Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament), 2 April 2025

319 contributions from 42 members. The official report.

1. Questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon's Plenary meeting. The first item on the agenda is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language, and the first question is from Alun Davies.

Alun Davies (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

1. Will the Cabinet Secretary provide an update on the Welsh Government's work to review the Barnett formula? OQ62557

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Llywydd, our current priority in the near term is to ensure that the present funding formula works as well as it can do for Wales. More fundamental reform will require the agreement of all four nations of the United Kingdom to a new fiscal framework and an independent oversight body.

Alun Davies (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for that. I'm sure he agrees with me that the Barnett formula is no longer fit for purpose, and it also ensures that Wales does not get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to the distribution of funding across the United Kingdom. But, this afternoon, could the Cabinet Secretary confirm that the UK Government has decided to use Barnett consequentials as a means of distributing funds to compensate the Welsh Government for the employers' national insurance rise? Will he also confirm that this breaks the agreement between Governments in the United Kingdom that where one Government takes a decision that has a negative financial impact on another Government, they should provide the costs in full? And will he further confirm that this change to the established process could cost Wales £65 million?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Llywydd, thank you to Alun Davies for those further questions. In agreeing with him that the Barnett formula is not fit for purpose, of course, we are both agreeing with Joel Barnett, who, many, many times, said that the formula that he had devised in particular circumstances in the 1970s was no longer fit to discharge the heavy burden that it has borne since then.

Turning to the specific questions that the Member has raised, I can confirm that the UK Government has decided to distribute the assistance that will go to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in fulfilment of the Chancellor's promise that public sector employees would have the costs of national insurance increases met, and that the Chancellor has decided to use the Barnett formula for that purpose. I think that she is wrong to do that, and I have said so in direct terms to the Chief Secretary of the Treasury when he was here for the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee at the end of February, as did the finance Ministers for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

I've taken the precaution, Llywydd, wondering if this issue might come up today, of bringing with me the statement of funding policy—all 92 pages of it. And paragraph 10 on page 13 says, I think, very clearly that when decisions are taken by any of the administrations that lead to additional costs for any of the other administrations, the body whose decision leads to the additional cost will meet that cost. Well, that suggests to me that, when the UK Government made its decision, it should reimburse Welsh public services for the actual costs of the increase in national insurance contributions, not a Barnett share of the costs in England. The result is, as the Member says, that we are now—and it could be as much as—£65 million short of what we estimate that public services in Wales, within the Chancellor's own definition, will have to pay. We continue to be in discussions, of course, with the Treasury on this matter, and those figures will not be confirmed until later in the spring. But the basic issue that Alun Davies has raised is one that I agree with. We should have been compensated for the actual costs, not the Barnett share of the costs in England.

Janet Finch-Saunders (Conservative, Aberconwy)

There has been, for quite some time here, cross-party consensus in the Senedd around the need to reform the Welsh funding model. Despite the independent auditor general highlighting that, through the Barnett formula, £1.20 is allocated to Wales for every £1 spent on public services in England, the Holtham Commission found that, under current arrangements, Wales could be underfunded by some £300 million per year. So, the message is clear that Wales should be funded according to need and not based on population. An interesting point about the national insurance contributions also is the fact that, yet again, whilst there are moves to protect those in the public sector, the private sector—those running care homes—now will not receive any such support. So, could I ask the Cabinet Secretary how he intends to equalise and show equal parity, where you've got some care homes run by local authorities that will receive the national insurance amount, albeit coming from the UK Government? And what discussions have taken place with HM Treasury and the Secretary of State for Wales about the Holtham proposals, and do they agree that there now needs to be reform? Diolch.

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Thank you very much to Janet Finch-Saunders for those additional questions, and thanks to her for expressing the support of her party for reform of the Barnett formula. When we hear Treasury voices say that Wales gets £1.20 for every £1 spent in England, what they tend not to tell you is that that includes all expenditure, not just expenditure that comes through this Senedd. It includes all the expenditure—on defence matters, on pensions, on the social security system. It, I think, tells you part of the picture but not the whole picture. Because, of course, the point of the Barnett formula, imperfect as it is, is to make sure that spending power is broadly equivalent over the United Kingdom, and that a broadly consistent level and quality of public goods can be achieved in all parts of the UK. We will continue to make that case I've made it at the FISC here. The real issue is the one I pointed to in my answer to Alun Davies—that you can only reform the Barnett formula if every part of the United Kingdom agrees. I think that's very hard to bring off, because some parts of the United Kingdom do rather well out of the Barnett formula, and the pressure on them to seek reform is not the same as it might be felt in this Chamber.

As to the point that the Member made about those parts of the Welsh economy that fall outside the Chancellor's definition—the definition she chose to adopt—I'm not in a position to use Welsh Government money to make up for the costs that those organisations will incur. The only way to do that would be to divert money away from the things for which we are responsible to things for which we are not responsible, and, I'm afraid, difficult though some of those choices are, I don't think that's a principle that we can easily override.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

The fairly shocking revelation that we've just heard is one more example, isn't it, Cabinet Secretary, of the fact that the Barnett formula is not just clearly unfair, but it's also inconsistently applied and it lacks transparency. To give one example of that, I think I'm right in saying that the block grant transparency report hasn't been published since July 2023, and yet, that report, as the name suggests, is pretty essential to be able to work out, for example, how close we are to the needs-based funding floor in Wales and a similar mechanism that exists in Northern Ireland. So, it's not working at any level. Now, I understand what he says about the need for a four-nation approach overall. But I heard, in the brief interregnum that he was on the backbenches, he did suggest that we could make some progress, potentially, by invoking the clause in the fiscal agreement that would allow us in Wales unilaterally to ask for a review of that agreement. Has that time now come?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Thank you to Adam Price for a number of important points there. The proposals that we put forward in 'Reforming our Union' would not only have created a new rules-based system, with the transparency that that would bring, but also would have created a new independent oversight body, because we cannot, I believe, go on indefinitely having the Treasury the judge, the jury and, occasionally, the executioner, when it comes to the Barnett formula. We saw that in the £1 billion bung, as it was called, that went in order to secure the support of the DUP to the minority administration led by Theresa May. Neither England, Scotland nor Wales had anything the equivalent, as the Barnett formula itself would have otherwise required. So, we do need something that is a good deal more transparent, rules based and independent than we have now.

I’m told by our colleagues in the Treasury that they do hope to publish a block grant transparency report before too long. And I should say that, in the FISC meeting, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did offer to codify some of the improvements that we’ve seen in the way that the Treasury has behaved in relation to the devolved Governments since July of last year. We’ve had earlier information, we’ve had better information, and the Chief Secretary has offered to make that a permanent part of the way that he conducts his office. So, I’m pleased about that.

As far as invoking the disputes mechanism is concerned, it has been invoked by the Northern Ireland Executive, not on this matter, but on another matter. And, just at the moment, I am watching how that dispute is being taken through the disputes mechanism, and I’ll watch that carefully to see whether that provides a route that we might wish to follow in those places where we think Wales has not been properly served by current arrangements. But I’m not at that point just yet.

Joyce Watson (Labour, Mid and West Wales)

2. Will the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on the Welsh Government's assessment of the impact of the UK spring statement on Wales? OQ62579

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Presiding Officer, I understand that you've given your permission for questions 2 and 8 to be grouped.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I had given that permission, but I'm going to need to revise that position, if that's okay with the Cabinet Secretary, unusually, due to circumstances involving question 8 and James Evans. [Interruption.]

I'm about to revise the revision that I've just made and allow this question to be grouped, and carry on as if I'd never opened my mouth in the first place. [Laughter.]

James Evans (Conservative, Brecon and Radnorshire)

8. Will the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on how the UK Government's spring statement has impacted the Welsh Government's budget? OQ62561

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to Joyce Watson for the question.

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

The spring statement provides an additional £16 million for Wales in 2025-26. This builds on the significant rise in capital and revenue resources set out in the UK autumn budget. Together, these increases will support our efforts to cut waiting times, support schools, and restore our public services.

Joyce Watson (Labour, Mid and West Wales)

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. Like many in the Chamber, I’ve received e-mails from constituents who are concerned about how the proposed welfare changes are going to impact upon them, and I do share those concerns. The Chancellor said in her statement that the UK Government will be investing £1.4 billion into a programme that will help people back into work. So, Cabinet Secretary, what assessment have you made regarding that additional funding from the UK Government to help people back into work in Wales?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, Llywydd, thanks to Joyce Watson for that. The first thing to say is that we don’t yet have a figure of the share of that investment that the Chancellor has announced—the share that will be spent in Wales. Of course, I do support any actions that can be taken to make the social security system more helpful to people who do wish to return to work. We know that one of the huge problems of the benefit system is that it traps people into that dependency when they would themselves far rather be in work. But if you have a universal credit system, for example, where you have to wait five weeks before you get any help at all, then taking the risk of leaving benefits and going into a job, where you don’t know whether that job will suit you, you don’t always know whether that job will last, that is to heap all the risks on the shoulder of the individual and none of the risks into the system. And I believe very firmly that those risks should be shared, and that we need, as Gordon Brown used to say, to create a social security system that is a springboard for those people who wish to overcome a temporary difficulty and find themselves back in work again.

When the Chancellor comes to look at the detail of what she intends to do, then I hope very much that she will look to Wales. The First Minister yesterday referred to the success of the young person’s guarantee here in Wales. If you look at what has happened to the year ending September of last year, youth unemployment in Wales was 6.5 per cent, down 3.6 percentage points compared to the previous year. At the same time, youth unemployment across the whole of the United Kingdom was 11.4 per cent, and rose over that previous year. There are things we are doing in Wales already that demonstrate that, when you use the system to stand alongside people and offer them the help they need, those people can make that journey from being out of work to being in work, and that’s the sort of system we would like to see in Wales.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

James Evans.

James Evans (Conservative, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Diolch, Llywydd, and apologies for being late to the Chamber. Cabinet Secretary, you’re well aware of the issues facing many third sector organisations across Wales and our general practitioners and pharmacies regarding the national insurance rise. Many people were expecting the spring budget to hear something about NI, but nothing came forward around that. So, I’m just interested in what work the Welsh Government is doing to make sure that those third sector organisations, our GPs, our pharmacy practices, and all those health professions across Wales who aren’t exempt from this, can get the support they need. Because what we don’t want to see is those charities and those organisations having to lose staff because of this unintentional NI rise that was imposed by the UK Government.

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, Llywydd, I rehearsed some of these arguments a little earlier this afternoon. The Welsh Government has been able to provide additional support to the third sector in Wales through a significant rise in the budget available to the sector in the coming financial year. That is not specifically to deal with national insurance costs, it’s for all the different demands that the sector faces. My colleague Jeremy Miles was able to reach a settlement with general practitioners in Wales as well only a few weeks ago, with a very significant £27 million additional investment in GP services in Wales. The Government is in a position, because of the UK budget, to make those additional investments. What we can’t do is to divert money that is intended for public services in Wales to meet costs that were imposed completely outside our devolved responsibilities.

Tom Giffard (Conservative, South Wales West)

We know that the spring statement, don’t we, was anything but a spring statement. In fact, it was an emergency budget by a Chancellor completely out of her depth, a Chancellor that had taken the risk on higher taxes and more borrowing and spectacularly failed. And we know where that ends, we know from when Labour last left Government in the United Kingdom with that note being left behind saying that there is no money left. That’s exactly the path that we are on today.

The inheritance that this Chancellor received from the last Conservative Government was the fastest growing economy in the G7, inflation down to the target of 2 per cent, and falling unemployment. Just nine months on, we have taxes on the rise, an economy stagnating, and household bills, as of yesterday, increasing again.

So, how is the Welsh Government helping people with those increasing household bills as a result of decisions taken in Westminster by a UK Labour Government, and then pressure added on by increased taxes from this Welsh Labour Government in things like our tourism sector, which has been severely punished by a Welsh Labour Government? Why is it that every problem that this Labour Party sees on both ends of the M4 ends up with higher taxes?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, Llywydd, had there been a shred of credibility in what the Member has said, then he’d be asking himself how his party failed so spectacularly to convince people in Wales of that case when they went to the ballot box in July of this year. If everything was so wonderful in the economic garden, if everything that he said were true, how is it that not a single constituency in Wales was convinced by the case that he made? The reason why people weren’t convinced, of course, is because his case has no credibility. It rings hollow in the Chamber, and it rang very hollow indeed in the ears of people here in Wales. He’s wrong about what the Office for Budget Responsibility said in its report on the spring statement. The OBR revised growth in the UK economy down this year and then revised its growth forecasts up in every other year of its forecast. The UK economy, according to the OBR, will be larger in its forecast in the spring of this year than it was forecasting in the autumn of last year. The UK economy is on a path to growth. It is having to recover from—[Laughter.] Well, that's what the OBR says. You're very happy to laugh, of course; all I am telling you is what the OBR said. It believes, in March of this year, that the economy will be larger at the end of this period than it believed back in October. That's the path that the UK economy needs to be on; it's in recovery from 14 years of being bled dry by his party, and I look forward to the success of the policies rather than the evidence-free and bleak vision that he's offered us this afternoon.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

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

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Thank you, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, in January, your colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education issued a statement on the strategic education workforce plan. There was no mention of the Welsh language and its role in workforce planning—an omission that is particularly concerning given the current progress of the Welsh Language and Education (Wales) Bill.

During Stage 2 of the committee's consideration of the Bill, I raised this issue and expressed my disappointment that Welsh-medium education was overlooked in the statement. Do you share my concern that the Welsh language was not referenced, and how are you working with your colleagues to ensure that the recruitment of Welsh-medium teachers is fully embedded in the workforce plan?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, thank you very much to Sam Kurtz for that question, Llywydd. I agree on the importance of the workforce, of course. We have a shared ambition in this Chamber to increase the numbers of Welsh speakers and to double the use of the Welsh language, and the way to help us do that is through our schools and through the Bill that is currently before the Senedd. And there are a number of things in the Bill that will help us to increase the workforce and to prepare people for the work that we want them to do.

I had the opportunity to work with the Cabinet Secretary for Education before she published her statement. She was talking not just about the workforce who would be teaching through the medium of Welsh, but the broader workforce, and that's why she didn't highlight just one single aspect—she was covering the bigger picture. And, of course, I will be working with her in the future. We will work together in order to create the workforce that is so important for us in terms of our ambitions in terms of the Welsh language.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, but I am disappointed that no attention was drawn in the statement to the Welsh language, given that we have the 'Cymraeg 2050' here in the Senedd. But I'd like to thank you today for your collaborative approach to the Welsh language and education Bill—an important step in keeping the language above party politics. I thank you for that.

During Stage 2, I proposed an amendment to ensure that the quality of subject teaching through the medium of Welsh matches the quality of the teacher's language skills. I shared examples from my own schooling, where teachers were assigned subjects outside their expertise simply because they spoke Welsh. Since then, I have heard further examples from constituents. Although my amendment was unsuccessful, how does the Cabinet Secretary plan to prevent this practice after the Bill's completion, and ensure the highest teaching standards across all subjects?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, thank you very much to Sam Kurtz for his remarks on our joint approach to Stage 2 of the Bill. Stage 2 was an opportunity for us to hear from others and to learn from some of the things that they raised and suggested during the debate. I look forward to working with Cefin Campbell and Sam Kurtz when the Bill comes back to the Senedd for Stage 3 proceedings.

