as far as possible, but the design of the fund makes that more difficult than it should be.

The committee report also concludes that bridging funding is required for sectors experiencing a financial cliff edge because they cannot access the fund at scale. Universities, colleges, businesses and the third sector across Wales have been forced to scale back services, close vital R&D and skills projects, and it has cost jobs.

Multiply is yet another example where the UK Government has gone badly wrong. It operates in direct competition with adult community learning provision that is already available in Wales. By foisting yet another incoherent and half-baked policy onto Wales, the UK Government is actually wasting public money and undermining what works well. This is sadly the real-world impact in our communities of the approach that the UK Government has chosen, despite all of the warnings—warnings not just from the Welsh Government, but from cross-party committees here and in Westminster, as well as independent commentators. It's important to remember that the UK Government promised that replacement funding would be made available to all organisations that were benefiting from former EU funds. That turned out to be yet another unkept promise, just like its pledge to fully replace Wales's level of EU funding.

On the matter that's been referred to today, I again refer Members to the written statement published by the finance Minister in May last year. That statement provides a full breakdown of the £1.1 billion loss of funding to Wales. The manifesto pledge was never that we would offset funds as yet unspent from a previous round of EU funds; it was for full replacement of the level of funding we had received. The shared prosperity fund is smaller, less flexible and narrower in scope than the former EU funds it claims to replace. It's been compounded by delays and chaotic implementation, with local authorities left in an impossible position. Little is known about the final round of the competitive levelling-up fund, but with 20 per cent of the fund remaining and all capital projects having to be completed by the end of next year, the potential for what's left is minimal. We have already begun work to refresh the framework for regional investment with our partners, and our current project with the OECD on regional working will be completed next year. This work will strengthen regional development and investment in the years ahead.

I'm grateful to the committee for their recognition of UK Government failings and I want to return to the UK Government response—plenty of warm words, as Vikki Howells said, and we've heard them before. In practice, though, the current UK Government has been a hostile actor that has never engaged meaningfully on post-EU funds and has always sought to design out a role for this Government and this Parliament. I want to just make this point clear: any person claiming to be a devolutionist should recognise the mandate of this Welsh Parliament and the Welsh Government. Two referenda and multiple elections provide us with a mandate. Any UK Government that disagrees with this Parliament and the democratically elected Welsh Government is entitled to disagree; what they are not entitled to do is to steal devolved powers and money away from us. I look forward to responsibility returning to the Welsh Government for proper scrutiny and accountability in this Parliament, and I believe that that will happen with a future UK Labour Government. Never again must a UK Government muscle into devolved areas without consent or genuine partnership. I reiterate our position in the Welsh Government: funding and decision-making powers over regional investment must be returned to the Welsh Government and this Senedd to work with our partners to create the stronger, fairer and greener Wales that I believe we all deserve.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

I call on Paul Davies to reply to the debate.

Paul Davies (Conservative, Preseli Pembrokeshire)

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank Members who contributed to this debate this afternoon? We've heard some really interesting contributions from Members and indeed from the Minister today.

Luke Fletcher, first of all, talked quite rightly about planning ahead and how important it is to have much more certainty when it comes to planning and about how financial planning on an annual basis is not good enough, because that creates financial uncertainty.

Vikki Howells's contribution emphasised the importance of Welsh Government involvement in the future delivery of these funds. She made it clear that it's not good enough that the engagement of these funds is just left to UK parliamentary MPs.

Sam Kurtz referred us back to the delivery of previous funding under EU schemes and he went on to say that there should be much better engagement between the UK and Welsh Governments. He again reiterated that both Governments can work well together, because we've seen that with city and growth deals and, indeed, with free ports.

We come to Alun Davies. I thank him for his very kind words, but I'm always nervous when he congratulates me, because I'm not sure if I'm doing my job properly. Alun went on to talk about the UK Government's approach to policy and how we are, once again, discussing lessons learned when these lessons should have already been learned in how we deliver these funds.

Carolyn Thomas also talked about the committee's recommendation around involving the Welsh Government in the future delivery of these funds. She also went on to talk about long-term and fair funding and how that is so important to the sustainability of projects going forward.

Can I also thank the Minister for accepting the committee's recommendations that are relevant to the Welsh Government? He clearly set out the Welsh Government's position here this afternoon, and, again, he echoed that lessons should have been learned in delivering these funds.

To summarise, Dirprwy Lywydd, Members have talked about the design and implementation of funding, and the committee report makes it clear that we believe a review should take place to examine the different elements of the shared prosperity fund and look at which should be delivered at local, regional or an all-Wales level based on what works best. We are united in wanting to ensure that future shared prosperity and levelling-up funding drives economic growth and prosperity across Wales.

I've heard Members' views about the Welsh Government being excluded from the delivery of these funds, and the committee report makes it crystal clear that the UK Government should consider how the Welsh Government could aid in the delivery and design of the next round of funding. Through partnership working, we can better ensure that future funds are spent with maximum efficiency and effectiveness. Both the UK Government and the Welsh Government have important roles to play, and the committee's report does call for a constructive relationship going forward.

As has already been said, we also need to learn the lessons of the past and avoid repeating mistakes. Members have talked about duplication, and organisations like the Federation of Small Businesses and the Wales Council for Voluntary Action also highlighted this problem, arguing that in some cases it may not be the best value for money or the most efficient way of delivering projects.

We've also heard about local authorities' administration of the shared prosperity fund. Throughout the inquiry, organisations told us that they believe local authorities are prioritising their own projects before others are given a chance to access funds. Again, the committee has recommended that action is taken to ensure that all organisations are given a chance to benefit from this funding.

Finally, Members have highlighted future funding post 2025. The committee considered the issue of streamlining funding in future and pulling everything together into a superfund, or keeping the shared prosperity fund separate from other funding streams. Our report makes it clear that, on balance, and in the absence of strong arguments to the contrary, the committee felt that, going forward, a separate but reformed shared prosperity fund would be a better approach. Indeed, recommendation 23 states that

'The UK Government should continue to operate a separate, but reformed, Shared Prosperity Fund after the current fund ends in March 2025.'