In terms of the examples that the Member referred to, I have had an opportunity to speak once again to our officials. We recognise the fact that there are certain subjects where it is challenging to find people with skills in every part of Wales. That's not true of every area, but in certain areas it can be challenging to find people who already have those skills, particularly in certain subjects. We're focusing, with the money that we've got—and there is more money in the plan for the next financial year—on helping people who have some skills already but who want to enhance those linguistic skills in order to fill those gaps where those gaps do arise.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Diolch i ti am yr ateb. Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, mae cynnal y Gymraeg mewn cymunedau hanesyddol Cymraeg eu hiaith yn dibynnu ar alluogi siaradwyr Cymraeg lleol i aros yn eu hardaloedd. Mae hyn yn gofyn am dai fforddiadwy a swyddi diogel sy'n talu'n dda. Enghraifft ddiweddar yw'r sefyllfa o amgylch Wylfa ac Ynys Môn. Mae Sam Dumitriu, pennaeth polisi yn Britan Remade, wedi rhybuddio mai—

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

'The real threat to the Welsh language in Ynys Môn...is a lack of well-paying jobs for locals',

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

particularly in the nuclear sector. With Wales facing persistent economic challenges, low wages and limited job prospects in rural Welsh-speaking areas, what discussions are you having with your Cabinet colleagues to address these structural issues, and how does the Government plan to align economic growth with efforts to sustain Welsh-speaking communities?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, Llywydd, I look forward to going to Cabinet with the Government's response, and to Simon Brooks's report and the commission that helped him, which has brought forward a number of recommendations in terms of how we can strengthen the Welsh language in areas where the Welsh language is used on a daily basis.

There are many things that we've already done—many things that arose from the co-operation agreement between the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru earlier in this term. Arfor, for example: what we've done through Arfor is to try to use the Welsh language as a tool to help us grow the economy in areas where Welsh is used on a daily basis. It can be complex, can't it? I recall when we were discussing issues around nuclear on Anglesey—the concerns were that a large number of people would move onto the island when the construction work was ongoing and they wouldn't have the Welsh language, and that that would have an impact on the language on the island.

So, I want to see the Welsh language as part of our effort to grow the economy, to create jobs and to help people to remain in their communities, and I do that, of course, with other Cabinet members.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Heledd Fychan.

Heledd Fychan (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I'd just like to pick up on the national insurance responses that you gave to Alun Davies earlier. I'm glad that there was no ambiguity in terms of the Government's position; you've been very clear in terms of thinking that it's a fundamental unfairness, and again today saying that they were wrong to do so. What I'd like to know is what is the position around that shortfall now, that £65 million—or up to—you've identified? That's only for public sector, as we've heard; there will be implications for the third sector and so on. You mentioned the additional funding, but that's not specifically towards the national insurance contributions. So, what do you foresee happening, for instance, for local government? Are you expecting them to find the shortfall? Are you going to have to adjust the budget? And, if I may, why do you think your UK counterparts have failed to listen? Are there any other avenues that we can explore to ensure that they change their minds?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, Llywydd, Treasury Ministers had a choice to make. They could choose to take money through the Barnett formula or they could have chosen to fund the actual effect of their decision in the devolved Governments. I believe they made the wrong choice. Their view is that Barnett would be the normal way for this to happen, and they've just followed the normal path. I think that is disputable, and we will go on disputing it with them, and we won't be on our own as well. You may have seen that this has been extensively rehearsed in Scotland already, and they are, in many ways, more adversely affected than we are.

I'm not in a position this afternoon, Llywydd, to provide answers to the question that the Member raises, because we are still having to think those things through. The confirmation we had from the Treasury is very recent. I will want to look at how the Barnett formula has been applied, what strands in English decision making have led to the global sum we now believe will come to Wales, and then I will look to see whether there is anything further that we can do to support those public services. I'm not in a position this afternoon to say that there will be anything that I can do, but I will, with my officials, be exploring what choices now fall to us to make. And, of course, when we make them, then we will report them to the Senedd.

Heledd Fychan (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

I'm grateful for that response. I'm sure you can see from the level of interest there's been on national insurance that every Member here has received so much correspondence, as has the Welsh Government, and there is real concern. You've also been, in the past, unambiguous when you denounced previous Conservative Government cuts to the welfare budget, describing them in November 2021 as

'the deliberate decisions of a Government that knows what it is doing, knows that there will be thousands more children in poverty in Wales because of their cuts...but simply don't care.'

Do you agree with me that the actions of the current UK Government deserve the same level of condemnation?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, the Member attempts to dig a pit in front of me and invites me to jump into it, and I'm afraid I'm a bit too old to follow her in that. No child chooses to be born in poverty, and the impact of poverty on the life of that child is profound. And Llywydd, I can remember every Labour Government since 1964, and I don't think any one of them did not have an ambition to lower rates of child poverty in the United Kingdom, and I expect this Labour Government at Westminster to have that same ambition. It may not be possible to make the progress we would like to see in the earliest stages of that UK term, but I would certainly look to a UK Labour Government to share the ambition of all previous Labour Governments, and certainly the ambition of this Labour Government, to see rates of child poverty reduce over the whole of its five-year term.

Heledd Fychan (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

But their actions indicate differently, knowingly pushing 250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, into poverty, and, as always, Wales inevitably bearing the disproportionately heavier brunt of the fallout. I'd just like to understand, because, obviously, during the years of austerity, the Welsh Government had to find additional funding to ensure that we were supporting those most vulnerable. So, can I ask, in terms of that proportion of the £4.8 billion of cuts announced by the Chancellor, do you know what the impact will be on Wales? And are you also having to make any adjustments to the Welsh budget for this financial year to mitigate the policies of your UK counterparts that are going to impact so many people here in Wales, and actually cost us more in terms of the NHS and so on? If more people are in poverty, it also puts a greater strain on other services. So, I'd like to know your response in terms of the impacts on the budget specifically.

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, Llywydd, the First Minister has asked Westminster Ministers to provide an impact assessment for Wales. We don't have that as yet. We have some preliminary, but I don't think hard to understand, analysis, for example, from the Wales Governance Centre, that points out that, whereas 7 per cent of the English population are recipients of personal independence payments, 11 per cent of the Welsh population are in that position. So, we have to expect that there will be an additionally adverse impact on Wales from some of those decisions. What we have done, using the responsibilities that are devolved to us, is to put in place a series of programmes, which are not available elsewhere in the United Kingdom, in order to mitigate the impact of some of those difficulties and to improve the lives of Welsh people. So, I could rehearse them all for you this afternoon. I won't, because you'll know them, but I'll just mention two or three of them, and these are things that aren't available across our border: the discretionary assistance fund, which has £38.5 million, the largest amount of money we've ever put in it; the council tax benefit scheme, which doesn't exist elsewhere, £244 million; £93 million for universal free school meals. These are all actions, and significant actions in terms of the Welsh Government's budget, that put money into the pockets of people who otherwise are struggling to be able to meet their ordinary expenses. Will we need to revisit some of that? Well, I was very pleased to secure agreement with the First Minister on the day of the spring statement; we got £16 million we weren't anticipating, and we've already allocated £1.4 million of that for a 10 per cent increase in our single advice fund services. We know that, as a minimum, every £1 we invest in that scheme brings £3 out of the UK Treasury into Wales and into the pockets of people who need it. And I will continue to review with all my colleagues as to whether or not there are further opportunities where we can use our powers and our budgets to have that positive impact on the budgets of people who need our help the most.

Janet Finch-Saunders (Conservative, Aberconwy)

3. How is the Welsh Government supporting town and community councils with the cost of Welsh-to-English translation? OQ62544

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

I thank Janet Finch-Saunders very much for the question, and congratulations on asking the question in Welsh. Town and community councils are democratic bodies that raise a precept to fulfil their statutory duties and language scheme commitments, where relevant. The Welsh Government has provided funding to help the sector to build its bilingual capacity. This includes guidance on digital translation tools and sharing capacity with the principal councils.

Janet Finch-Saunders (Conservative, Aberconwy)

Thank you very much. I know of town and community councils that cannot afford interpretation services, and so have to hold their meetings in English. What support is available to help town and community councils with the costs of interpretation?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Thank you very much for that supplementary question. I think that this is one of the areas where things have changed significantly over the period of devolution. Now, there are technological approaches to translation that weren't available when the Assembly was established back in 1999. So, we have invested with One Voice Wales. They had a plan in place. That was published back in 2023, to help with those digital solutions in relation to town and community councils. We have invested £300,000 with the sector to help them with that programme. And I think that, through using these new translation methods, this will make it easier for councils in the future, and I thank Janet Finch-Saunders for highlighting this important issue.

Rhys ab Owen (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

4. What discussions is the Cabinet Secretary having with Welsh Government colleagues and with Cardiff University to ensure the continuity of Welsh language nursing research opportunities? OQ62555

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

I thank Rhys ab Owen for the question. Llywydd, the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol has written to all Welsh universities asking them to outline the impact of proposed cuts on Welsh-medium provision. At present, no Welsh-medium research is undertaken at a postgraduate level in the nursing field at Cardiff University.

Rhys ab Owen (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

Thank you for that answer. Last month, my office attended a meeting that was sponsored by Julie Morgan and Jenny Rathbone with the Royal College of Nursing. There were a number of powerful messages in that meeting, many of them outwith your portfolio, but one of them within your portfolio was the ability for nurses to study and research through the medium of Welsh. According to the meeting, the practical nature of much nursing research means that patient outcomes are often directly affected by that research, and, with fewer opportunities for research through the medium of Welsh, it's likely that that will have a detrimental impact on Welsh-speaking patients and communities.

I also understand that securing PhD supervisors and examiners in this area who can speak Welsh and who have expertise in nursing is very difficult already. With fewer research opportunities, that means that it's going to make things even more difficult. Cardiff University is so important, because it specialises in research and offers the subject through the medium of Welsh. So, what conversations have you had, or are you planning to have, to ensure the continuation of Welsh-medium nursing research in Cardiff? Thank you.

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, thank you very much for the supplementary question. Of course, I have had discussions and, as a local Senedd Member, I've been involved in the discussions that Rhys mentioned, and I have been speaking to the Minister for Further and Higher Education too. It's not entirely clear to me how many opportunities exist in Cardiff at the moment for those who want to conduct research in nursing through the medium of Welsh. From the information that I have seen from the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol, there are opportunities not just in Cardiff, but in Swansea, Aberystwyth and particularly in Bangor. Bangor is the university where we have had people studying PhDs through the medium of Welsh in the field of nursing already. I want to see more opportunities, of course, and I want to see opportunities in Cardiff too. But there are other opportunities outside of the capital city and that, at the moment, is where we have seen more work happening.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Rhys mentioned the meeting with the RCN that he, Jenny Rathbone and I had—his staff, Jenny Rathbone and I had—last week, and the importance of Welsh in nursing generally was certainly stressed in that meeting, but also the opportunities for Welsh research were mentioned. And obviously, I think we all know the importance of Welsh in nursing in terms of being able to communicate, and particularly with older people and people with dementia it's absolutely crucial that they're able to use their first language. But, as I understood it from the RCN, more advanced nursing roles have research as part of the core work, and it's one of the pillars of advanced practice. And obviously, if there is no longer a nursing school in Cardiff University, there will be fewer opportunities for that to be developed, and developed through the medium of Welsh. So, would the Cabinet Secretary agree that it is very important that we do keep nursing education and the research that may be there as part of the advanced nursing roles in Cardiff University?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, Llywydd, I think Vikki Howells has already explained to the Senedd that the Welsh Government was not engaged by the university in the proposal that it published for consultation and that we were somewhat surprised not to have been drawn into that conversation, given the amount of investment that is made via the Welsh Government in training nurses in Cardiff. I'm hopeful from all the discussions that have gone on during the consultation period—and I myself have met with individuals who teach at the university in the field of nursing who have alternative proposals that they wish to put to the university authorities—that there is further thinking going on that may lead to revised proposals at the end of the consultation period. From my portfolio responsibilities, of course I would wish to see opportunities in the nursing field for people who study partly through the medium of Welsh, because the ability to speak Welsh when people are unwell and would rather use their language of choice, that's absolutely consistent with 'Mwy na geiriau', our own policy in this field, and where there are opportunities for research, and that research can also be conducted either through the medium of Welsh or into policies and issues that are relevant to Welsh speaking services, I will be very disappointed if those opportunities no longer existed in Cardiff.

Andrew RT Davies (Conservative, South Wales Central)

5. What action is the Cabinet Secretary taking to ensure value for money to Welsh taxpayers from grants provided by the Welsh Government to the third sector? OQ62552

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Thank you to the Member for that question. Llywydd, the third sector makes a significant contribution to the long-term well-being of Welsh communities. The Welsh Government provides dedicated support and guidance to enhance the effectiveness and value for money of grant management across the wider Welsh public sector.

Andrew RT Davies (Conservative, South Wales Central)

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. This question relates to town and community councils that the Auditor General for Wales highlighted recently, which I appreciate isn't directly in your portfolio, but he highlighted that nearly 70 councils do not file accounts with him to be signed off, and that situation is deteriorating rapidly. A lot of those town and community councils are partners to third sector organisations to apply for grants to improve the quality of life for many people in those particular areas across Wales. You, obviously being the source of finance out of the Welsh Government, would have an interest in making sure that those accounts are filed, are audited, and ultimately, the money can be proved value for money and spent wisely in those communities. What action are you taking, along with the local government Minister, to work with the auditor general, to make sure that town and community councils do improve their accounting procedures, so that when third sector organisations partner with them, they can have confidence that they have a fair crack of the whip in getting their share of the money to improve lives across Wales?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Llywydd, can I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for that important question and for shining a light on that auditor general's report? This is a long-standing problem in the sector. I have been a local government Minister, relatively briefly in the Welsh Government, and I was very well aware of it then in my discussions with One Voice Wales. The point the Member makes is, I think, a very real one. We know, in the work of community councils, the relatively small amounts of grant that they are sometimes able to make local organisations make a real difference on the ground and to the quality of services in those local areas.

So, I'm a strong supporter of community councils, when they are effective and well-run and well-managed. The dilemma we are faced with in Wales is while there are many community councils that operate at that end of the spectrum, there is a tail of community councils that lack ambition, lack capacity, and as you've seen in the auditor general's report, that translates into not being able properly to account for the money they spend and the way that they conduct their business. I will certainly be working with my colleague Jayne Bryant on those aspects of the report that fall directly in that finance field. What we want to see is a performance of all community councils being the performance of the best, because then they really do do good work and they work powerfully with third sector organisations at that local level.

Heledd Fychan (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

6. What assessment has the Cabinet Secretary made of the consequential funding that the Welsh Government will receive as a result of UK Government education spending commitments made since October 2024? OQ62563

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Thank you for the question. The Welsh Government has received additional consequential funding of £4.6 million, split between revenue and capital in 2025-26 in the spring statement, as a result of changes to the budget of the Department for Education in Westminster.

Heledd Fychan (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

Thank you for that response. In October 2024, the Chancellor announced a £2.3 billion increase in core funding for schools, including a £1 billion allocation for special needs education. I understand that consequential funding is not ring fenced, obviously, but unions were asked, I understand, by the Welsh Government to lobby the UK Government for additional education funding, and they're keen to understand how this money will be spent. Can I ask, therefore, are you able to share with us how much of the consequential funding was directed towards education?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, Llywydd, I think I've already provided that information to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee asked for further information about consequentials, where they came from, how they translated into money for Wales, and I've provided that information to the Finance Committee. Of course, here in Wales, the education sector is benefiting from £262.5 million additional funding in the financial year just ending, and a further—. Sorry, it's £151 million of that £262.5 million in the financial year just ending, and a further £111.5 million of extra funding in the financial year just beginning.

In Wales, we have a very different system of funding education, with money going to local authorities who then fund schools. The comparison with England is very hard to bring about, but the latest figures published by the UK Government—I think they were published under the previous regime—continue to show that since the pandemic, 2019-20, spend per person on education in Wales has increased by 24 per cent, larger than the increase in England, and 10 percentage points higher than the increase in Scotland.

Hannah Blythyn (Labour, Delyn)

7. How does the Welsh Government's procurement policy ensure social value? OQ62565

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Thank you to the Member. The Welsh Government recognises public procurement as a key driver for social, economic, environmental and cultural outcomes. We have developed progressive and forward-thinking legislation that puts social value, fair work and community well-being at the heart of our policies.

Hannah Blythyn (Labour, Delyn)

Thank you for your response, Cabinet Secretary.

Hannah Blythyn (Labour, Delyn)

And, Llywydd, at the outset of my supplementary, I want to make clear that I am a member of two trade unions.

The Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 that both of us will be somewhat familiar with, Cabinet Secretary, will shift the dial on how procurement has traditionally been viewed through a lens of bureaucracy and the financial bottom line to procurement as a means to bring about broader benefits for our people and places. The power of the public purse to effect the change we want to see is one of the key levers at our devolved disposal here in Wales. With that in mind, it's my view that public money should not go to companies who do not align their own principles with the Welsh Government's position on fair work. I understand that the social partnership council is currently carrying out a piece of work looking at how the economic contract could potentially be strengthened in this respect. However, I believe that we should once again lead the way in Wales, and that a condition of receiving public funds should be that a business or organisation should simply allow access to trade unions. Cabinet Secretary, is this something that the Welsh Government will consider?

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Well, Llywydd, can I thank Hannah Blythyn, not simply for the question, but for all the work that she invested in her time as Minister for Social Partnership, not simply on the social partnership and social procurement Bill, which she led on, but also the wider work on fair work? Trade union membership in Wales is something that we absolutely value. We have well-being goals under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and one of those goals tells us that an increase in trade union membership in Wales is to be regarded as a positive indicator of a fairer society. I firmly believe that fair work includes employers allowing access to trade unions.

I welcome the work that the Member referred to going on in Flintshire, but she will be aware, I know, that the social partnership council has established a sub-group on fair work and business grants. That will allow an opportunity to explore the issue that she has raised, and trade union access will certainly be part of the considerations of that working group. I'm sure that our colleague Jack Sargeant will be watching carefully the way that it navigates an answer to the question the Member has raised.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Finally, question 9. Mick Antoniw.

Mick Antoniw (Labour, Pontypridd)

9. Will the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on the progress made to put consequential allocations onto a constitutional basis? OQ62551

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

Thank you to the Member, Llywydd. The operational basis of the Barnett formula is set out in the UK statement of funding policy. The case for strengthening the constitutional basis of this and wider inter-governmental arrangements is persuasively set out in the Gordon Brown report on the United Kingdom's future.

Mick Antoniw (Labour, Pontypridd)

Thank you for those comments, and also the comments that were made earlier, I think, in response to question 1, when you commented on issues, what I would call the abuses of the current system, for example, the way in which Northern Ireland funding was allocated, the so-called 'bung', and the issues that are now under way with regard to transport funding, HS2 and so on. Do you agree with me that the biggest issue with regard to the funding formula is the actual lack of a binding and constitutionally based structure? We may have an arrangement, but it seems to me that much of the arrangement is often subject to the whim of the Treasury. I wonder if you could expand a bit further on the way in which you would see a more solidly structured arrangement for ensuring that the funding that this place gets is based on a proper formula and one that has a constitutional structure to it.

Mark Drakeford (Labour, Cardiff West)

I thank Mick Antoniw very much for that and echoing some of the points that Adam Price made earlier. I think the Gordon Brown report has a three-stranded answer to the Member's question. It does refer to the need for a fair funding formula, and we've rehearsed that extensively this afternoon, but beyond the formula itself, you need to have that formula entrenched in two ways. First of all, it needs parliamentary oversight, both at the UK Parliament but in the other Parliaments of the United Kingdom. And then, it needs a way of being justiciable. The problem with a formula and a convention is that when attempts were made to go to the Supreme Court to have the Sewel convention looked at, the courts concluded that there was nothing that the courts could do, because this was merely a convention despite the fact that it had been honoured for 20 years. So, what Gordon Brown says in his report is: reform of the formula, proper parliamentary oversight of it and a legally binding part of it, which means that if you believe that things have not been done properly, you have recourse to independent redress, rather than it simply being in the hands of the people who made the decision in the first place.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

2. Questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Education

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

The next item will be questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Education. The first question is from Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Mabon ap Gwynfor (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

1. What guidance is the Government providing to schools and colleges to address the effects of incel culture? OQ62575

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

The Welsh Government is committed to ensuring that all learners feel safe and supported in school. The mandatory relationships and sexuality education, RSE, code and our peer-on-peer sexual harassment in education settings action plan are two examples of active measures that enable schools and colleges to address this.

Mabon ap Gwynfor (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response, and those steps are to be welcomed from my perspective, certainly. There has been a lot of talk recently of incel following Adolescence on Netflix, and concerns about the way children and young people can communicate with each other at school through mobile phones, and how those messages are passed around on mobiles. Now, as part of the public discourse around all of this, people have mentioned banning the use of mobile phones in schools and colleges. I think the latest evidence shows that that isn't effective, but there is then a question in terms of children and young people's access to phones at school. So, what consideration have you given to strengthening the guidance, or to providing clearer national guidance in terms of access to mobile phones in our schools?

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Can I thank Mabon for the supplementary question? Like many of us, I watched Adolescence and it was a deeply worrying experience watching it, and I really welcome the debate that it's provoked. You raised the issue of mobile phones, and young people are growing up in a very different world to the one that we all grew up in. I think our RSE curriculum has a really important role to play in that, but what I'm worried about is how we keep pace as adults with a world that is so very different from our own. So, we are doing some work to strengthen our RSE provision.

The issue of mobile phones is really complex, because, as you've highlighted here, there's been a lot of research and some of the research suggests that what happens outside school is the huge problem with mobile phones. You’ll also be aware of the inquiry that Carolyn Thomas led in the Petitions Committee. We are actively discussing mobile phones with our schools. Schools have already got the power to ban mobile phone use during the school day. You’ll be aware that we’re having a behaviour summit in May, and one of the pieces of work that we’re doing in the run-up to that is to look specifically at the issue of mobile phones. It is a complex issue and there are reasons why some children do need access to a mobile phone, but that’s why we’re doing this work in a thorough way with a view to really considering what we do. You’ll be aware that the Petitions Committee didn’t call for a complete ban—they called for national guidance.

The other thing for me is I think we’ve got to do more to ensure that young people can use technology safely, being mindful of the fact that I don’t think we really understand what they’re dealing with. One of the things that I’ve asked, since watching Adolescence and the focus on this, is to meet—. We've got a group of learners who help us with our keeping safe online work, and I’ve asked to meet with them, as well as with the team that leads on that, so that we can really make sure that the resources that we’re providing via Hwb to children, parents and teachers are fully up to date and take account of the kind of things that are emerging now in society.

Mark Isherwood (Conservative, North Wales)

As the parent and grandparent of both girls and boys, I find incel culture extremely concerning. Until I watched the Adolescence series, I'd never heard of the term 'incel culture', but now I know that it's shorthand for 'involuntary celibate', and that, although the term was originally developed by an older woman as a positive thing, it now applies to online forums in which men discuss feeling angry and resentful towards women because they believe that women don't find them attractive. I'm sure you'll join me in seeing the irony in this, where these adolescent and adult men make themselves unattractive to women by doing this.

What action will you take to work, for example, with Hafan Cymru to capture incel culture within the Spectrum healthy relationships programme sessions delivered in schools, which I've attended in the past, and to broaden that programme's reach? And what action can and will you take to provide information and support to families for their early intervention in the home?

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Thank you very much, Mark, for your question. As I said in response to Mabon, we’ve got our RSE provision, and Spectrum play an important role in that. We fund the Spectrum project and that supports schools across Wales with lessons on healthy relationships, violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence. But I am looking at what more we can do around RSE in Wales. I’m currently considering our Curriculum for Wales grant support programme, so I’m looking through that at what more we can do to really beef up the support for schools in this area. We’ve also got our new professional learning body coming online in the autumn and clearly there’s a key role for that.

But I mentioned as well that we have got good resources online that we provide as a Government on keeping safe online. I’ve looked at them as a parent, but young people can use them as well. But what we need to make sure, I think, is that they are keeping pace with what are some really quite scary developments that were highlighted by the programme. But I am really concerned about it; I’m concerned about it as a parent as well. It was a shocking programme, and we do need to make sure that we are doing absolutely everything that we can.

Altaf Hussain (Conservative, South Wales West)

2. How is the Welsh Government supporting neurodiverse boys in state schools? OQ62578

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Through our reform of the education system, we are supporting neurodiverse boys to engage, learn and thrive. Our new curriculum, additional learning needs system and whole-school approach to mental health and well-being are creating a change to the school environment that supports all learners to reach their full potential.

Altaf Hussain (Conservative, South Wales West)

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I am disappointed about the treatment of Kian Mills, whose parents have been forced to remove him from St Joseph's Catholic School in Port Talbot. We know boys have higher rates of diagnosis of ADHD—four times higher than girls, according to ADHD UK. We also know they face significant stigma, with behaviours often characterised as disruptive, and that such people are punished unfairly, with detentions, isolation, and even exclusion. At the same time, Wales's NHS executive estimates that autism or ADHD assessment backlogs could triple over the next three years. We therefore are unaware of the true scale of the problem. How many more Kians are suffering in our schools? Cabinet Secretary, what will you do to ensure all neurodiverse pupils are sufficiently supported?

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Thank you very much, Altaf. I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to go into an individual case in the Chamber today, but I will try and deal with the general issues that you've raised. Obviously, it's really important that we support all our learners, and I think we are very well equipped to do that, with the new curriculum and with our ALN reforms in Wales. I do think there's more work to do in terms of equipping schools with the knowledge to support neurodiverse learners. You've highlighted some of the things that can happen when that doesn't happen, because they don't understand the behaviour, and that's when you see inappropriate punishments, exclusions, et cetera.

One of the things that we're doing at the moment is working with Education Support to develop a new professional learning programme for schools that's focused on developing education practitioners' understanding of neurodivergence, child development, and our whole-school approach to mental health. Initial teacher education partnerships are doing good work around ALN, but I want to make sure that we've got a consistent approach to upskilling our new teachers to learn about how to support learners who are neurodiverse or who have other additional learning needs.

In terms of the issues you've raised about waiting times, I think it's important to emphasise again that children do not need a diagnosis to get support in a school. That is something that's been made very clear. Schools should be responding to the needs of individual children. But I completely understand why families want that diagnosis. As you've highlighted, there is a very significant backlog, and that has been made worse, unfortunately, by the pandemic. My colleague Sarah Murphy has announced—. There's been £12 million invested in the neurodivergence improvement programme. That was added to by a further £3 million for waiting times initiatives in relation to neurodivergence, before Christmas. So, there is a plan to drive down those waiting times.

The neurodivergence improvement team are also working with schools. There's a community of practice, to try and improve the understanding. And also, as a Government, we've been leading inclusive practice events, sharing good practice across Wales, to try and make sure that all schools are coming up to the level of the best in terms of supporting neurodiverse children and young people.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservatives spokesperson, Natasha Asghar.

Natasha Asghar (Conservative, South Wales East)

Thank you so much, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, private and independent schools play an incredibly important role in our education system. There seems to be a common misconception, and, sadly, it's prevalent amongst the Labour benches, that these schools are only for the rich. In reality, this couldn't be further from the truth. Having visited many private schools since taking up my role, including Kings Monkton School in Cardiff, as well as Monmouth Haberdashers', many families actually scrimp and save to send their children to private school, making many and countless sacrifices along the way.

When we discussed independent schools in the Chamber a few weeks ago, the disdain radiated from the former First Minister, now Cabinet Secretary for finance—he deliberately misconstrued my points and proceeded on a rant about privilege. So, Cabinet Secretary, do you share your colleague’s contempt for private and independent schools, or do you recognise that they have an important role to play? And I’d urge you to think very carefully about your answer, given that both the First Minister, Baroness Eluned Morgan, and the Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, have received this type of schooling.

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Thank you, Natasha. I can assure you that I always think really carefully about the answers that I give here. I didn’t hear the exchange with my colleague Mark Drakeford, but what I can tell you is that I know my colleague Mark Drakeford is as intent as I am on maximising the resources available for our state schools in Wales. The measures that we have supported as a Government have been about making sure that the schools most of our families use are well funded.

Natasha Asghar (Conservative, South Wales East)

Cabinet Secretary, it is evident that Labour politicians both here and at the other end of the M4 seem hell-bent on attacking our private and independent schools. There has been a triple-whammy of higher taxes for them, with the national insurance hike, removing rate relief for charity-run schools, and, of course, adding VAT on to school fees.

The decision to impose VAT alone has had a major impact on the sector, with parents pulling students out of school, applications for the upcoming year dropping, teaching staff being axed, and subjects being slashed. Labour’s Treasury Minister, Torsten Bell, has admitted that around 100 private schools will be forced to close because of this tax rate, although the Independent Schools Bursars Association believes that the true number is actually set to be around 300.

Let’s go with the Swansea MP’s prediction of 100 schools closing. That would mean around 40,000 students being displaced, and 11,000 jobs lost, according to this analysis. Many of these students will transition to our already overstretched state schools, which I don’t have any problem with. But I’d like to know what assessment has the Welsh Government made of the impact Labour’s VAT hike will have on our already under pressure and underfunded Welsh state schools.

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Thank you, Natasha. Obviously, we’ve discussed this quite a few times in the Chamber. I’m sure that you recognise that the intent of the UK Labour Government in asking private schools to pay VAT was so that there is an appropriate contribution for our state schools, which we know are under huge pressure financially. I very much welcome that, and, indeed, the commitment to use that money to get more teachers in front of our children.

In terms of the analysis, I can assure you that my officials monitor carefully the demand on the school system. As I’ve highlighted before in the Chamber, we actually have a surplus of places in Wales in our schools, so there is plenty of room to accommodate any other children who want to move to our state schools.

Natasha Asghar (Conservative, South Wales East)

Cabinet Secretary, I’m glad you mentioned choice, but I’d like to talk a bit about figures. One particular private school in Wales supports 86 pupils with additional learning needs. I know you’re very passionate about ALN, so let’s talk about this. Just for the record, their places are funded privately by their families. Let’s say those 86 students are forced to leave private schools due to spiralling costs, and transition into state school. Based on the average cost per pupil, that would cost the state nearly £628,360 extra per year. There have been estimates that anywhere between 90,000 and 135,000 students across the UK could leave the independent sector.

So, let’s go with this. Ninety thousand pupils leaving would cost the taxpayer £648 million, and if we saw 135,000 leaving, that would cost a staggering £972 million. Despite what Labour politicians say, this isn’t about boosting education. In my view, it’s a vindictive and ideologically driven attack on the private school sector. This isn’t about fairness; it’s about resentment, as I can hear from your backbencher there, who’s more than welcome to make a contribution in his own time rather than hindering mine. It’s an attack on aspiration, and an attack on parental choice.

Wales’s First Minister, and also the UK’s Prime Minister, were able to thrive in the education that they were afforded. If it was good enough for a humble toolmaker’s son, and a daughter of a vicar, why is Labour determined to stifle aspiration and remove choice, instead of focusing on improving standards in our state sector?

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

There’s no question of removing choice. People can still send their children to private school if they choose to. The choice we have made as a Government is that we want to prioritise our investment in our state publicly funded schools, and that’s exactly the choice that has been made by the UK Government.

As you’re aware, I believe, Natasha, we do place some young people with very complex needs in independent schools, and that is funded by the public purse. There are arrangements under this new legislation to make sure that the VAT can be recouped for that, so that there is no loss of income.

I appreciate that it’s challenging for families who are self-funding children with ALN in private schools, but what I would advise to them is to have that discussion about their child’s needs. We’ve got a new system in Wales that is geared to meeting the needs of all children. If they’re entitled to an IDP, they should get one, and they’re entitled to information, they’re entitled to advocacy. So, those options are there for them.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Cefin Campbell.

Cefin Campbell (Plaid Cymru, Mid and West Wales)

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. It's a question to the Minister. Minister, in a written statement published last month, you said that you would be, and I’m quoting,

‘working with UK Government on their plans for higher education reform.’

Why then, in response to Plaid Cymru’s written questions both here in the Senedd and in Westminster, neither you nor the UK Government could confirm that Wales would have an official role as part of the UK Government’s plans to reform the sector? Would you like to respond to that?