Recommendation 24 calls on the UK Government to

'clarify its intentions for the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund post-2025 as soon as possible.'

So, Dirprwy Lywydd in closing, can I thank those who have contributed to the debate this afternoon? Members' contributions, as ever, have been very insightful, and I think I speak for the whole committee when I say that this has been a particularly interesting inquiry. The Minister has also been very clear in what he wants to see going forward, and he is right to say that the involvement of the Welsh Government could help avoid duplication of services, blurred accountability and poor value for money. So, moving forward, the committee will be keeping a close eye on the delivery of regional development funding, and we will look to scrutinise any new developments on this front, as they take place. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

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

6. Welsh Conservatives Debate: Water quality

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

Item 6 is next, the Welsh Conservatives debate on water quality. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the motion.

Janet Finch-Saunders (Conservative, Aberconwy)

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. What better sign of our collective passion for our environment than the interest shown by this Senedd, its Members and, indeed, our country in water pollution? Currently, there is real public dissatisfaction with water quality in Wales, and that is no surprise. Just think, in the last two weeks, headlines have included,

'People warned not to go in the sea at 16 Welsh beaches'

from WalesOnline,

‘Welsh Water boss defends company over Teifi sewage spills'—

that was the Western Telegraph—

and

‘Welsh Water admits illegally spilling sewage for years’

from the BBC.

Janet Finch-Saunders (Conservative, Aberconwy)

There were over 83,000 spills in Wales in 2022, accounting for 592,569 hours of spillage. The number of sewage spills in Wales accounted for 25 per cent of all discharges across Wales and England, yet we only have around 5.5 per cent of the population. And some of the UK’s most polluted rivers are here in Wales. They are the River Teifi, River Usk, River Wye, River Tywi, the Menai strait and the River Taff. This isn’t good enough when water customers in Wales are facing high bills. Dŵr Cymru customers are experiencing the second highest average bill in Wales and England at £499 a year, with the average bill across England and Wales at £448.

However, there is room for some optimism. Welsh Water’s proposed increase by 2030 is actually below the average sector price, and is projected to be the seventh highest going forwards. Wales’s largest water company has submitted its proposed business plan for 2025 to 2030 to Ofwat, and if approved, the plan will result in the company’s biggest-ever investment programme, worth £3.5 billion over the five years, and that will be equivalent to a 68 per cent increase on the investment between 2020 and 2025. Welsh Water is committing to invest nearly £1.9 billion in the environment between 2025 and 2030. That is 84 per cent more than across 2020-25. This will include substantially reducing phosphorus discharges from wastewater treatments to rivers in special areas of conservation, and starting on a multi-AMP programme to stop its network of 2,300 storm overflows causing ecological harm to rivers in its operating area.

Now, this sounds really positive. However, it does remain the case that the water company’s own aim is to only reduce the total number of pollution incidents by 24 per cent by 2030. And for all of us sat here, when we’re challenging these kind of pollution incidents, of course we want the highest possible reduction in these pollution incident numbers. Welsh Water has claimed that to get storm overflows down to 10 or 20 spills a year would cost between £9 billion and £14 billion. So, when so much more investment is needed, I have real concerns about the bonuses paid to this organisation. So, I’m pleased, as our group, to support the amendments by Plaid Cymru.

A number of wastewater treatment plants under Welsh Water have been found to have been operating in breach of their permits for years, and it does question, again, our enforcement procedures, the work of NRW and the work of the Welsh Government in holding these people to account. Now, I do understand the Minister’s position on this, whereby if you keep on expensive enforcement and the penalty costs could actually then be being spent defending these enforcement measures, and the fines that follow, when really, we all want to see that money reinvested to the company so that they can actually do what we want them to do, and that’s to spend on the infrastructure and maintenance to ensure we’re not seeing shocking numbers of pollution incidents.

A report analysed the performance of 11 sewage treatment works in Wales from 2018 to 2023. Of these treatment works, it found that 10 had been releasing untreated sewage in breach of their permits. In Llanrwst, in my own constituency, there were 82 breaches, resulting in 168 million litres being spilled. In Ruthin, there were 105, which accounted for 182 million litres in spillages. Recurring breaches are now the norm and it's completely unacceptable. We need to completely reform our enforcement procedures.

Janet Finch-Saunders (Conservative, Aberconwy)

When we see regular media coverage of water quality and receive concerns from constituents, ultimately, the aim is the same: for pollution to stop. I believe that Welsh Government is currently undermining that process. So, firstly, as I've said before many times, enforcement is ineffective, so it would be good to see a better way forward where, when these incidents occur, there is a way that the Welsh Government can work with NRW and the water company to ensure that you get some obligations on their behalf that this is going to stop. And I'd be wanting to know exactly what caused it. In one instance, there was reported pollution in my own constituency, and people were making me aware of hundreds of dead fish in a particular river. Anyway, I went along to the water company. I reported it to them and they said, 'Yes, we've self-referred to NRW.' I contacted NRW at the time and I wasn't really convinced—well, it doesn't take much to not convince someone when you don't get a response. So, I went along, and I was shocked. It was out of the hands of Welsh Water in terms of plastic wet wipes. They'd completely brought the whole system of the treatment works to a halt in this particular aspect, and that is what had caused it to back up and cause pollution, killing hundreds and hundreds of fish. So again we, in our own human behaviour, should be doing all we can to ensure our waters are not polluted. It's no good us all moaning about these pollution incidents and then flushing down the toilet plastic wet wipes—although our Minister has been very proactive. We all need to see alternatives to plastic in wet wipes now.

In England, in the event of an environmental permitting regulation breach, the Environment Agency can accept an enforcement undertaking. So, that's an undertaking—that's a commitment to address the conduct causing the breach, to rectify it and to restore it back to normality. However, in Wales, that is not currently an option open to NRW, and there is little opportunity for Dŵr Cymru to offer environmental undertakings. Welsh Government should use its powers to enable NRW to allow companies such as Welsh Water to accept an enforcement undertaking so that they improve the environment local to the harm. As it stands, whilst it is shocking that Welsh Water was fined for just 1 per cent of permit breaches investigated in the past five years—I didn't know this, but the money they have paid has actually gone to the UK Treasury. So, we need to look again at how that works in terms of enforcement, because what incentive is there if that money is not going to be allowed to be put back into the system to ensure that pollution incidents don't occur.