Vikki Howells (Labour, Cynon Valley)

Yes. Thank you, Cefin Campbell, for that opening question and I’m very happy to respond to that. What the UK Government has announced is that it’s developing a plan for higher education reform, which is due to be published this summer. So, it’s a plan for reform. What it’s not is a formal review of higher education. So, without it being classed as a formal review, then we can’t say that we have a formal role in it. But, given the interconnected challenges facing the HE sector across the UK, I think it’s very important that I and my officials play a key role within that piece of work, and that’s exactly what we are doing.

Cefin Campbell (Plaid Cymru, Mid and West Wales)

I find it incredible that you have no formal role, because you’ve made great play on how you would partake in that review. Whilst it may seem to be an issue of semantics, it actually touches on a crucial principle, because Wales was promised a partnership in power—that is, two Labour Governments working together each side of the M4. Just as we’ve seen this week with the cruel cuts to welfare benefits, the Welsh Government may well be talking to the UK Government, but it’s clear to me they’re not listening.

In that same written statement, you also said you’d be seeking clarity from UK Government on, and I’m quoting again,

‘fees policy…the details of HM Treasury’s rules on our student loans budget…the future of shared prosperity and research funding’,

and also

‘the future of the graduate visa.’

Can I just ask simply, have you succeeded in getting clarity on those issues?

Vikki Howells (Labour, Cynon Valley)

Thank you very much, Cefin. I was going to use the word 'semantics' but you used it yourself. If the UK Government are calling it a plan, then a plan is not something that you can have a formal role in. So, it is semantics. It doesn’t undermine the key role that we are playing just because I can’t reply to you formally in a letter and say, 'Yes, we can class that as a formal role.' So, what I and my officials are working closely with the UK Government on is the future of the UK international education strategy, the future of structural investment and research funding across the UK, the future oversight of student finance and funding, and a UK-wide review of governance and leadership in universities.

The fees policy is very important. In the round-table that I held with the First Minister and all the vice-chancellors of universities in Wales, it was the No.1 ask from those VCs. They really want certainty about fees policy for the rest of this parliamentary term—that’s the UK Government’s parliamentary term—because that enables them to forward plan for their finances. So, I’m committed to ensuring that that is the case. That’s my No.1 ask of the UK Government.

With student loans as well, it’s really important that we work closely with the UK Government on that because our student loan envelope is tied to the spending and the envelope within England as well. Under HM Treasury rules, we’re not permitted to spend more than the English system. So, it is really important that I engage on that, because that's a key part of the way in which we support our students and the way in which our universities are funded.

You mentioned SPF funding as well. Yes, absolutely, it's really important that we feed into that. That was another thing that vice-chancellors asked of me and the First Minister, to try and get, again, a longer term funding stream and some certainty there. And the graduate visa issue is a really important one, because the household income threshold for that, we believe, needs to be lower in Wales to reflect the fact of our average graduate incomes here.

Cefin Campbell (Plaid Cymru, Mid and West Wales)

So, let's be clear then, because it's called a 'plan' you can't play a formal role in that, although you previously have suggested that you would play a part in any review led by the UK Government. So, that's not the kind of clarity that our university institutions are looking for. And it's probably emphasising the importance, more than ever, that we need to find a Welsh way forward when it comes to protecting Welsh universities.

The written statement also outlined other actions you are taking to try and support the sector, but as Professor Dylan Jones Evans has said recently, and I quote,

'most of these actions are a short term political response...rather than a coherent strategy for the sustainable future of the higher education sector.'

So, why, therefore, can’t you respond constructively to my call, and Plaid Cymru’s call, for a cross-party, independent, wholesale review into our higher education sector to resolve these issues and place our institutions on a more sustainable financial footing, not just for now, but for years to come? Or do you honestly believe that Labour knows best?

Vikki Howells (Labour, Cynon Valley)

You've mentioned the word 'formal' again for the third time, and so I'll reply to you again, for the third time, we have an intrinsic role in this work that is being brought forward by the UK Government. You might want to come here every time you question me and say that the most important thing to you is whether we can use the word 'formal' or not; the most important thing to me when I come here every week is what we're able to get out of that work with the UK Government to deliver for our universities, to deliver for the students and to deliver for the staff within those universities as well.

We are doing a tremendous amount of work here in Wales on the issues that we are able to control. And I would say to you that the most important one of those is the evaluation of the Diamond student support package. That is a very comprehensive piece of work, with initial findings due in the autumn. I've also asked Medr, as you're aware, to begin an overview of subject demand, provision and distribution in HE in Wales, and that will provide a really important evidence base for me in order to consider where interventions might be required to ensure the continuation of strategically important subject areas in Wales that are vital to the success of public services. Within that, as well, we're also looking at the spread of Welsh language provision in HE. I believe that is a very important commitment for us to hold to. And, of course, as well, I have been able to secure an additional £28.5 million-worth of funding for the sector during this financial year.

Luke Fletcher (Plaid Cymru, South Wales West)

3. How does the Welsh Government intend to undertake its annual review of the education maintenance allowance? OQ62559

Vikki Howells (Labour, Cynon Valley)

We will review the early impact of the threshold increase I announced in January, as EMA applications start to be submitted for academic year 2025-26, and consider any further changes to policy and scheme rules alongside our budget and participation discussions for academic year 2026-27.

Luke Fletcher (Plaid Cymru, South Wales West)

Thank you for that answer. Of course, when you made that announcement back in January, I was incredibly proud of the campaign that had been, ultimately, led by students to get to this point, and it was a very welcome announcement, but now what we are looking for is simply clarification. So, could you clarify whether the review process will be purely desk based, or if there will be consultation with colleges, students and other stakeholders to gather their feedback on the effectiveness of the current system? In addition, clarification around whether the review will be extended to the administration of the allowance would also be very helpful. As I mentioned back in January, over the years, the application process has become increasingly complicated and there have been significant delays in the payment of allowances. These delays have, ultimately, left many students struggling to attend college or school, therefore creating a cycle of financial strain.

Vikki Howells (Labour, Cynon Valley)

Thank you, Luke, for those follow-up questions. To me, it's very important that this review is as all-encompassing as possible. For officials who crunch the numbers, those desk-based analyses are very important, but I think it's important also to get that human side—that human feedback—so I fully intend to take account of the views of learners, colleges and other stakeholders as well. NUS Cymru are a very important voice within that, but there are also many others as well, and I do agree with you that it is vital for us to also look at the administration of EMA to ensure that it is always paid accurately and in a timely manner as well.

Janet Finch-Saunders (Conservative, Aberconwy)

4. What steps is the Welsh Government taking to mitigate the impact of energy costs on school budgets? OQ62543

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Rising energy costs will have an impact on all public services, including our schools. Decisions on the level of funding available to schools are made by each local authority as part of their overall budget setting. To mitigate the impact, we are increasing the local government settlement by 4.5 per cent in 2025-26.

Janet Finch-Saunders (Conservative, Aberconwy)

Thank you. Exchange Utility have highlighted that the average annual energy cost per school in the UK is £27,000—some, actually, can be over £80,000. Now, at a time when a lot of schools are struggling to balance their budgets, with some having to file a deficit budget, more needs to be done to reduce the strain of these energy costs. In 2024, five schools in Powys were fitted with solar panels, batteries, LED lighting and loft insulation in a bid to make them more sustainable. I've been asked by headteachers at primary school and secondary school level—. You know, they really find their energy bills quite daunting, yet they say, 'Look, we would love solar panels on our school roofs, but we've raised it with the education department and nobody ever gets back to us.' What guidance can you give to education authorities and schools themselves, where we can actually see buildings that can be used to bring reducing energy costs, but also new technologies—renewable technologies—so that you're working across Government on addressing climate change issues? Thanks.

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Thank you very much, Janet. Obviously, I recognise the pressures school budgets are under and what a worry the increased energy costs can be. That's why we did make such a significant increase in funding to the local government settlement, and why we've also provided an additional £402 million through the local authority education grant this year. So, we've done our very best to try and make sure that we get as much money into schools as we possibly can.

In terms of the point you raise, we are committed to net-zero schools. As part of our Sustainable Communities for Learning programme, there is investment available for net-zero schools. In terms of the point you've made specifically about solar panels et cetera, I would advise that that's probably a matter that should be discussed with the local authority, because we provide the funding to the local authority. But I will pick up the point you've raised about that particular local authority with officials.

Lee Waters (Labour, Llanelli)

5. Will the Cabinet Secretary provide an update on participation by schools in the Careers Wales alumni scheme? OQ62572

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Careers Wales are supporting 72 schools across all 22 local authorities to generate alumni networks. In total, Careers Wales have 1,859 individual alumni recorded against 137 schools on their Careers Wales education business exchange database, which schools can access.

Lee Waters (Labour, Llanelli)

Thank you. There's a reason why most elite schools and universities have an alumni scheme: to draw upon the resources, the connections and the ideas of their former pupils, and far too few of our comprehensive schools follow suit. That is why the Valleys taskforce piloted a project in 10 schools and produced, as a result of that, a toolkit that Careers Wales now are meant to be promoting, though it's quite hard to find it on their website. Encouraged by those figures the Cabinet Secretary mentioned, clearly there's potential to do far more than that. Would she please work with other Ministers to encourage the uptake of this scheme and to remind schools of this resource and the potential it has to provide them and their pupils with practical help?

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Thank you, Lee. I'm very happy to give you that commitment. Careers Wales sits with Jack Sargeant, but the issue here is also about how effectively schools are engaging with Careers Wales. I think it's a great idea, it also seems like an idea that doesn't cost a lot of money, which is always really welcome, and I also take on board the point you've made about alumni and connections, and we need to make sure that our children are able to access those. I've looked at the figures. There's clearly more that we can do. I don't think it should be a burdensome thing for schools, if we've got families and parents that are happy to come and give that service, so I will have that discussion with Jack Sargeant.

Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)

6. What assessment has the Cabinet Secretary made of the impact of Estyn's annual report 2023-24 on education in South Wales East? OQ62548

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Estyn’s annual report provides a valuable, independent account of how the education system is performing across Wales. Within South Wales East, there are significant strengths but also aspects to improve. I am committed to addressing the challenges we still face.

Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. Estyn's annual report really wasn't anything to be proud of, was it? This Government really needs to take heed of it and do a lot better.

One of the problems we're facing, which is having an impact on outcomes in our schools, and children's outcomes, is absenteeism. Recently I attended the Council of Europe in Strasbourg and it became very apparent to me that absenteeism is a growing problem across Europe since COVID. What conversations have you had as a Government and as a Cabinet Secretary with other countries about this escalating issue? And have any new ideas stemmed from those conversations? Diolch.

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Thank you very much. Can I start by expressing my gratitude to all our leaders and teachers within south-east Wales and throughout Wales? I'd also like to congratulate those schools from South Wales East who've been showcased within the annual report, so that's Langstone Primary School in Newport, Cyfarthfa Park Primary School in Merthyr Tydfil, and Undy Primary School in Monmouthshire. Can I say to the Member that I am very proud of those schools? I think it is about celebrating the things that we do well but never being complacent about what we need to improve.

Attendance was a key issue raised in the Estyn report. That wasn't a surprise to us as a Government, because obviously we've identified improving attendance rates as a top priority. If children aren't in school then we are not going to raise standards. That's why as a Government we have announced over this year and last year £8.8 million to support attendance, and the aim is to recover our position to the position it was in before the pandemic.

Now, you asked a question about international comparisons. I met with Andreas Schleicher, who leads the education team in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a few months ago, and one of the issues we discussed was absenteeism, attendance and what we can do. Last week I attended the international summit for the teaching profession in Iceland, which was jointly hosted by the OECD and Education International, and attendance was a key theme at that. Later on in the summer we are very committed to learning from good practice elsewhere, and we are hosting an OECD peer learning event in Wales, and we will be discussing attendance at that.

Peter Fox (Conservative, Monmouth)

7. What assessment has the Welsh Government made of the standard of food in schools across Wales? OQ62569

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Local authorities and governing bodies asses the standard of food in schools and are required to adhere to the healthy eating in schools regulations and guidance. These set out the standards for food and drink provided in maintained schools in Wales. These regulations are currently being reviewed and updated.

Peter Fox (Conservative, Monmouth)

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that response. Providing free school meals to pupils across Wales may be lauded as a positive step. However, if we are not giving our children healthy unprocessed or nutritious food, we are actually not helping them at all to become healthy. Free school meals should not just be about feeding our young people; the policy should be used as a vehicle to improve their health and well-being, which, in turn, will translate into improved life chances for them. As Professor Kevin Morgan from Cardiff University said, there is no good in universalising poor-quality food. Sadly, there is far too much inconsistency across local authorities as to the standard of food that our children are receiving, and I also know too often the meals are too small for growing kids. Your Government said that you are working closely with local authorities to offer the best possible food in schools. So, with that in mind, Cabinet Secretary, when can Welsh primary schoolchildren expect to see the improvements they deserve?

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Thank you very much, Peter, and I'm aware of your long-standing interest in this issue, and I do think our universal primary free-school-meal offer is really important. We don't want hungry children—they won't learn—but it is vital that we provide them with a healthy meal, and I think there is really good work going on in Wales to provide a healthy offer to children and young people. But as I said when I come to the cross-party group on food, we have got more work to do. That's why we're reviewing the healthy eating in schools regulations and statutory guidance, and we've worked closely with local government on that. We'll be going out to consult on the new regulations in the not-too-distant future. We'll also be looking at the guidance that focuses on the role of the governing body, Estyn, and the local authority in relation to their requirements to promote healthy eating and drinking. And I've already given an assurance that the issue of portion sizes will be looked at as part of that work.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Finally, question 8, Buffy Williams.

Buffy Williams (Labour, Rhondda)

8. How does the Welsh Government's budget support the Sustainable Communities for Learning programme? OQ62558

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

The sustainable communities for learning capital programme has seen an investment of over £3.7 billion since 2014. I've also approved plans for a further 316 projects, equating to £5.4 billion, as part of the programme’s nine-year rolling programme.

Buffy Williams (Labour, Rhondda)

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Our young people deserve the best opportunities to learn. High-quality facilities play a crucial role. Over Christmas, thanks to the sustainable communities for learning programme, pupils and staff at Ysgol Gynradd Gymraeg Llyn y Forwyn moved from their old site to a brand-new facility in Maerdy. The learning and play facilities are exceptional and the school community already feels at home. Looking ahead, we will soon see new school buildings for Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhondda and Penrhys Primary School, both of which have waited far too long for the facilities they deserve. I'm proud to have played a small part in securing these improvements for staff and pupils. I know I'm not the only one looking forward to seeing the plans. Can the Cabinet Secretary provide an update on the progress for the new buildings at Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhondda and Penrhys Primary School, and does she agree with me that the sustainable communities for learning programme is essential to improving standards across education in Wales?

Lynne Neagle (Labour, Torfaen)

Can I thank Buffy Williams for her question and for highlighting the new school and the excellent experience that children are having in it? I think it does make a huge difference to the education of children, but also I think it says something to those children about their worth to us as a society that we are valuing the buildings that they are operating in. She'll be aware that there is a process that is undertaken when we invest in funding our schools. It follows an outline business case, full business case et cetera, and there is an investment board. So, I will write to her with an update on the specific project that she mentioned, but just to assure her that we work really closely with local authorities—it's a joint programme. We've increased our intervention rates as a Government, and I regard it as a huge success.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

3. Topical Questions

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Item 3 is next, the topical questions. There are two questions today. Llyr Gruffydd will ask the first question and this question will be answered by the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery. Llyr Gruffydd.

Llyr Gruffydd (Plaid Cymru, North Wales)

1. What steps will the Welsh Government take to address the concerns raised by the farming sector following the statutory review of the Control of Agricultural Pollution Regulations? TQ1326

Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)

The steps that will be taken were outlined in the written statement of 31 March. We intend to take forward the recommendations in full and at pace.