Another step that is required to help stop pollution is the setting of ambitious targets for water companies. For England, the UK Government's storm overflows discharge reduction plan outlines that, by 2035, water companies will have to improve all storm overflows discharging in or near designated bathing water and improve 75 per cent of overflows discharging into high-priority nature sites. And by 2050, that target is to extend to all remaining storm overflows. I believe we should be following that lead, and we need to impose legally binding targets on Dŵr Cymru and Natural Resources Wales to improve our overflows.

We've wasted seven months of valuable time—and when I say 'we', actually I don't mean 'we', I mean Welsh Government have wasted seven months of valuable time publishing a very much delayed storm overflow report. And surprisingly, there are no recommendations, which is baffling at a time when people are more aware of pollution incidents and are raising them with us as Members of the Senedd. It does have helpful costings, however, on potential options for managing storm overflows, but there is a major flaw. The report fails to address or even acknowledge the use of unpermitted pipes. In 2022 there were 3,299 discharge incidents from pipes without permits, and that has increased by 43 per cent since 2020. Thankfully, however, Welsh Water is now working with NRW to agree permits for the 147 unpermitted storm overflows—and these were built, of course, prior to privatisation.

Finally, we could help stop pollution by ensuring that we are collating the correct data. Event duration monitors only count how often storm overflows are in use, not the volume nor the environmental impact; the latter is key. And this Senedd should help inform the public that storm overflow activity does not necessarily equate to a pollution incident. Again, I'll cite my own experience in my constituency; recently, people saw frothy water down in the West Shore at Llandudno and immediately, it was a pollution incident. It was examined, investigated and it turned out not to be so. So, we need to see a shift to reporting on the actual environmental impact of discharges and direct significant resources towards improving the worst environmental events.

Change needs to be led at the top from this Government. It speaks volumes that the Welsh Labour amendment states:

'will use its powers to ensure all water companies in Wales reduce pollution incidents year on year'.

See, I take the use of the word 'will' to be admittance that you are not currently using your powers effectively. So, the Welsh Conservative motion, and additions by Plaid Cymru, offer a new approach to improving water quality in Wales.

We need strict and strong leadership on this issue. We need you, as a Government, to be working with NRW and Dŵr Cymru far more closely, and I urge the Senedd to back the motion in the name of my colleague Darren Millar, and also the amendment by Heledd Fychan. Thank you. Diolch.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. And I call on the Minister for Climate Change to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths.

Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)

Formally.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

I call on Delyth Jewell to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan.

Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to move the amendment and encourage Members to support the amendment 2. The amendment calls for sufficient resources to be made available to enable Natural Resources Wales to discharge their responsibilities effectively. It calls for mechanisms to be put in place to prevent bonus payments to executive staff if Dŵr Cymru cannot fulfil their responsibilities in terms of water quality, and, finally, it calls for the work of implementing robust environmental governance frameworks in Wales to be accelerated to ensure that cases of future non-compliance are dealt with as soon as possible.

Now, concerns have been raised over the past few years regarding NRW's limited resources and their ability to fulfil their responsibilities effectively, particularly with regard to the issue of illegal sewage discharges by water companies. Now, Natural Resources Wales are responsible for an environmental oversight and environmental regulations, including those related to sewage discharge and water quality. When water companies discharge sewage illegally, they contravene these laws, and NRW are expected to take legal action to hold these companies accountable And a lack of resources and capacity within that body could lead to delays or insufficient enforcement action being taken.

To move on to the second point of our amendment, last year it was reported that Dŵr Cymru had awarded bonus payments related to performance worth almost seven figures to three chief executives over the past two years, despite the fact that the company had pumped raw sewage into the waterways of Wales on thousands of occasions. Now, I welcomed the news today that Ofwat has announced an assessment with regard to how some of these performance-based payments awarded to executives at water companies align with their duties to customers and the environment. But bearing in mind the size and scope of the environmental cuts and the increasing costs of improvements to water infrastructure, whether we're talking about water treatment works or eradicating combined storm overflows, we must ask whether it is appropriate that such executive officers receive bonus payments in these circumstances.

I think it's important to note, on this point—as we did a few weeks ago with regard to NRW—that Dŵr Cymru has staff members who are committed, who are hard-working, who feel passionately about improving these standards. It must be so difficult for individual staff members to hear some of these issues being aired. I would like to say that we do see your commitment to your work. It is appreciated, so thank you to those staff for that work.

What’s clear, of course, is that infrastructure improvements need to be delivered, and these will be costly. We need to ensure that the burden does not fall on customers, who find it difficult to pay their bills already. People in Wales already face increased costs, and higher bills during a cost-of-living crisis are difficult to justify. We believe that the polluter should pay to clean up our waters.

The situation in terms of water quality and environmental cuts notes clearly that we need to introduce robust environmental governance measures. Plaid Cymru has long called for the establishment of an environmental governance body here in Wales, after leading a debate on this issue at the Senedd in 2021, and delivering a commitment to establishing an environmental governance body through our co-operation agreement with the Welsh Government, of course. Work is ongoing, and it’s vital that we fill this governance gap before the end of this Senedd term.

I would like to remind this Senedd that Wales is the only nation in the United Kingdom at present that hasn’t established permanent environmental governance statutes following Brexit. The interim arrangements are clearly insufficient. The climate change committee has looked at this in detail. Ultimately, this means that there is a dangerous gap in terms of ensuring that public bodies comply with their responsibilities.

I agree with the climate change committee that a further delay would be an unforgivable failure for the Government, and I’m pleased that Plaid Cymru has accelerated this work. I would like to have an update from the Minister about this work when she does respond.