Llyr Gruffydd (Plaid Cymru, North Wales)

Well, thank you for your response. This was clearly an opportunity for the Government to listen to the genuine concerns of farmers and to introduce much-needed changes, yet the response from the farming sector, of course, to the review, has been one of deep frustration and disappointment. Now, farmers were promised that it would provide a meaningful assessment of the impact of these regulations and lead to proportionate, evidence-based improvements. But instead, what we saw in the Cabinet Secretary's statement was a response that failed to recognise the urgency of their situation. The regulations remain unchanged, of course, despite mounting evidence that they impose an unworkable, costly and bureaucratic burden on farm businesses, businesses that are already struggling with financial pressures, market instability and a host of other challenges.

The National Farmers Union Cymru's survey of over 400 farmers paints a stark picture. It confirms that the worst fears of the sector have materialised in relation to huge compliance costs, an unmanageable regulatory framework, and, of course, an impact on the mental health and well-being of farming families, many of whom feel that these regulations threaten the viability of their livelihoods. Now, farmers are being told that they may have to wait up to three more years for potential adjustments, following this review, and that simply isn't good enough. The Government shouldn't be looking to add further layers of regulations, when the existing framework is already seen as disproportionate and impractical; it should be listening to the sector and taking immediate steps to make sure that regulation is better targeted, evidence led and fair. I heard you say that you will take this on at pace. That certainly wasn't reflected in the statement on 31 March.

So, will you now commit to urgent changes to these regulations, to reduce their complexity and their impracticality, particularly given that the review concludes that the burden of regulation should be lower for farms that present the lowest risk of pollution? Secondly, do you accept that the farming-by-calendar approach now has to come to an end? Because, as the review says, it's not compatible with the principle of the right nutrient application at the right time. And finally, do you acknowledge that failing to act swiftly on these recommendations will seriously add to the worry and desperation of those out there who really are grappling with these regulations? As I say, waiting up to three years for the implementation of some of these recommendations will have serious impacts on the mental health and well-being of many of those who are already struggling to cope.

Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)

Well, thank you, Llyr. Look, I think we've got to start from the point of view that the health of the water bodies across Wales are critical for every person in Wales. From access to water for drinking, for recreation, for food production, for healthy, thriving ecosystems, the well-being of current and future generations is heavily dependent on clean water, and that is no different for farming families or businesses than for anyone else at all. Water quality in Wales is still detrimentally impacted, and we've got to make improvements to that. We talk all the time in this Chamber about the need to protect our watercourses, and in particular our special areas of conservation rivers, which are very heavily impacted as well, and we absolutely acknowledge, and have done for some considerable time, that the causes of pollutions are not limited to any one sector, and agriculture remains as one of the main contributors.

Llyr, I know you're familiar with the summit process that took place under the previous First Minister, which I was very much a part of. The written statement sets out that we will continue to do that, and very much central to the action plan that came out of that process was an acknowledgement from each sector contributing to water quality, and to improved water quality as well as to water detriment, that they would look to see what their own particular industry could do to improve practice. That's the same for the farming industry as it is for the water companies, as it is for the house builders, as it is for everybody else who took part in that summit, and an action plan was agreed.

In the meantime, one of the things that we also did was we decided to have an independently chaired review of these regulations, and we did that because we wanted to be sure that they were—well, we wanted to see what their impact was, and we wanted to make sure that they fit within a new summit process and the action plan and so on. The review has come back for us, and it's highlighted that there is significant scope to improve the regulations, and for those regulations to be improved for the benefit of both the farming industry and, more broadly, of course, for the environment and, indeed, specifically for water quality.

We are going to recommend—. We have accepted all the recommendations. We will implement them in full and at pace. The recommendations, as I'm you know, are split up, very usefully, into short, medium and long-term actions that we can do. They reflect that some of the changes should be relatively quick and easy to make, but also that some of the recommendations require consideration of very complex interlocking issues. I think you probably have read through it. So, one of the things it recommends very specifically is that we should address imminently the issue about making the regulations more accessible to farmers. So, they're hard to understand; we need to make sure that people understand what's required of them on a farming business and that they're able to comply with what that is. They do want to look at the closed period, and also at the storage issues, but they are quite complicated, as you know. And what we all want to see is that a farmer spreading nutrients on the land is doing so in accordance with the needs of the crop that they are about to produce and is not doing so in a way that, you know, frankly, it just tips into the local river.

I'll just say a personal reflection, for example. I was actually on a trip to the Cleddau, and I watched a contractor spread on a field in between two very heavy rain showers because they'd been contracted to spread on the field. And the fact that that—. I mean, it went straight into the river. I watched it; I actually took a photograph of it. We have to get to a point where—. You know, a lot of the spreading is done by contractors. We have to get to a point where the regulations are clear-cut for farmers. We know what can be done; we know that something as, frankly, idiotic as doing it in between two clearly forecasted rain showers is not something we should do. You know—[Interruption.] Absolutely. Absolutely, most farmers don't want to do that; I'm just pointing out that I watched it. But I also was part of a summit where a number of farmers came and showed us a whole series of small improvements they had made to their farms about this. Just a slightly different spreading practice on a particular field prevented the run-off, made sure the nutrients stayed in the soil and made sure the soil stayed on the field. It was a delightful thing to watch and I was very impressed by the farmer who had come to show us and the community of practice.

And I'm telling you those two anecdotes because I think we have got to make sure that the regulations are effective, that they drive the right kinds of practice, but that they don't drive insecurity and any kind of isolation, that people feel that they understand what those regulations are asking of them, that they buy in, frankly, to the outcome of the regulations, which is better watercourses for everyone—. And who needs that more than farmers? Of course, they need it.

So, we will implement the recommendations, we will take forward those short-term—. It's worth going through—. The Llywydd will not want me to read them out, because they're very long, but the short-term ones do address many of the issues around understanding and access to the regulations, but there's no getting away from the fact that some of them are more complicated, and the report is very clear about why they're more complicated, and it's clear about the fact that they impact particular types of intensive animal farming in a way that is more impactful than for other farmers. It says a lot of interesting things about upland grazing and lowland arable, for example, that I thought was most interesting.

So, the answer is: we will implement them, we will take account of the short, medium and long-term recommendations as well, we will look to make sure that we have the right people in the room. So, it doesn't actually make any provisions for specific changes to the regulations; it says that we need to get a group of people together and make sure that we do that properly. And for those longer term ones, it will be pivotal to make sure that the right people are in the room to make sure that those regulations stay fit for purpose. But we are going to leave the regulations in place while that process occurs; we will, though, take forward the short-term ones immediately.

So, I think, in hitting the difficult but correct balance between ensuring that a very pivotal part of our economy—farming—is able to thrive and making sure that our watercourses are absolutely fit for purpose, we need to just hit that sweet spot in the middle.

Peter Fox (Conservative, Monmouth)

I'd better declare an interest as a farmer for the record. I thank Llyr for bringing the topical question forward, and, Cabinet Secretary, you will have answered some of my points, but I think they're so important that we need to reiterate some of them. Dr Susannah Bolton's review provides some hope of change in some areas, but also additional concerns for the farming community in others. I welcome the tone of the review, and it has at least listened to stakeholders to understand better their concerns and the impacts that the regulations will have, or have had, on farmers' well-being, and some of the recommendations acknowledge this. However, farmers will be frustrated that many things are likely to stay just the same for the foreseeable future.

Cabinet Secretary, you've said that all 23 recommendations will be implemented. Recommendations require a lot of work before they can be implemented, but our farmers need to see the progress on that as soon as possible, and I think you've given us some reassurance that things are going to happen quickly. I welcome the fact that the review recognises the bureaucratic nature of the regs and the lack of clarity to farmers—a key issue if we do want them to positively engage. Anything we can do around that needs to be enacted very quickly.

The more targeted approach of the regs is also welcome, but the detail of what this could mean will be keenly anticipated. I welcome the consideration of the closed periods and of the 170 kg nitrogen limits, as well as what seems to be more of a pragmatic and targeted approach, as farming by calendar remains a real issue as it fails to reflect the reality of farming life and practice, and anybody who doesn't get that needs to come out on a farm and experience it.

I welcome the recommendations to look at innovative ways to manage manure, also the exemptions for farms that are under TB restrictions. That will be very welcomed by some of those farmers. However, whilst some of the recommendations give a modicum of hope, there are things that will raise anxieties even more. For instance, in the long term, all slurry stores will have to be covered over. Well, that's a huge capital cost that could fall on farmers. Also the anxiety of older stores for both silage and slurry to be inspected. What this could lead to is possibly huge replacement costs, which—again, how will that be funded? And of course, this new focus on air quality adds a new dimension of anxiety to the industry if those recommendations are brought in.

So, Cabinet Secretary, there is a huge amount to digest from this review, and clarity on the Government's next steps will be crucial. I'm conscious you've given us some of that. But can you give further indication of what farmers can expect now? Will you immediately apply any pragmatic approach to some of the recommendations that can be delivered in the short term—I think you've said you can—because farmers continue to have so much to contend with, and these water regulations have driven huge anxiety and concern, and we need to be able to move forward? Thank you.

Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)

Thank you, Peter. So, in response, I would say that the FUW, for example, in responding to the review, highlighted the need to take forward the recommendations in collaboration, and I think that's really what you're saying as well. So, obviously we will do that. We will absolutely make sure we do it in collaboration. As I said, the whole point of the summit process was that we did it in collaboration with every industry that had a footprint in our watercourses. It is absolute axiomatic, and I know it's impossible to argue otherwise, that clean watercourses are as important, if not more important, for most farm businesses, than they are for the general population. So, it's in farmers' interests to make sure that we have a set of regulations in place that, obviously, enables them to farm, but also enables them to make sure that they're not polluting our waterways, and I know that most farmers want to do that.

So, we will absolutely follow the proper process of consulting and developing a regulatory impact assessment and making sure that there's a cost-benefit analysis for that and making sure that it's targeted in the right way. So, I already mentioned a couple of the targeting points that the review highlights, and we will make sure—. So, what we want to make sure that we have is a set of regulations that regulate appropriately, in the right place, that, obviously, allow people to understand what the burden of complying with the regulations looks like and to plan that out over a period of time, but primarily what we want is to make sure that we have a fit-for-purpose sector that is able to produce valuable food and valuable exports—because, of course, a lot of it is exported—and to do that, actually, on that point alone, we also need to make sure that we're compliant with EU regulations, because most of our food is exported into the EU. So, actually making sure that we have a robust set of circumstances in place that farmers absolutely understand how to access, they absolutely understand the asks on them, but also that reassures our export markets that we're doing it properly, is paramount.

So, I can't emphasise enough that we want to do this in collaboration. We're really grateful to the stakeholders who took part in the review. It's been a long, arduous process for them. I'm very grateful for that, but the review is very straightforward. It sets out what we need to do in the short, medium and long term. We've accepted all the recommendations, and we will be implementing them.

Joyce Watson (Labour, Mid and West Wales)

I want to welcome the report, and also the commitment by the Welsh Government to accept the recommendations, and the further commitment to work with farmers and landowners in realising the aims of the report.

So, Dr Susannah Bolton has stressed, rightly, that the ultimate review is about reducing and preventing water pollution from agriculture. I'm not going to rehearse everything. There are some short-term wins, medium term, and longer term, and I think that the actions as identified will produce those. You're right—you've reiterated it, but this is something I will reiterate—that our environment and our river status is critical to everything that we see about us. And whilst you're right that most farmers don't pollute, there have been cases where that isn't, actually, the reality, and there have been significant pollutions along the rivers in my area, and there was evidence that it was being built into their business plan. Now, I stress that I'm not laying that at every farmer, because I'm not, and that is recognised in this report, that, those who are farming with really good examples of looking after their environment, the asks will be, of course, much smaller. And there is, within this report, the suggestion that finance will go towards realising some of those aims. So, I do welcome it. I think, with climate change happening, we've got very, very heavy downpours of rain unexpectedly now, and, on the other hand, drought. It is critical that action for our waterways happens and it happens now. So, I do welcome the report, I do welcome the engagement, and I'm sure that the Chair of the environment committee will be as committed to looking after the environment as he is to protecting those businesses.

Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)

Thank you very much, Joyce. I think you're absolutely right, and I'm very delighted that we're still doing the 'source to sea' review of the Teifi in your area. The Teifi was chosen by the summit process. We're literally looking at every single inch of it, from source to sea, and we're working with all the landowners, right along the length of the Teifi, to develop a bespoke service to make sure that that river gets into absolutely tip-tip environmental condition, with a view to understanding the lessons from that, to be spread out across the other special areas of conservation rivers in Wales.

It's worth reiterating, Llywydd, that we chose the Teifi because it's the only river in Wales that doesn't have agricultural pollution as the top polluter, and we did that because we wanted the farmers to engage in it without feeling that their industry was being highlighted. That was very deliberate, and it's part of the collaborative process that we've been using. But the end result is a clean waterway, because a clean waterway helps everyone. So, this is about targeting. Llyr, you said it—I think Peter said it as well; Joyce probably said it too—each farm is different. So, what we've got to do is we've got to help farmers understand what is necessary on their farm for their best practice, and we need to assist them to do that by understanding the regulatory regime, making sure it's fit for purpose, but also making sure, because I know they don't want to, that they are not contributing to the water pollution that we know—. It's the highest polluter right across the rest.

So, the general approach we've taken has been endorsed by the review. We aren't revoking the regulations as we review them. Agricultural pollution remains one of the main causes of water pollution in Wales. So, we're not looking to increase levels of pollution, obviously, we're looking to reduce those, but we absolutely want to do that in collaboration with our farmers and with all our other landowners and all our other land users, and I mentioned a couple of the other sectors as well, and there was a general consensus that this is the way forward.

Janet Finch-Saunders (Conservative, Aberconwy)

Whilst I agree that it's really good that you're prepared to work with farmers and look at these recommendations, I know of just one farmer in Aberconwy who's had to spend £50,000 on extending his lagoon—sounds lavish that, doesn't it? And despite there being a pre-1991 exemption on his silage pit, he's now been told, following a recent NRW inspection, that he's no longer exempt and he has to spend another £70,000 on a new silage pit. They'll also have to switch from silage pit to round bales, because who's going to spend £120,000 of capital investment with zero returns? It is causing immense mental health problems to a lot of farmers.

But today, I had a presentation, Cabinet Secretary, on the fact that there are 1,300 mines, particularly metal mines, across the length and breadth of Wales and they themselves are leaching—leaching—so much toxic pollution into our waters. Now, when we've all blamed the water companies, and you've blame the farmers, I wasn't aware that we had—. And you've taken the responsibility, I believe, today to actually—I can't think of the word—remediate—

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Well, can I just remind you that this is a topical question on agricultural pollution? So, if you could address your question to agricultural pollution, because we're out of time.

Janet Finch-Saunders (Conservative, Aberconwy)

Yes, so I think at some stage in your contributions, as for pollution, maybe less blame for the farmers and more blame for these mines that you've assumed some responsibility for. Thanks.

Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)

Well, you know, Janet, once again, you leave me just almost speechless. [Interruption.] So, I have gone out of my way in my contribution, which you clearly did not listen to, but I have gone out of my way in my contribution to say that each sector needs to look to what it needs to do—[Interruption.]—to clear up its—

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Allow the Minister to carry on and stop repeating your question. Allow the Minister to answer, please, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)

I didn't list every single sector—you're quite right, Janet—but I made it more than plain that the purpose of the whole summit process has been for each sector that contributes to pollution in Wales to look to its own particular purpose and to clean up its own act. That absolutely goes for mines; it absolutely goes for every other polluter. But the absolute bottom line is that, for all the rivers in Wales except the Teifi—all the special areas of conservation rivers in Wales, except the Teifi— agricultural pollution is the top polluter. We have to do something about that, and I know that farmers want to do that. We will do that in collaboration with our farmers; we will do that so that their farm businesses are viable, but we will clean up the waters.