Yesterday, I was very pleased—. I’m aware of time, but I will say this very briefly, Dirprwy Lywydd. We have heard this week from Coed Cymru about the importance of woodland to our water quality, and I’d like to hear the Minister’s views on that as she responds. I know that I have run out of time, so I will conclude. Thank you very much.

Jenny Rathbone (Labour, Cardiff Central)

I read this report commissioned by the Welsh Government with great interest, because it contains some quite scary numbers. I think that there are several issues here. Janet is, of course, right that we, the users of water and sewage, have a duty not to chuck wet wipes, sanitary applicators and all manner of other stuff down the loo. The cost of doing the wrong thing is huge. So, to refer to what Delyth says—that the polluter should pay—obviously, it’s pretty challenging to identify who has caused the fatburg.

In terms of going back to what Janet was saying, it is not the job of consultants to produce recommendations. It’s the job of Government to take the recommendations and the analysis from the consultants and work out what to do. I think it’s very useful to have this quite technical report in front of us today—not to look at the detail, because we can look at that in the climate change committee tomorrow, but the figures are quite frightening. One of the things that was pretty alarming for me was the fact that Dŵr Cymru had to take over a whole pile of assets in 2011, without any idea of exactly what they were, what state they were in, whether they were about to collapse, whether they were legal or illegal. It would be good to know from the Minister as to whether any money went with this transfer of assets. [Interruption.] Oh, apparently not. There’s a surprise. So, you can see the level of the challenge there is for Dŵr Cymru. On top of this transfer of assets, you have all of these people who are putting in new extensions with bathrooms that they then decide not to add in to the sewerage system, and then they pollute the waters directly. It is hugely, hugely complicated. But the money—. Of the nine options, only option H, the third most expensive, would bring us up to the standard that has been established by the Environment Agency in England. Anything less and we are obviously making compromises on the grounds that we can't dump too much money on consumers' bills. So, the fourth least expensive option would cost between £7 billion and £12 billion. These are huge figures when you think about the total annual revenue that the Welsh Government has to deal with and the almost non-existent capital budget. So, that, in itself, would increase bills by between £215 and £390 a year if it was a Dŵr Cymru account, or less if you are with the other water provider.

The benefit-cost appraisal shows that benefits never outweigh costs. So, I think the dilemma is huge. I'm very keen to hear what the Minister has to say as to what we should do about this. But the idea that we can just simply wave a flag and say, 'Well, we've just got to bring our water up to the standard that everybody expects'—it's way more complicated than that. And where are we going to get this money? Who's going to pay for it? At what point do we have sewer collapses, as I recall happening when I worked in Manchester? I know there's one that could happen in my constituency, because I see all the warning signs of roads that go like that. So, I think this is a huge problem and one that we need to deliberate on very carefully and see what is going to be possible, given our limited resources.

Paul Davies (Conservative, Preseli Pembrokeshire)

Water quality in Pembrokeshire continues to be one of the most frequently raised issues by my constituents, and recent reports that water companies have knowingly illegally spilt sewage into our water sources for years has understandably angered and upset many people. I want to make it absolutely clear that access to clean, good-quality water is a basic human right, and no stone should be left unturned in ensuring that we can all access good-quality water.

Now, in the case of Pembrokeshire, Afonydd Cymru, which represents the Rivers Trust in Wales, commissioned Professor Peter Hammond to review spill data from the Cardigan works nearby, along with a number of other waste water treatment works in Wales. Professor Hammond's report found significantly high spill numbers at the Cardigan site, and showed spills occurring frequently before flow levels met the criteria for a storm discharge. Now, my understanding is that this is because sea water from the estuary is entering the works and damaging the treatment process, and so, to avoid further damage, waste water is regularly being diverted to spill through storm overflows. Investigations are now under way and enforcement notices have been issued, but that will do little to reassure my constituents that this is being dealt with seriously enough. Tougher action is needed, and needed quickly.

The reality is that without substantial investment and upgrading of the current infrastructure very little will change, and I've heard the Welsh Government talk about the need for multimillion pound investment to come from the UK Government, and I don't disagree that we need to see greater investment, but we must remember that water companies need to make further infrastructure investment too. Therefore, instead of putting the blame squarely at the UK Government's feet, the Minister should be doing more to ensure that that investment takes place. Indeed, in responding to this debate, perhaps the Minister will tell us what representations have been made to the UK Government on this specific issue. And as far as Natural Resources Wales is concerned, it's simply not good enough to only issue enforcement notices. The Welsh Government has said that it expects regulators to take the appropriate action where there is evidence of non-compliance. There is evidence that this has been knowingly done for years. Clearly, enforcement notices have not been a sufficient enough penalty for water polluters, and, as I said earlier, tougher action is needed and needed quickly.

Now, in fairness to Dŵr Cymru, it's not disputing Professor Hammond's analysis, and it has accepted that significant changes need to be made. When the company was downgraded for the second year running in July, after a rise in pollution incidents, it quite rightly said its performance is not where it wants it to be, and I know from my own visits to Welsh Water sites that they are making investments to improve services. However, it remains the case that water companies are continuing to illegally spill untreated sewage, and that is not acceptable. The effects on inadequate water quality are huge. It can affect our health, it can affect our environment, and it can affect our wildlife too. The Cardigan treatment plant spills into the Teifi, which is home to Atlantic salmon, lamprey and otters. Indeed, the River Teifi is meant to be protected as a special area of conservation, and located there is one of Europe's largest populations of bottlenose dolphins. Professor Hammond tells us that there are dolphins only in two places regularly in Wales and Scotland, and yet water companies are illegally dumping on one of their few British habitats.

So, how do we move forward? The Welsh Government will be aware of the Welsh Affairs Committee's inquiry into water pollution, and that committee wrote to the Minister outlining several areas of concern. Those points included the accuracy of monitoring equipment and therefore reliability of data. It also highlighted the low number of prosecutions in Wales to enforce water-quality regulations, and the apparent lack of appetite from regulators for stronger enforcement powers and sanctions. And the cross-party committee felt that there was a lack of a clear and timely plan to address the issues highlighted, including the sheer quantity of sewage being discharged. The committee is right, as is the Senedd's Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee, which also investigated water quality and sewage discharges, and has called for more action. And yet still many people living in Pembrokeshire and indeed further afield do not feel that this has been a priority for the Welsh Government.