John Griffiths (Labour, Newport East)

I will be brief, Llywydd. I recently met with campaigners from the Save our Rivers campaign, Cabinet Secretary, and they were talking to me primarily about the River Usk and the River Wye. They carry out citizen science, they work with academics. They're absolutely appalled at the levels of pollution in the rivers. Some of them are wild swimmers, some of them are campaigners that connect local communities to nature through wild camping. They're all concerned with the depletion of nature, biodiversity and the quality of our environment, and they want to see speedy and effective progress in cleaning up our rivers right across Wales, and for me, locally, primarily, the Usk and the Wye.

And they are clear, as you have said, that it is predominantly agriculture that is the main polluter of those rivers—the rivers Wye and Usk. They want to be more involved in this process and have taken a very close interest in the review and now the report on the review. They want to be involved, they want to get local communities involved, but most of all, they want to see that pollution—and for them, mainly agricultural pollution—dealt with effectively in as timely a way as possible.

Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)

Yes, thank you, John. I should at this point, I suppose, declare an interest, as I always point out that I am also very keen on wild swimming and very keen on the regulations that make sure that bathing waters are clean and accessible. It's also a major part of our tourism offer, of course, so it's very important indeed.

And you're absolutely right: we need to harness the strength of citizen science. We are absolutely doing that. We have worked with NRW for years, making sure that NRW are able to harness citizen science. It's not amateur at all; it's perfectly good science. People spend hours and hours and hours and hours and many, many thousands of pounds of their own money on doing it, and of course we should harness that. And I'm very familiar with the group that you're talking about, and I know Huw is as well. So, in our consultation, and in our stakeholder groups, we will absolutely make sure that the particular group that you mention is included and has their views reflected.

And then just, Llywydd, to reiterate, in the overall discussion, what these regulations are there to do is to make sure that they are a proportionate response to what we know is a problem. In doing the review, we will make sure that we review it so that it remains proportionate and fit for purpose. But the review also addressed the fact that there are regulatory gaps. So, I don't want Members to come away with the idea that this is somehow just about one particular type of pollution. So, for example, they address the regulatory gap in relation to phosphorus. So, we will need to explore alternative measures in respect of polluting substances being put on our land. And as I've already said, one of the reasons we're doing the Teifi source to sea review is to make sure that we understand the impact of that on every landowner and every land use all the way along the length of the river. Mark Drakeford, when he was First Minister, put that process in place; I'm very pleased that the Government is still taking it forward. I just mention it because it goes hand in hand with the review of these regulations, and that Senedd Members should be aware that this is obviously not the only thing we're doing in this space.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Finally, Samuel Kurtz.

Samuel Kurtz (Conservative, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you, Counsel General, for leading on this topical in the absence of the Deputy First Minister, who isn't here. But what I would quite like, with the Trefnydd in her place, is a statement from the Deputy First Minister when we return from recess on this, given that he's the portfolio lead. I think that would be fair that we get the opportunity to question him directly.

I note from your responses there the repetition of the word 'collaboration', and I greatly welcome that. The farming unions have always wanted to be involved in the discussion around improving water qualities in Wales. But there is a level of frustration following this announcement yesterday, because a lot of the issues that they raised as potential problems down the line have been highlighted now in this report. So, they feel that they weren't listened to initially when they brought forward some of their concerns, for example, around the closed period. And we can just look to Ireland and the Irish Environmental Protection Agency, where closed periods around NVZ showed that peak nitrates happen once the closed period becomes an open period, showing that evidence that this system doesn't work. So, the frustration lies now that we've come this far down the channel to be told what we knew four, five years ago with regards to this policy.

So, I really welcome the collaborative messaging that you're putting forward on this, but what guarantees can you give to the farming unions, and the farming industry, that they will be listened to on this policy, going forward? Because they feel like they haven't been listened to previously.

Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)

Well, just on the point of the statement, that's obviously a matter for the Trefnydd, but I would refer you to the fact that the Government put out a written statement on this only yesterday, so there's plenty of evidence for you to have a look at there. And, obviously, there are many opportunities to question the Deputy First Minister, but that's a matter for the Trefnydd, not me. Not quite sure what that implied, actually, but feel free to ask me any question that you have on the subject.

Just in terms of listening, not really quite sure what you're trying to get at there. Because, obviously, the whole point of the review was in response to the fact that we had listened to people's concerns and we had a review done as a result of having listened to their concerns. So, I'm genuinely not quite sure what you're saying. So, we listened, we've done a review, I've just said we're going to implement the review in collaboration, so I'm not quite sure what further listening you had in mind.

But just to reiterate, this is an iterative, collaborative process, and the stakeholders are very much engaged. Anyone who wants to be engaged in the process should absolutely put their hand up via the unions, or indeed directly to the Deputy First Minister, or indeed to me, or to the First Minister, to say they want to be involved in that review. We will be taking it forward. The panel has come forward with a set of recommendations that are very helpfully set out in short, medium and longer term sets. We absolutely accept the recommendations, we've been very clear about that. All of that information is in the written statement.

Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next question is to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and to be asked by Julie Morgan.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

2. What pressure is the Welsh Government putting on the UK Government to speed up the delivery of compensation payments to people infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal? TQ1325

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

There is a pattern of four nations ministerial meetings to discuss infected blood, and my officials continue to press for progress between meetings. On 3 March, I met with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Nick Thomas-Symonds, and Ministers from Scotland and Northern Ireland, to discuss the arrangements to support people infected and affected by the scandal, including the need for timely delivery of compensation claims from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Thank you for that response.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

It’s now two years since Sir Brian Langstaff published his second interim report on compensation, and he published this report early, as he recognised that a delay to compensation would cause further harm to those infected and affected. On 20 May, it will be one year since Sir Brian Langstaff published his final inquiry report, in which he highlighted his damning findings. And we are now expecting him to report again, outlining his concerns about the completely unacceptable delay in setting up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and issuing compensation to victims. This should not be happening.

For more than 40 years, the infected and affected have been campaigning for justice. And I’ve been in this campaign for coming up to 30 years. And this is a cross-party campaign, because we have Rhun ap Iorwerth here, who’s the chair of the cross-party group on infected blood. We have other campaigners here—Mick and Hefin, and others—who have campaigned for years on this issue.

And last year, we were so pleased to welcome the news that £11.8 billion had been set aside for compensation. But I can’t support the way in which the setting up of the compensation framework, and the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, has caused significant delays, and the delays in registering for the affected. And I’m very pleased that we have got people here in the gallery today from Haemophilia Wales, and these are the people who are suffering because of these delays.

We heard on the weekend that two people are dying every week while they wait for compensation. Twenty-five infected or affected people that were known to Haemophilia Wales have died since the inquiry began. And I’ve been told that the compensation tariffs are so complex that it’s extremely difficult to gauge who will be eligible. However, Haemophilia Wales estimate that there’ll be around 300 infected and affected entitled to compensation in Wales. And, in Wales, at the moment, there are 213 infected and bereaved partners registered with the Wales infected blood support scheme for ex gratia payments. This cohort should have been paid compensation, as they are known to the Government, have already received an interim compensation payment, and they’ve already satisfied the necessary criteria for the interim compensation payment to be made.

I understand that there are a further 30 previously unrecognised deaths in Wales that are known to Haemophilia Wales, where no interim compensation payment has been made. These consist of affected parents, children who lost parents and siblings, and details of these people were passed on to the UK Government, Welsh Government and WIBSS in May last year. Thirteen have now received interim compensation, but 17 have not.

I’ve also heard that there have been rejections of transfusion estate applications, due to the destruction of medical records held at the University Hospital of Wales. And campaign groups, and, I think, Senedd Members, are very frustrated by this, Cabinet Secretary, because it does cause—. The delays do have practical impacts. If an infected person dies during this period, the compensation can be claimed through their estate, but if an affected person, like a widow or a widower dies, the claim to compensation dies with them.

In Wales, we’ve always been firm here in our position that we are on the side of the infected and the affected. We stand by them. We want justice to be served, and for victims to get their compensation. Would the Cabinet Secretary therefore push the UK Government in the strongest possible terms to speed up this process? Because I absolutely accept that the process has got to be done fairly, and it’s got to be a good process, but everything I’ve heard and seen makes me feel that there are unnecessary delays, unnecessary bureaucracy, and I think it’s up to us in this Senedd to do all we possibly can to urge the UK Government, and say, 'Look, just get on with it, it’s just been far too long.' This has been going on for years and years, and, as I’ve already said, people are dying.

I really feel that this extremely vulnerable group have been failed for more than 40 years, and I think we’re all proud that they’ve come here to the Senedd today. There was a considerable number of them outside on the Senedd steps, and some of them have come in to listen to the debate. They are looking to us to do what we can in order to urge the UK Government to move forward. Diolch.

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

I thank Julie Morgan for her question. It’s a very important question, and the way in which she put it reminds us all of the very human impact of the arrangements that are being put in place and being discussed.

In my discussions with the UK Government, who obviously are responsible for the scheme, as she clearly is aware, I’m informed that the IBCA are still building and testing their compensation service, and they are working to start claims for estates, affected people and infected people who are not registered with the support scheme, with the aim of starting payments to some people in all of these groups by the end of this year. They won’t have finished paying people in these groups in that time frame, but they will have started.

Across all the infection groups, when they open, they will prioritise claims for those who are nearing the end of their life. This is for those who have been told by a medical professional that they might have 12 months or less to live. During April, I’m informed that they will write to everyone who’s registered with the support scheme to confirm that they have their correct details and to explain how to contact them if prioritising end-of-life claims applies to them. I’m also aware that the IBCA is recruiting hundreds of claims managers at the moment to help with compensation claims as soon as possible.

I want to identify myself with the comments that she made at the end of her statement about standing firm in support of infected and affected people and to see them having justice. I will press the case, as I have done, with the UK Government in my next meeting, and I shall make sure to be in touch with the Minister before that. I’m aware that Haemophilia Wales, who she referred to in her question, is I believe meeting with the Minister for the Cabinet Office later this week to discuss these very issues.

James Evans (Conservative, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I’d like to associate myself with all the comments made by Julie Morgan. This infected blood scandal is probably one of the biggest devastating impacts that’s ever been in our health service right the way across our country, and my thoughts and my group’s thoughts are with all those people who were affected or infected.

Cabinet Secretary, one thing I think I’d like to hear more of from you is actually the advocacy support and the mental health support that you are giving to those individuals. Some of these people, as Julie Morgan has said, have waited an awful long time, and there are now further delays in accessing the compensation that they can get. So, I’d just like to hear further from you what work you're doing in this space to make sure that those individuals and their families are supported through this process so nobody has to go through this alone. Most of them have gone through it alone for so many years before.

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

I associate myself with the comments that James Evans made at the start in relation to the campaigning work that a number of Members have been pursuing, including, very markedly, Julie Morgan and others. He’s right to say that the support available to those affected in Wales is absolutely critical, and there is a range of support available, which I think is generally well received, but there is obviously more that we will always look to do to provide the support that people need. I hope that he found the answer I gave to Julie Morgan of some reassurance.

Mabon ap Gwynfor (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

I thank Julie Morgan for this very important question today. Before the election last summer, we heard all kinds of promises made to the patients who have suffered as a result of the infected blood scandal. But, almost a year later, patients and their loved ones are still waiting for payments and for justice. In fact, as we heard from Julie Morgan, two patients related to the scandal die every week, and when their loved ones die then the right to compensation dies with them. So, you can understand why some patients’ families who have been in contact with me believe that the matter is being dragged out and that it’s intentional on the part of the Government in order to avoid paying out the compensation.

Today, I met some of the families outside the Senedd. Brian Williams was there. Brian now suffers from liver cancer as a result of being infected, but he is still waiting for payments while being completely blameless in all of this. Not only are patients waiting, but some have seen their medical records being lost—and I say 'lost', in quote marks. Suzanne Morgan told me how the hospital had lost her mother's health records, and she was denied the right to apply for payments because there was no relevant paperwork at the hospital, even though there were plenty of records of the disease. So, there are various injustices here that need to be resolved.

What is the Cabinet Secretary's understanding, therefore, of what is slowing this process down? And what action has this Government taken, given that it is part of a so-called partnership in power at the moment, in order to put pressure on the UK Government to speed up the process? The Langstaff report made recommendations that were relevant to this Government here in Wales and to the health boards as well. Could we, therefore, receive a progress report on where the Government is at in terms of implementing them, and have the health boards succeeded in identifying all of the patients affected in Wales?

Finally, I recognise that this is a scandal that developed before devolution, and it is, therefore, the UK Government's responsibility to act. Yet the Welsh Government has a duty to represent the patients here in Wales. I was surprised to hear, therefore, that the Cabinet Secretary has not had a meeting with Haemophilia Wales to discuss this specific issue. So, will you commit today to having a meeting with Haemophilia Wales and with the patients and the families that they represent in order to find a way forward?

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

Of course, I'd be happy to do that. The strength of comments made by Members across the Chamber is very clear in this discussion today, and is an issue that I will be able to highlight in my meeting with the Minister in Westminster. I do hope that the answers I gave earlier, in terms of what is slowing the process down, as the Member explained, has provided him with the details that he needed. As I say, we have a series of meetings with the Minister in Westminster to go through the details of this, and officials are pushing regularly for progress between those meetings.

Hefin David (Labour, Caerphilly)

I’d like to raise the case of a constituent of mine who has been ably supported as well by Julie Morgan. To follow on from her concerns about the IBCA, the new compensation scheme may unfairly discriminate against spouses and partners who become widowers and widows from here on in. For example, if my constituent had passed away before the end of March 2025—these are his words, by the way—his wife would have received 100 per cent of his support payments for the first year after his death, and then 75 per cent every year thereafter for the remainder of her life. However, from now on, as his wife is not currently signed up to the new scheme, she would be forced to take out a lump sum payment in return for the loss of her late husband’s earnings, which works out at a lot less over time than ongoing support payments. He and others who have been affected by the scandal were relieved last year when they were informed that support payments would continue for life. But they believe that this is a loophole, which potentially leaves families unsupported if something were to happen to loved ones. So, when the Cabinet Secretary has further meetings with UK counterparts, could he please raise that issue as well?

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

It is an issue that has been discussed at a four-nation level, recognising the concerns that the Member and others have outlined. All ex-gratia payments made through the support scheme after 1 April will be counted towards the compensation paid to an individual. This applies to a living or bereaved beneficiary, and they won't be disadvantaged. All compensation payments are calculated using a tariff model. In this case, the widow or a partner will have their compensation claim based, of course, on their particular circumstances and they can decide how they wish to receive their payment. They can choose to receive their compensation as either one single lump sum payment or a series of regular payments over five, 10 or 25 years, and those payments will increase each year with inflation. But I'd be very happy to look at the particular circumstances that the Member has raised in the Chamber today.

Mick Antoniw (Labour, Pontypridd)

Cabinet Secretary, if I could add my name to all the comments that have been made, and particularly to thank Julie Morgan for not only the work she's done over many years, but also for raising this again today. Because it's clear, despite all the high hopes after Brian Langstaff's inquiry, that we still have these delays and it's obviously concerning. I would like to raise two particular points. There are 213 registered with the Welsh infected blood scheme. What I think we could be asking the UK Government to resolve is this: why can't the data that is on that scheme be transferred to the new scheme, so that people can be paid immediately? It's difficult to understand why that would not be possible, why it would not be the case.

The second point is that, for the remainder, which are the affected people, who are predominantly siblings, they've been told that they will be invited in 2029, that's in four years' time, to start their claim. But the question is how does UK Government know who to write to, who they are, when there was actually no register of those who are affected who may be invited in 2029. It seems to me that there's a need to fill some of these gaps in the processing of these. If those matters could be taken up and added to the list of all the other issues that have been raised, because these must be capable of prompt resolution. Obviously, the solution to all the compensation claims may take longer, but one does have concerns that this matter is not being expedited with the urgency that I think everyone here has been expressing.

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

I'm grateful to Mick Antoniw for raising those two particular points. I'd be happy to make sure that my officials raise those directly with the UK Government.

Rhun ap Iorwerth (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I want to echo the comments made across the political parties today, and I thank Julie Morgan for her question and her work in campaigning over many years. I couldn't be there to meet campaigners today, but I do thank them and pay tribute to them—Lynne Kelly, from Haemophilia Wales, and all the individuals and families who have battled through great personal pain in order to seek justice.

Rhun ap Iorwerth (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I'm going to read the words of a constituent of mine. I won't name them. They know who they are. But they've been very influential on me in relation to this issue. It's quite clear, they say, that 'the Government line is to meet its legal responsibilities as slowly as possible, in the hope that we will all die soon and stop bothering them. We feel that we are again being bullied by those in power, adding insult to severe injury. The situation cannot go on. The 4,000 or so infected victims must be compensated immediately so that they can put the past behind them and enjoy the time they have left in peace.' I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for agreeing to press the case again for rapid movement on compensation, but will he agree in pressing the case to express it in those terms of frustration and anger, and making it very clear that we in the Senedd believe there can be no further delay?

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

I think the strength of feeling in the Chamber is clear, and I think it's important to have a set of arrangements that can command confidence, so I'd be very happy to put the points to the UK Government in those terms.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

And finally, John Griffiths.

John Griffiths (Labour, Newport East)

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. As with so many other Senedd Members, I have constituents who were and are affected by the infected blood scandal, and that word 'scandal' certainly applies to these matters, doesn't it? It really is a shocking scandal and absolutely heartbreaking for the families affected. It was informative to meet the campaigners here today, Cabinet Secretary, and lots of Senedd Members had very useful discussions with them in terms of the up-to-date situation.

Many of the matters I was going to raise have been raised by Senedd Members already, but I would very much like to join them in paying tribute to Julie Morgan and all of the campaigners outside of the Senedd in Wales for the strength of their commitment and the work that they do. I was going to ask if you would meet with Haemophilia Wales, but you've already answered that point from Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Could I just ask, in addition to that, Cabinet Secretary, could you ensure that the ongoing communication with Haemophilia Wales and affected families here in our country is everything it needs to be? Because it is sometimes quite a fast-changing situation. And as well as an initial meeting, I think having a system in place to allow for communication on an ongoing basis is absolutely crucial as well.

Jeremy Miles (Labour, Neath)

I thank John Griffiths for that, and I will certainly look to my officials to make sure that we have arrangements in place that make sure that, when we have information, that is shared in the way that he suggests.

May I also take the opportunity of echoing his thanks to Julie Morgan once again for bringing this important question to the Senedd today and to thank families and campaigners who are here to witness and share the debate with us today?

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

4. 90-second Statements

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

Item 4 is the 90-second statements. There's only one today. Mark Isherwood.

Mark Isherwood (Conservative, North Wales)

Diolch. In 2008, the United Nations General Assembly designated 2 April each year as World Autism Awareness Day. Today is therefore World Autism Awareness Day 2025, with the theme of advancing neurodiversity and the UN sustainable development goals, which include reducing inequalities, good health and well-being and ensuring inclusive and equitable education for all. The day highlights the need for increased awareness and understanding of autism spectrum conditions, promoting acceptance, inclusion and support for autistic individuals. However, too many senior public officials in Wales still rely on tick-box autism awareness training and refuse to understand and meet the communication, sensory and processing needs of autistic individuals. This too often leads to bullying, blaming and punishing, pushing autistic people into crisis, rather than providing the care, health, education, housing and employment support needed.

At the last cross-party autism group, it was noted that many neurodiverse children are being educated at home, not by parental choice but due to inadequate support in mainstream school. A Gwynedd mum recently wrote stating that her autistic son's school is facing cuts, meaning that he is not receiving the support he needs. An autistic Anglesey constituent recently wrote, stating that autistic individuals are facing an increasingly hostile environment. And an autistic Flintshire mum wrote last Friday, describing discrimination and victimisation of the families who make complaints. Wales therefore needs action to turn professed autism awareness, understanding and acceptance from an unaccountable veneer into a living reality across our public and private sectors.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

Thank you, Mark.

5. Urgent Debate: The impact of the Chancellor's recent welfare reforms

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

Item 5 today is an urgent debate: the impact of the Chancellor's recent welfare reforms. I call on Sioned Williams to open the debate.

Sioned Williams (Plaid Cymru, South Wales West)

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. For any party claiming to represent the principles of equality, fairness and justice, eradicating the scourge of poverty should be their unshakeable lodestar, their unconditional purpose. And we were always led to believe that this was the case with the Labour Party. To quote the Cabinet Secretary for finance at the 2023 Labour Party conference, an incoming Starmer administration would be guided by a burning sense that

'this party’s mission is not to tinker at the edges, not to offer some mild amelioration, but to eradicate poverty'.

That's why the Welsh Government should have brought this debate to the floor of our Senedd today. It's extremely disappointing that it took a motion to call an urgent debate to force the Government to debate this issue, which will have, in the words of the Bevan Foundation, a huge and concerning impact on 275,000 people in Wales—to discuss the impact on Wales of the biggest cuts to disability benefits on record, which will push thousands into poverty.

We know that Labour isn't honouring long-held promises to Wales, as we've seen with their refusal to reform the outdated Barnett formula, devolving the Crown Estate and their failure to provide Wales with a single penny of HS2 consequentials. But we've now reached the stage where Labour is not only ignoring Welsh interests but actively working against them. How else to explain a decision to unleash welfare cuts that even George Osborne winces at, in the full knowledge that they will push hundreds of thousands of people into poverty, in the full knowledge that it will impact Wales harder. What's particularly shameful, as was reflected in the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions's letter to the First Minister, is that they haven't bothered with the pretence that the implications for Wales were even given a moment's thought. Instead, we have insulting blandishments about a broken benefits system, singularly failing to recognise that it is Labour's moral compass that is truly broken. An admission that no Wales-specific analysis has been undertaken. The sheer hollowness of the so-called partnership of power is plain for all to see. And to borrow the words of the Cabinet Secretary for finance once again, from a time when the Welsh Government was far more prepared to denounce the actions of Westminster, these are

'the deliberate decisions of a Government that knows what it is doing, knows that there will be thousands more children in poverty in Wales because of their cuts...but simply don't care.'

And while this was a decision taken in Westminster, because Wales has higher rates of disabled people of working age than the UK average and five of the UK's 10 local authorities with the highest rates of economic inactivity because of long-term illness, the impact of these unprecedented cuts to disability benefits on Wales will be devastating, and we need to know now what the Welsh Government's position is. After refusing to state what that position was in response to questions to the First Minister, to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and to a topical question tabled by Plaid Cymru, the First Minister finally said that she was reserving her position when the Secretary of State for Wales suggested she had written to the UK Government in support of the welfare reforms. So, we need to hear clarity on a few issues this afternoon, don’t we?

Now that the First Minister has seen the response from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on which she said she would be basing her response, what is her position and that of her Government on these reforms? Does the Welsh Government agree with the loud and unified chorus of condemnation from inequality and poverty policy experts, social justice campaigners, disability rights campaigners, social policy researchers, disabled people’s organisations and, most importantly, disabled people themselves that these are short-sighted, immoral and unethical, and who say that these will have a chilling effect on engagement with support, leading not to increased employment, but to increased poverty? And what action is now being taken, therefore, by the Welsh Labour Government to address the impact of these cuts that the UK Labour Westminster Government didn’t even bother consulting with you on?

As no assessment has been provided to the Welsh Government, how will Ministers act to mitigate the impact of these reforms on the way it supports disabled people and people in poverty, and on the capacity and costs of the services it provides, the demand for welfare advice, the devolved grants and allowances, such as the discretionary assistance fund, for social and health services, for mental health support—the demand on which will all be disproportionately higher in Wales than in England? Additional resource will be needed for these services, so will the Welsh Government be asking for funding matched to this higher need, higher than the Barnettised uplift from the Chancellor? Will you be setting up a ministerial task and finish group on welfare reform, as you did in 2015 to consider the actions needed by Welsh Government in response to the consequences of Westminster cuts to welfare? That could also consider, of course, the continuing impact of the retention of the two-child cap, the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners, and the effect of the pension injustice suffered by 1950s-born women. I’d like answers, please, to those points in your response, as the Senedd and the people we all represent deserve answers. The time for spin is over and the time for opaqueness is over, because the impact of what the Government’s benefit cuts mean for ill and disabled people is even worse than first thought, according to the New Economics Foundation. While they say the widely reported numbers were concerning enough, that £4.8 billion-worth of cuts would lead to 250,000 people being pushed into poverty, including 50,000 children, they now say that the way these figures have been presented has concealed the fact that these cuts will hit ill and disabled people by almost £2 billion more than the reported figures, and could see around 100,000 additional people pushed into poverty.

So, we know now the UK Government has provided no assessment of the impact of these welfare reforms on Wales, no disaggregated data, so what work is now being done to conduct your own assessment, and when can we expect that to be published? How will the forthcoming disability rights plan and the child poverty strategy address these serious new challenges? I urge the Government to show leadership on this matter, which up to now has been conspicuous by its absence, evidenced by the fact that we had to force you to debate this issue, force you to reveal how you had engaged with the UK Government on this, force you ultimately to be answerable to the thousands of disabled people out there, many already facing financial and mental—[Interruption.] If you want to intervene, Hefin, intervene; otherwise, can you please be quiet?

Hefin David (Labour, Caerphilly)

The Government voted to have this debate, and I think—

Sioned Williams (Plaid Cymru, South Wales West)

Because I put forward a—

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

Can the Member put his intervention forward, please?

Sioned Williams (Plaid Cymru, South Wales West)

Go for it.

Hefin David (Labour, Caerphilly)

This is a serious issue, and I think just trying to gain party political advantage without taking the issue seriously is very disappointing.

Sioned Williams (Plaid Cymru, South Wales West)

Okay—[Interruption.]—I'll answer, I'll answer. We asked for this debate. We asked for it through Business Committee. We asked for it in business statement. We had to put forward topical questions. We only had a written statement in response to the spring statement. I had to table for an urgent debate to get this to happen. [Interruption.] You voted for it then because it was rather embarrassing, wasn't it? The Government should have put this forward. [Interruption.] I've answered you. There's your answer. [Interruption.]

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

Can I—? [Interruption.] Alun—[Interruption.] Alun—

Sioned Williams (Plaid Cymru, South Wales West)

Well, perhaps you could tell your Government what to table, then, Alun Davies. Perhaps you should tell your business manager and Chief Whip. Perhaps you should tell your Cabinet Secretaries—

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

Wait a second. Let's not have the conversation across the Chamber from either side. An intervention was had, you responded, there should be no other conversations. Let's continue with the contribution.

Sioned Williams (Plaid Cymru, South Wales West)

I will. I think you can see many of us have had e-mails from our constituents that have made us become very, very concerned and extremely disappointed by this, and that's what I'm trying to reflect in my contribution today. So, I'm going to continue.

I urge the Government to show leadership on this matter, which up to now has been conspicuous by its absence, evidenced by the fact that we had to force you to debate this issue, force you to reveal how you had engaged with the UK Government on this, forced you ultimately to be answerable to the thousands of disabled people out there, many already facing serious financial and mental health challenges, who are telling us and those who are supporting them that they are scared, that they don't know how they will cope physically, financially and mentally, that they feel under attack and stigmatised, with harmful and false narratives around disability and entitlement to social security being bolstered by these plans. So, please respond today to these real fears, these real concerns, with strong condemnation and real actions.

Altaf Hussain (Conservative, South Wales West)

I thank Sioned for pushing for this debate today. However, I am of the opinion that whatever is said here today will have little to no impact on UK Government policy. This is not a UK Government known for listening to the Labour cliques in the Welsh Government. Why should they pay any attention to what we say here today?

The pathways to work Green Paper is causing real and deep concern amongst those in receipt of health-related benefits across the length and breadth of Wales. According to the First Minister, the UK Government cuts to welfare will fall more heavily in Wales. This is just adding to the concerns for our disabled constituents, which will not be addressed by this debate today. We need greater clarity, not more noise. Surely we would be better off calling the Secretary of State for Wales to come to this Chamber to address concerns and thoroughly outline the UK Government's plans. After all, this is not legislation, it is a Green Paper, the start of the process, not the end. The Senedd and the representatives of the people of Wales should be able to feed their views into the process, but this is a reserved matter. We have no direct role in these UK reforms.

We on this side of the Chamber believe that it should remain that way. Unlike Plaid and many in the Labour group, Welsh Conservatives don't support the devolution of welfare. If it was devolved, would you be doing anything different? I would like for Plaid and the Welsh Government to outline what steps they would take to ensure the long-term sustainability of the welfare system and to restore fairness. Doing nothing is not an option; the bill for health and related benefits for people of working age is set to rise to £71 billion a year by the end of the decade, far more than we spend on defending our nation. Something has to be done, and I congratulate the UK Government for finally realising this, but they are being disingenuous and hypocritical. Rachel Reeves has stated that designing a benefits system to save money is wrong. Liz Kendall has said that cutting disability support goes against the values of a decent society. According to Sir Keir Starmer, cutting disability benefits is unfair and unacceptable.

What we need is clear direction and, above all, assurances that disabled people will not be forced into poverty as a result of the UK Government's proposals. But these are questions that only the UK Government can address, so either the Welsh Government needs to be more forthcoming with their correspondence with the UK Ministers, or we need to be able to question the UK Government directly. Diolch yn fawr.

Hefin David (Labour, Caerphilly)

I declare an interest in this debate as my daughter is in receipt of disability living allowance, and in seven years' time, when she's 16, she'll be moving on to personal independence payments. And the fact is that she's disabled—that is something that a parent with a child who is disabled comes to terms with over time—and the benefits system is there to support her. But after I'm no longer here to look after her she'll still be reliant on the benefits system, and what I don't want to do is get into a position where anything I say is frightening those people who are in a similar position to me. I'm connected to the autism community in Caerphilly and parents of disabled children, and I would reassure them that, where a child is disabled or with a disability that is getting worse, the benefits cuts will not have an impact on them and their children will continue to be supported.

The other thing I'd say about my daughter and children like her is that, one day, I want her to be able to work. At the moment, I don't know if she can. She's struggling to read and she's struggling to write, but she's very creative and I would hope that the system will find, one day, a job for her. And that is the role, I think, of the benefits system. At the moment, it is not achieving that; it is trapping people with autism, learning disabilities and other disabilities out of work and in poverty. The reform of the system requires individuals to be supported, and the First Minister said on Wales Online, and it was reported by the BBC, that she's concerned about those individuals who may be affected by these changes, and that's absolutely right. But we've seen where it can work.

A few weeks ago, at First Minister's questions, I made reference to Engage to Change, an organisation that was run through Cardiff University, which introduced job coaching and job carving for 1,300 autistic and/or learning disabled young people. And of those, 41 per cent of them found work. Across the UK, the average number of people finding work in those same situations is 4 per cent, and what that tells us is that our benefits system is working in the wrong direction and not enough of it is going to supporting people into work through things like job coaching. That can happen and that is the lesson and the legacy of Engage to Change. And I know that when my daughter and people like her reach that age when they will be looking for work, there's—

Mark Isherwood (Conservative, North Wales)

Would you give way?

Hefin David (Labour, Caerphilly)

Just two seconds.

There's an opportunity for the benefits system to support them into that. Yes, Mark Isherwood, who I know is a long-standing campaigner on autism and learning support.

Mark Isherwood (Conservative, North Wales)

Thank you. As you are a fellow member of the cross-party autism group, who also periodically attends the cross-party group on disability, will you confirm my statement that we've taken evidence in both those cross-party groups on disability and employment, and disabled and autistic people are telling us that they want to work, the problem is the barriers to employment and benefits accessibility that they encounter?

Hefin David (Labour, Caerphilly)

That's absolutely the case and I've heard learning disabled and autistic people say that, and we've seen that through Engage to Change. I listened very carefully to your 90-second statement, which made that clear, in Autism Awareness Month as well.