So, in closing, Dirprwy Lywydd, urgent action needs to be taken to stop the volume of sewage discharged as well as the frequency of outflows. And the Welsh Government need to take some leadership on this issue by doing more to hold water companies, and indeed Natural Resources Wales, to account. Diolch.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

I've always been a champion of the Glas Cymru model of not-for-profit ownership for Welsh Water. It was a Welsh institutional innovation, which even became a Harvard Business School case study at one point. In theory, having this hybrid of a private company without shareholders should have meant we in Wales were shielded from the worst excesses of water privatisation in England. I don't think we can come to that conclusion anymore.

Ofwat has rated Welsh Water for two years running now as one of the worst-performing water companies in England and Wales—'a laggard', in their terms, that is letting down consumers and the environment. Here at home, NRW has downgraded Welsh Water twice in two years, from the highest four-star rating now to just two. NRW's reasons are both rising pollution and under-reporting of that pollution, because these privatised monopolies—because that's what they are, in both England and Wales—they deal in murky waters, both literally and metaphorically. That's why there is a class action at the moment being taken against water companies in England, for now, for the under-reporting of pollution at the expense of both the environment and water consumers. And we've heard reference to Peter Hammond's work, which is central to this, and his expertise in big data and in artificial intelligence, which has helped uncover unreported pollution here in Wales, working with Afonydd Cymru, and forcing Welsh Water itself to admit spewing sewage illegally at dozens of waste water treatment centres for years.

Now, Welsh Water now finds itself under investigation, simultaneously, for these breaches by both NRW and the interim environmental protection assessor for Wales, at the same time as being investigated by Ofwat for leakage and per-capita consumption miscalculation, and by the Environment Agency for failures at waste water treatment centres in England. Surfers Against Sewage have drawn attention to the fact that Welsh Water had the highest number and duration of sewage discharges of all UK water companies in 2021. Five of the top 10 worst constituencies for sewage pollution of waterways in the UK are in Wales. My own constituency of Carmarthen East and Dinefwr is the worst of all, with over 60,000 hours in which raw sewage is released into our watercourses. The Carmel waste water treatment centre spills untreated waste into the River Marlas just under four and a half times a week, on average, throughout the year. If you really want to go down to the absolute micro level, then the pipe that spills the most sewage in Britain is in Wales, dumping sewage for the equivalent of 325 days a year at the River Ogmore in Pontyrhyl. The second worst pipe is also in Wales, located just three miles away.

How could it possibly be justifiable, given everything that I've just relayed, that the chief executive of Welsh Water was paid, in a total remuneration package, £675,000 a year last year, when the chief executive of publicly owned Northern Ireland Water earns less than a third of that? I put it to you that this isn't a company run in the interests of the people of Wales, according to its charter; it's increasingly being run in the interests of its management. NRW has called for a step change in the company's performance; Afonydd Cymru say they believe it's time for a full review of both the regulation and operation of the water industry in Wales. I agree, and I'd go further. This Senedd has the power to bring Welsh water into public ownership. With no shareholders to compensate, it wouldn't cost the public anything, and we would, at long last, have a water company here in Wales that was directly accountable to the people of Wales, which is the ultimate guarantee, surely, that the quality of our water and our environment will be given the protection that they deserve.

Peter Fox (Conservative, Monmouth)

I want to begin by highlighting the fact that water cleanliness in Wales is the direct responsibility of Welsh Government. I know that's obvious in here, but, to a lot of people out there, they don't always see that, and it is disappointing to see the current state of water in Wales as a result of Labour's inability to effectively protect our waterways. The Welsh Government claims to be concerned about environmental issues, but it doesn't always feel that way. Yes, the Welsh Government has finally published the storm overflow report—yes, it's seven months late, but it's here—this report fails, though, to provide recommendations or targets, and only explores different policies relating to the control of storm overflows in Wales. We now have to wait for the taskforce to consider the report and identify steps, resulting in further delays to tackling water pollution in Wales.

As many across the Chamber will be aware, my own beautiful constituency of Monmouth has some of the most picturesque scenery in Wales, with the beautiful countryside teaming with biodiversity and blessed with two of the most wonderful rivers, with the Wye and the Usk. However, these waterways are being severely let down by this Government's lack of regulation. Sadly, out of the 20 most polluted rivers in the UK, the River Usk comes in at No. 12, and the River Wye at No. 14. This isn't acceptable, and more has to be done to address all sources of pollution. We know 28 per cent of the pollution comes from sewage. The save the river campaign have discovered E. coli levels in the River Usk at nearly 300 times higher than the minimum bathing standards, after taking samples from effluent discharge of the Usk and Brecon sewage treatment works.

Whilst I welcome the significant investment by Welsh Water in these treatment works, it's just a great shame that that forward planning hadn't happened earlier and been pre-empted and the works carried out much sooner. It's also incredibly concerning that NRW sets the standards for sewage treatment through the distribution of permits, but do not have any requirement to remove this harmful bacteria. The group also found that between 1988 and 2022 salmon numbers have decreased massively as a result of this pollution.

This Welsh Government rightly raises concerns surrounding the climate emergency. However, its failure to acknowledge a biodiversity and ecological emergency is severely damaging. Of course, climate change has devastating impacts, but so does our dwindling biodiversity here in Wales. Wales is the only country in the United Kingdom with no environmental watchdog, which has resulted in sewage being dumped illegally for years. We need that watchdog putting in place. I find it also ironic that many Labour MPs have been up in arms surrounding the Conservative approach to tackling storm overflows, yet they have very little to say about the state of water in Wales, where it is the total responsibility of the Welsh Labour Government. To make matters worse, the Welsh Government has not introduced nor announced their intention to create legislation to address the requirement to reduce discharge from storm overflows.

Dirprwy Lywydd, Wales is a nation of beauty, especially when it comes to our rivers and lakes. They are fundamental assets from so many perspectives. This is why we must see more action taken to protect them. So, I hope you will join me in supporting the motion here today.

Mike Hedges (Labour, Swansea East)

Having been one of a very small group of Senedd Members, supported by anglers and environmentalists, concerned about river pollution, it is nice to have a debate on the subject today.

Water is uniquely vulnerable to pollution. Known as the universal solvent, water can dissolve more substances than any other liquid. It is why water is so easily polluted: sewage, toxic substances from farms, towns and factories readily dissolve in the water, causing water pollution. Around the world, agriculture is the leading cause of water degradation. Data from the USA shows agricultural pollution is the top source of contamination in rivers and streams, the second biggest in wetlands, and the third main source in lakes. It is also a major contributor of contamination to estuaries and groundwater. Every time it rains, fertilisers, pesticides, animal waste from farms and livestock operation wash nutrients and pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses, into our waterways.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Will the Member give way?

Mike Hedges (Labour, Swansea East)

Certainly.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I'm just wondering, the report you mentioned there with regards to America, is that specifically looking at agriculture as a whole or just American agriculture? Because it's important to note the difference that we have in standards compared to American agriculture and domestic agriculture here in Wales.

Mike Hedges (Labour, Swansea East)

It is looking at American agriculture, and I'd be happy, outside this meeting, for the Member to explain to me how we deal differently with sewage and animal waste being washed in and nitrates being washed in.

Nutrient pollution caused by excess nitrogen and phosphorus in water is the No. 1 threat to water quality worldwide and can cause algal bloom, a toxic super blue-green algae harmful to people and wildlife, which eventually kills everything in the river, and we've all seen that.

In the nineteenth century, waste was put into rivers, killing all things in the water. In the second half of the twentieth century, rivers started to be cleaned, but we are now returning to polluting rivers again. I have regularly raised concerns over raw sewage and other pollutants in Swansea's River Tawe and asked what Welsh Government is doing to tackle pollution problems affecting Wales's waterways, with untreated sewage discharging into rivers such as the Tawe by the Trebanos treatment works, phosphorus pollution leading to eutrophication in the River Wye, and microplastics having ended up in the water everywhere. We then drink this water after water treatment has taken place. River pollution is a problem across Wales, but I'm just talking about the River Tawe, which is within 50 yards of where I live. We have raw sewage discharge, agricultural pollution and microplastics. Storm water mixes with sewage at the Trebanos treatment works; it is then discharged into the river and then into the sea.

Ofwat and Natural Resources Wales have been clear that the current use of storm overflow discharges is unacceptable and needs to change. People are concerned that overflows are operating too frequently. NRW say that they are taking steps to ensure that the regulation of overflows responds to the needs of the environment and the public. I would say they should have done that a long time ago. They say they continue to challenge water companies to improve their performance across all assets, to ensure overflows are properly controlled. They have said they will issue new permits that will require water companies to submit annual flow compliance data, to significantly improve flow compliance regulations. NRW also say they are overseeing a programme of investment of £20 million by the water companies to further reduce the impact of storm overflows, prioritising high spillers. I'm afraid I see no evidence of anything actually of any good actually happening. It's the same now as it was five years and 10 years ago.

Things that I believe that could help stop storm overflows getting into the sewerage system include the planting of trees and bushes, making it a planning condition on new developments that impervious coverings are not allowed, and to have greater control over the use of fertilisers. Both phosphorus and nitrates play a role in river eutrophication, although the main limiting nutrient in freshwater river systems is usually phosphorus.

The wildlife in the River Wye is in free fall. The salmon population in the River Wye is in a critical state, with angling catches down 94 per cent from their peak in 1967. Water crowfoot, which is very important for river life, is estimated to have reduced by 90 per cent. River invertebrates are now absent in many places. The main pollutant causing concern is phosphates, with around 73 per cent from nutrients leeching from livestock manure into the river, and around 22 per cent from sewage treatment works. There is a need to clean up our rivers, but we need to find the polluters. The only way you're going to stop people polluting is when it starts hitting them in the pocket. This must be done for Welsh Water, but also for farmers and any other people polluting our rivers.

Finally, I agree with Adam Price—and I wish I'd spoken before him—we need public ownership of water. It used to be owned by the public; in fact, it used to be run by local authorities incredibly well. We need to bring it back into public ownership, rather than the way it's being run now.

Jane Dodds (Liberal Democrat, Mid and West Wales)

I live in Hay-on-Wye. I live on one of the most polluted rivers in Wales. I represent Mid and West Wales, where the three top polluted rivers are. They are in the following order: the Usk, the Wye and the Tawe. Before half term in the Siambr, I raised an urgent topical question with the Minister around the appalling revelations that have been spoken about here today—the dumping by Dŵr Cymru, the illegal dumping of untreated sewage in the River Teifi. I called for a full review of Dŵr Cymru to uncover the true extent of these failures because there is much that we do not know. It seems from what we're hearing this afternoon that there is cross-party agreement for a review of Dŵr Cymru. They are not performing to the level that we need them to.

We do hear, though, from Dŵr Cymru repeated claims that they are improving, and in relation to the spillage at the River Teifi, I'm sure many of us received an e-mail to tell us that the bathing water at Poppit Sands still met Natural Resources Wales's 'excellent' quality for bathing. But this glosses over the truth once again, that our water infrastructure remains inadequate despite repeated warnings. Are we really willing to accept a water industry that remains, since 2016, the largest single polluter of incidents in Wales?

The scale of the challenge that storm overflows represent for our water cannot be overstated. Since 2016, storm overflows recorded by event duration monitors have nearly quadrupled to over 2,000 recorded overflows in 2020. Similarly, the number of spills has skyrocketed to over 105,000 in 2020, representing a sevenfold increase. We really need to take urgent action to avoid this issue spiralling out of control.

Let's stop blaming each other. I do thank the Welsh Conservatives for bringing this debate here today, and I do think that we all need to work together here. Our water is too precious for us to take sides. We need to find common ground to move forward our concern for water. The key word is 'urgency'. Our precious waterways and ecosystems cannot afford to wait years and years for companies to fix faulty treatment plants and end polluting practices, when actually they're doing that off the back of rising consumer bills as well. We are paying for their complete and utter disregard for our water.

I want again, to finish, to restate my call for an immediate full review of Dŵr Cymru, no executive bonuses until improvement, and tougher regulations with harsher penalties for illegal dumping. Without action at scale and pace, the health of our waterways hangs in the balance. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what we can do about Dŵr Cymru. I realise we've heard before that there is very little, but now is the time, and we've heard from Adam Price what we can do. Our rivers, our seas, our streams cannot wait any longer. Our fish, our biodiversity also cannot wait any longer. The Welsh people cannot wait any longer, and I hope this Senedd cannot wait any longer, either. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Joel James (Conservative, South Wales Central)

As some of you may already know in this Chamber, I’ve recently been named the Senedd species champion for seagrass, and as such I’d like to highlight the negative impact of storm overflows that release untreated sewage into our rivers during heavy rainfall are having on our marine habitats. Unfortunately, seagrass just can’t withstand and survive the poor water quality it is exposed to during these overflows, and this is not only having an impact on seagrass colonies, but also marine biodiversity and the fish populations that use seagrass beds as nurseries. The simple truth is that, whilst water companies in Wales are polluting rivers and coastal regions with untreated sewage, we are never going to regenerate seagrass beds and we’re going to continue to lose our much-needed marine biodiversity.

As I and many others have highlighted in this Chamber before, blue carbon ecosystems such as seagrass have been identified as having enormous potential to store carbon and exhibit carbon burial rates of up to 30 times higher than forests. They can even help mitigate sea erosion. Yet if the rates of sewage discharge continue, any potential that can be achieved will be lost, and it will make a mockery of the Welsh Government’s priority desire to protect and enhance our seagrass meadows.

Addressing another aspect that deeply concerns me is our shellfish water bacteriological standards. The Welsh Government hopes to double the amount of—why am I suddenly not able to pronounce simple words; sorry—shellfish produced in Wales, and we have the potential to create fisheries for scallops, oysters, abalone, shrimp and considerably improve our market output and demand, yet we allow water companies to continuously pollute our waterways.

Data from the 'Storm overflow evidence for Wales' report shows that there are 2,142 storm overflows in Wales, and the average number of sewage spills from these was almost 41 per year in 2021 and 2022, which means that there are over 87,000 overflow incidents per year. I am frankly bewildered that water companies in Wales have been allowed to continue this practice and have not been forced to invest in this area and prevent this overflow mechanism being utilised to the extent that it is. Members might not be aware, but Welsh Water in 2022 had 77,000 significant sewage spills, and released sewage into our waterways for almost 600,000 hours, which is equivalent to more than 68 constantly releasing sewage outlets operating all day, every day. This was actually down from the previous year of 2021, when 94,000 sewage spills were reported with the discharges lasting for more than 785,000 hours. In 2020 there were 106,000 reported sewage spills, with 872,976 hours of discharge.

The fact is that we have Welsh Water, who collect the second highest water and sewage bills in the United Kingdom, and for the year ending in 2022, it had £515 million in cash and undrawn credit facilities of £200 million, yet it still doesn’t invest sufficiently to reduce the astronomical number of pollution incidents in our waterways. Regardless of the explanations as to the causes of these pollution occurrences, we have to consider that it’s not a matter of if there will be, but when there will be, a major public health outbreak caused by sewage dumping. It is not just our marine biodiversity and food supply that are suffering because of this, but as we have seen in the media, it is people who want to swim and bathe in Wales who also run the risk of coming into contact with human waste and the issues that it can bring.

The reality here is that the Welsh Government should be pushing Ofwat harder for water companies in Wales to achieve their 2019 price review commitments. Welsh Water has been identified as lagging behind and underperforming in terms of supply interruptions, water quality and treatment works compliance, and whilst they meet the average performance requirements, Hafren is also underperforming in terms of supply interruptions, internal sewer collapses and treatment works compliance. These companies have been entrusted with one of our most important and precious national resources, and they are a major contributor to the health and well-being of Wales, yet given the size of water bills for households, which are on an average band D-rated property well over £1,000 a year, one begins to question whether or not we have value for money from our water companies. As such, I would urge everyone here to support our motion, and I would also urge the Welsh Government to push for more stretching and rigorous targets in the 2024 price review. Thank you.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

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

Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm very pleased to be able to respond to the debate today. There are indeed an important set of challenges around storm overflows, but sadly the motion fails to recognise they cannot be separated from the wider issues of waste water and surface water management. The opposition motion does not properly reflect the nature of the challenges we face, nor the tools ready at our disposal to address them. If we were to follow the approach proposed in the motion, the ecological condition of Wales's water bodies simply would not improve. Dirprwy Lywydd, I would like to reassure the Senedd that a better way is possible.

Some of the actions needed require a degree of change, which people find difficult. Discussions with sectors like house building and agriculture about what is actually needed to improve water quality are not easy conversations. The most important safeguard is indeed setting a robust regulatory framework and, crucially, agreeing those priority actions across all sectors that will make the most direct difference, which is already under way as part of the summit process that Members are very familiar with.

In typical deregulatory fashion, the UK Conservatives, of course, propose that they will relieve the impact of water pollution by removing the neutrality rules, allowing higher levels of pollution in areas where severe problems already exist. Dirprwy Lywydd, we do need to relieve the impacts on the planning system that have come about because of pollution issues, but I would call on Members of the Senedd to agree with us that the way to deal with that is to address the pollution, not cast aside the regulations.

The water infrastructure of which storm overflows are part of was an extraordinary feat of early modern engineering and saved countless lives through the prevention of communicable diseases. In the second half of the twentieth century, whilst it has remained very effective at protecting human health, the infrastructure has just not kept up with the growing pressures placed on it. Now climate change is heightening those pressures to levels never previously seen.

We all know that areas on the west of the British isles experience high levels of rainfall. In fact, the amount of rainfall in Wales helps with water quality. It is part of the reason why more than 40 per cent of water bodies in Wales are in good ecological status, with only 16 per cent in good ecological status in England. But it does also mean that storm overflows are needed more often to prevent sewage from backing up into people's homes and streets.

I can reassure Members that, as the ecological status of water bodies shows, Wales's rivers are not the most polluted simply by virtue of the use of storm overflows. If we spent the entire Welsh Government budget on addressing storm overflows, not one river in Wales would be improved to the degree that it would achieve good ecological status. In fact, other pressures bear down far more strongly on our water infrastructure, and there are many actions we can take that stem pollution long before it reaches the sewer.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I just want to correct some of the misleading issues that have arisen today with some basic facts. Rural land use is the leading contributor of phosphates in six of the nine SAC rivers, including four of the five failing SAC rivers. Waste water treatment works is the leading contributor of phosphorus loading in one failing SAC river, the Teifi. There it amounts to 66 per cent of phosphorus loading compared to 30 per cent from rural land use and 3 per cent from combined sewer overflows.

The Usk has the highest amount of phosphorus discharge into the catchment on a daily basis by a significant margin. You are right there, Peter. It's got a 180 kg of phosphorus discharged per day, followed by the Dee and the Wye. The leading contributor in all of these rivers is rural land use—not waste water, rural land use. The results show that the largest proportion of the phosphorus originates from the rural land use sector. It accounts for 62 per cent of the phosphorus loading across all SAC rivers. CSOs are found to have a limited impact on phosphorus loading, accounting for only 4 per cent across all SAC rivers.

I'm not at all arguing that we should not address the CSO issue—of course we should. But it's absolutely important to understand the hierarchy of problems that lead to problems in the river, and rural land use is by far and away the highest of those. But, Dirprwy Lywydd, there are many actions we are taking and can take in the short term. These include promoting water efficiency by businesses and households to stop storm water from getting into the sewage systems in the first place. It may sound like a small thing, but a water butt on every house in Wales would remove enormous amounts of pressure from the storm overflow systems.

Addressing missed connections and poorly maintained private septic tanks, as Mike Hedges highlighted, is absolutely one of the things we could do. Requiring sustainable drainage systems for new developments, something we have had the foresight to put in place in Wales, and that was not universally welcomed on the benches opposite, has been a real, major process of doing this, and retrofitting them now, as part of urban regeneration, will form one of the main things that we can do. And, of course, improving the conditions of habitats through targeted actions on individual nature sites. But the most important set of actions, as Members will have heard me say many times, will be to deal with the single largest cause of pollution, which is from agricultural land use. Independent evidence commissioned by NRW shows that it's the leading contributor to excess phosphates in six of the nine SAC river catchments—it's worth saying again, Llywydd.

I hope that the strong support for improving water quality in Wales that we have heard from opposition parties today comes with a commitment to work with us to further tighten the rules to reduce that agricultural pollution. The long-term solution to dealing with the historic legacy of storm overflows will require very significant investment. The Conservative motion calls instead for fines and a new legal framework. I can reassure Members that the framework exists and it is possible to set the priorities for investment for water companies already through the price review process. So, investment can already be directed in that way.

I should take this opportunity to clarify that the storm overflows report cited by the original motion is an important piece of evidence, but it should be absolutely no surprise that the report doesn't contain recommendations, because the report is not a stand-alone report; it is part of a wider evidence base that informs the regulatory process. NRW, as the regulator, has said to the water companies in their performance reviews that their goal must be to reduce pollution incidents year on year, aiming for zero, and stop all serious pollution incidents in the short term. That is by far stronger an objective than those provided by the opposition motion, and I believe that the whole Senedd should lend its weight to the expectation that NRW has set out. I would encourage all Members to closely follow the price review process. Llywydd, I have many times recommended that committees ask Dŵr Cymru in to discuss with them that price review process and I will repeat that call today. Members of the Senedd need to play their part in scrutinising the proposals that the water companies bring forward.

The economic regulatory process for water companies requires increased investment to be balanced with increases in customer bills. Therefore, within the current framework, any call for additional investment leads directly to higher bills. Whilst a fairer system might be—and I would say would be—to fund investment from general taxation so that those on the lowest incomes aren't making the highest contribution, it would nevertheless still need to be paid for. I have not heard a single word from the opposition, as usual, as to how they believe that that could be paid for, particularly given that the UK Conservatives have wrought significant damage on both the economy and, indeed, on our public finances.

Over time, the scheduled investment from water companies will make a real difference, but there are many, many more actions we are taking to deliver better water quality in Wales. Just last week, I laid the workplace recycling regulations, which will prohibit the disposal of food waste to the sewer. Earlier this year, the rates of tree planting were confirmed to be at their highest rate in Wales for almost 40 years. The new nature recovery plan for the strategic road network specifically addresses the condition of roadside ecosystems impacted by run-off. The new agriculture Act, passed by the Senedd earlier this year, requires farm support to directly take account of water quality. Last month, we announced the latest investments in nature-based flood management, signalling really strong progress on mainstreaming green approaches across every major river catchment in Wales.

Whilst to the uninitiated, these might seem like a collection of policies only loosely related, all of them have a direct impact on water quality through improving the ability of the water system to cope. They all allow the movement of water to be slowed and potential pollutants to be diluted or removed to reduce environmental harm. They help to illustrate why, in order to make sure that we maximise progress, we focus on the water system holistically, not just on one element. It is that holistic focus that has helped to deliver the improvements in water quality that we've seen, with an eight percentage point increase in the proportion of water bodies meeting good ecological status in Wales since the first set of comparable measurements in 2009.

Llywydd, I hope Members are reassured that there is a lot that the Government can and is doing to continue to improve water quality. The improvements that we have already seen over the course of devolution can continue to spread without the need to follow the deregulatory path advocated by the Conservatives, or the need to rely on sums of money that do not actually exist. The approach of this Government is based on bringing people together, not on blaming others, on following the science, rather than pursuing social media furores, and on a long-term focus on the actions needed across all sectors that are not always comfortable or universally popular, but that are and will be absolutely needed. Diolch.