I also have got concerns that I want to raise about people with mental health diagnoses, also in this case. We cannot stigmatise people with mental health conditions and I am concerned about some of the language in the Green Paper on those individuals with mental health conditions. Where someone has a mental health condition, there could be an underlying undiagnosed cause. So, people in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s could be undiagnosed autistic and therefore suffering from mental health conditions as a result of that. Now, if the level that they have to reach in order to qualify for a PIP is raised, yet they have an underlying condition, I would like the UK Government to consider that those PIPs cannot be removed, or any support be removed, until they've gone through the diagnostic process, however long that takes. That'll be part of what I'll be feeding back in my response to the Green Paper.

Chris Evans, MP for Caerphilly, and I will be issuing a joint response to the Green Paper. I've read through it. We are happy to take Liz Kendall at her word when she said in the letter to the First Minister that the Green Paper is the beginning of the conversation and not the end point. I'm willing to take that as an opportunity to recommend these changes to the Government's paper, both from my lived experience, but also from listening to those constituents who've contacted me and other stakeholders in my constituency and beyond who have these experiences and know what needs to change, both to help them and to mitigate the consequences of what's been announced.

Sioned Williams (Plaid Cymru, South Wales West)

Would you take an intervention, Hefin?

Hefin David (Labour, Caerphilly)

Yes.

Sioned Williams (Plaid Cymru, South Wales West)

I recognise what you're saying, but the thing I think that we need to make clear also, though, is that there are 12 measures, changes, that are not being consulted on—they're not in the Green Paper—such as the requirement to score at least four points to get the daily living element of PIP; that 87 conditions, which include things like fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis, which can really impact you, are not now going to be included. So, they are not up for discussion.

Hefin David (Labour, Caerphilly)

Okay. So, they are up for discussion in the Green Paper, in that the four-points point is mentioned, because that's where I read it, in the Green Paper. But also one of the consultation questions asks us what would we like to see in place of PIP, what kind of support should be there in place where those four points have not been reached. So, there is an opportunity to make representations there.

I'm going to close my speech now because I'm out of time, but I would say that the responsible thing is that, collectively as a Senedd, we make our representations, that the Welsh Government makes a representation back, and that we work with our Members of Parliament in our communities to make sure the voices of those people who are concerned are heard by the Westminster Government.

Rhun ap Iorwerth (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

The last fortnight has been revealing in several respects: a Westminster Labour Government announcing welfare changes that will penalise the most vulnerable, a Labour Government in Wales silent in the face of a storm of protest and these supposed partners in power proving themselves to be so terribly ineffective, and that's reflected in the fact that no assessment has been made of the impact of the welfare cuts on Wales. It's astonishing.

Rhun ap Iorwerth (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

Let me take Members back through the timeline of events to better understand the Welsh Government's position and approach to the Chancellor's reforms. On 11 March, the First Minister wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, a letter that didn't raise one concern about the impacts of the reforms on the people of Wales—not one concern. Subsequently, on 18 March, the First Minister told me that she had raised concerns with No. 10—a yet unnamed official whom she spoke to—but there's no record of the conversation. What particular concerns did she raise on behalf of the Welsh Government then? We need an answer to that rather important question.

She said that she was:

'very pleased to see that many of those concerns have been taken on board and that the most vulnerable will continue to be protected',

yet eight days later the Chancellor went further and deeper with her welfare cuts than we had previously expected. So, what exactly did the First Minister influence?

Yesterday, a source close to the First Minister let it be known that she was displeased with the Secretary of State for Wales, Jo Stevens, for saying that she had supported the cuts. Why didn't the First Minister say so explicitly herself, rather than make some ambiguous comments about others speaking on her behalf? If she wasn't to show her displeasure—though we're still waiting for her condemnation, of course, rather than displeasure—how about saying unequivocally which elements of the UK Government's reforms she disagrees with and explain how the Welsh end of the so-called partnership in power will try to influence the Westminster end to change course?

Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice committed to publishing a letter she wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As of 3 o'clock this afternoon, when I last checked, that hasn't happened, as far as I'm aware—nothing on the Welsh Government's website whatsoever. How are we to scrutinise? Then we have Liz Kendall's letter—a response to the First Minister's cursory note—that makes only a passing reference to working with Welsh Government on the impacts on Wales. It's nothing short of contemptuous.

What is the Welsh Government's understanding of when a Welsh-specific impact assessment will be made available? What consideration has Welsh Government given to undertaking their own assessment with the information available to them? I'll add here that, alongside complete ignorance of the impact in Wales of the welfare cuts, we've had it confirmed today that the national insurance changes, which come with full reimbursement for the public sector in England, only come with a Barnett consequential for Wales, leaving Wales, perhaps, we think, around £66 million short—another sign that this UK Labour Government cares not one bit about Wales. Dirprwy Lywydd, under Labour we have been taken back to a time reminiscent of Conservative rule at Westminster, unleashing austerity—because that's what this is—failing to consult with Welsh Government, and showing a carefree attitude to the impact of decisions on the people of Wales. This morning the First Minister said, and I quote again, ‘This is a UK Government decision, it's not my decision. This is absolutely the UK Government that's got to defend this position.’ It will not wash.

On 3 July last year, in Carmarthen—I was there on the same day—the First Minister said she was proud to stand alongside Keir Starmer. She can't distance herself from him now on this issue. And neither can she forget that she is the leader of the Labour Party in Wales, including its MPs. So, in her absence here this afternoon, I ask her: will she be instructing those MPs to vote against these cuts? If not, we know which side she's on.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

Before we move forward, can I remind Members that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice is responding to the debate today? Alun Davies.

Alun Davies (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and grateful that this debate is taking place today. I think it is an important debate, and I think we should take seriously the impacts that are potentially going to be felt by some of the most vulnerable people in this country. I regret sometimes that the tone of some speeches can forget the people who are impacted by these decisions, and I very much welcome the contribution from Hefin David, which brought these debates into focus on the people that are affected, rather than political point-scoring.

Rhun ap Iorwerth (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

Will you take a very brief intervention? I'm glad that he welcomes the opportunity to have this debate. Does he not think that Government should have provided time to debate something that is so important to the constituents that we represent?

Alun Davies (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

The Government has ensured that this debate takes place, as far as I can see, and certainly there's never been any conversation that I've been a part of that the Government weren't going to be doing that. So, I think you can lose the focus on the people here.

But I think this is an important debate because of the impact on people, and some of the most vulnerable people, in the constituencies we all represent, but also because this speaks and goes to the heart of who we are as politicians and what is the purpose of government. And it is about our priorities, and it is about where we come from and what we want to achieve.

I would have preferred the UK Government to make a clear statement that its purpose is the eradication of poverty, that it seeks—actively seeks—a reduction in inequality across the whole of the United Kingdom. And my fear at the moment is that this current UK Government is in danger of repeating the same mistakes as the Liberal Democrats made in 2010, by accepting a Conservative economic analysis and then becoming the over-enthusiastic supporters of Tory austerity, with the damage that's been done to people, and the most vulnerable people and the most vulnerable communities, that we've all witnessed since then.

I prefer a different way, and this is a Labour way, because I remember the Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and I remember Rhodri Morgan here in this Chamber, and I remember a Welsh Government in the first years after it was established—after democratic self-government was established in this country, its first priority was to reduce inequality. And it worked with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in order to reduce child poverty, and we saw child poverty reduced in my constituency as a consequence of that, because the Government took different decisions and made the eradication of poverty and inequality part of what it is, its purpose, its objectives, and, because you've done that, you then take different decisions. And it is those different decisions that I would like us to see.

We need to understand the impacts that this is going to have in different communities and on different people. I regret greatly that the UK Government did not seek to publish or carry out assessments of the impact this would have in Wales. Because this will have a significant impact on the work of the Welsh Government and the priorities of the Welsh Government. This will have an impact on some of the poorest communities in our country, and my constituency in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney will be the test. If this constituency is not able to receive the help and support, and if people in this constituency are not able to receive the support they need as a consequence of these decisions, then they will be the wrong decisions. And it is right and proper that two Governments working together respect each other, and respect means more than resolutions and speeches: it means actions. It certainly means a reversal of the decision the finance Cabinet Secretary referred to earlier this afternoon in questions, but it also means conversations taking place before Green Papers are published, that Wales is protected and the most vulnerable people in Wales are protected from the damaging consequences of some of these decisions.

So, I hope that in debating these matters today this afternoon, what this Parliament can do is to speak as one to say that we will prioritise the most vulnerable people in our country and in our communities, and that we will seek a different way. We will seek a way that seeks to respect the most vulnerable people. We will not accept the Tory arguments on the economy. We know the Conservatives trashed the economy and have essentially eradicated growth. What we need to do is to eradicate poverty, and what I want to do is to work with a UK Government that is committed to the eradication of poverty and the eradication of inequality, because Labour Governments have done it before and it is time for a Labour Government to do it again.

Jane Dodds (Liberal Democrat, Mid and West Wales)

For me, this debate is actually about dignity—dignity for those people who are disabled. If you are disabled, it costs more money to live on, more to heat your home, more to travel, more to find money for food. And yet we've heard—and perhaps there is cross-party agreement—that the Labour Government plan to cut the money that they actually rely on. Whether they're working or not, disabled people need more money in order just to survive. Cutting their benefits is a total false economy. Their medical needs will increase, more people will be pushed into poverty rather than being pushed into jobs, and homelessness will increase as well. Polly Neate, the chief executive of Shelter, has said that this benefit change is going to push more households into homelessness, and that cuts to benefits will increase homelessness among disabled people.

While disabled people are being asked to sacrifice, the richest in our country continue to see their wealth grow. Last year, UK billionaires saw their collective wealth increase by £35 million a day. Four new billionaires were created last year in the UK, taking the current total to 57. There's more than enough money here in the UK to make sure that we don't have to cut these benefits. Labour had the opportunity to tax the wealthiest, but they chose not to. I've mentioned in this Siambr before the organisation Patriotic Millionaires UK. This is their response to the spring 2025 budget announcement:

'As Patriotic Millionaires we have all benefited greatly from living in this country and understand that a strong economy depends on well-funded public services...Instead of asking those who have benefited most from our economy...the Government is choosing to further cut welfare—despite over a decade of austerity that has already eroded the social safety net for disabled people. This is a decision they do not have to make.'

So, there is a choice—there is a clear choice. We do not have to make disabled people poorer. We don't have to stress them out. We don't have to create the situation where, unfortunately, the Labour Government are picking once again on the little people. There's a long list now, I'm afraid, of those who are affected by this Labour Government's choices: WASPI women, as you've heard, not getting the compensation that they deserve; not scrapping the two-child benefit cap; taxing our farmers; increasing national insurance on our small businesses; cutting international aid to the poorest in the world; putting online videos showing the deportation of refugees and asylum seekers, therefore demonising them even further. It's a shameful situation, and we in Wales need to do better.

I'm pleased to hear from Alun and also from Altaf that there may be cross-party support to demonstrate that, here in Wales, we don't want to see this. We need to make sure that we stand up for the people of Wales. We need to make sure that we tackle, obviously, the situation where we want more people to get into work—of course we do—but where that's not possible, or where that has to be subsidised, and surely our disabled people have to be our priority.

So, I am going to finish, and I'm going to ask the Cabinet Secretary two questions here. The first is: will you agree to meet with Patriotic Millionaires, some of whom are here in Wales, and hear their view of how we can create a much fairer society? And that, I hope, will be something I'll hear about in your response. And then we do need to hear, as we've heard from some of the Labour backbenchers here, that you are concerned about the benefit cuts, that you want to represent Wales, and want to make sure that there is an impact assessment. Because we are here as the voice of the voiceless. We are here to make sure we represent our most vulnerable. They may not vote for us, they may not support us in any way in any elections, but that's not what we're here for; we are here to make sure we represent the most vulnerable in our society. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Heledd Fychan (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central)

I note, whilst this debate has been taking place, that we've received a copy of the letter that the Cabinet Secretary sent to the UK Government. I'm not sure if there was another letter, because what we were told was that there was a comprehensive letter, with the Welsh Government's concerns outlined. I would like that clarity, perhaps, in the response today.

In terms of the debate today, it is an important one. It is one many constituents have contacted me about, and one of my constituents is actually here today, watching the debate, and she would like nothing more than to actually be able to speak for herself. She has shared some words with me that I'd like to share with everyone: 'Disability has cost me £14,000 just to be able to leave the house.' That's the cost of her wheelchair. 'That doesn't include the wheelchair accessible car, with costs starting at £30,000. Under the proposed new rules, as I can walk a few steps and sometimes wash my hair myself, I risk losing PIP and the limited capability for work employment and support allowance. How do they expect us to contribute to society when our access to the outside world is so expensive, with them also intending to cut our income? And, of course, the extra costs of things to help me eat, cook food, the medication that helps my symptoms that I can't get on the NHS, on my £28,000-a-year job, I couldn't afford those things. Expecting people not earning that to survive is absurd. You can reform the benefit system without chopping money off. And giving people a chance to work via trials and them not losing their benefits is great, but cutting the money we get won't help that; it's a separate issue.' Also, AJ says quite clearly, 'I want nothing more than to work, but my disability means I cannot any more. I didn't give up my career for fun; I gave it up because it was literally killing me to keep it going.'

So, we talk about getting people back into work, but this is the reality of what's happening, and the stress on constituents like AJ should not be happening. And the discourse is happening, talking about people, rather than with people, listening to those lived experiences. And that's why I've been so disappointed by the Welsh Government's response to date. And it's a shame that the First Minister's not here, because watching that scrutiny session on Friday—'reserving judgment'. Reserving judgment. Isn't she the First Minister that said she was listening to the people of Wales? Well, she hasn't been listening or actually reading about the impact on all those organisations that have outlined why we in Wales are especially vulnerable.

Now, I've been looking back at the Cofnod, when we've seen the austerity years, and the responses from the Welsh Government then were quite clear in terms of not wanting to see those most vulnerable impacted. They were very, very clear statements; why so silent now? And it is a shame that we have had to have an urgent debate. I would like to know where we go from here. How are we now going to see that clear position from Welsh Government?

There are some practical things that we'd like to know as well. So, previously, in response to the Welfare Reform Act 2012, the Welsh Government set up a ministerial task and finish group and commissioned research to understand the impact on household income in Wales, the wider economic and social impacts of welfare reform, and the potential impact on devolved public services in Wales. Are there any plans to do so this time? Because, obviously, we know the huge range of different things that the Welsh Government has had to put in place in order to counter austerity. Are we in a position where you're also going to have to extend that support in order to mitigate the impact on our already fragile public services?

When it comes to local authorities, we already know that they've been extremely concerned about the impact on some of their commissioned services or their work with agencies such as Citizens Advice because of the changes to national insurance. We know that Citizens Advice across Wales have had to actually undergo redundancies because of the proposed changes—because of the changes and the strain on budgets. Well, we are going to need these people now more than ever, aren't we? We've talked about maximising the amount of benefits that people claim and ensuring that people claim every pound they're entitled to. How are we going to do that without the expertise and those services if they're being reduced? So, can I ask, what assessment have you undertaken in terms of the impact on local authorities and other support agencies, and what assurances can you give that you will look to support local authorities and other support agencies?

These are the questions that we need clarity on and I would be grateful for those today.

Jenny Rathbone (Labour, Cardiff Central)

I want to start by answering Altaf Hussain: what would the Welsh Government do differently if we had control over the administration of benefits? Well, I think one of the things we would do differently is what Hefin was talking about. Engage to Change is a really important initiative to enable people with disabilities—and particularly learning disabilities—to be able to work. And we want everybody who can work to have that dignity.

I think, secondly, we have the young person's guarantee. We—

Jane Dodds (Liberal Democrat, Mid and West Wales)

Would you take a very brief intervention? Thank you so much.

You mentioned Engage to Change; as we understand it, the funding has stopped to Engage to Change, and isn't going to continue. [Inaudible.] I'm sorry? [Inaudible.]

I wonder if you could just clarify: is there going to be continued funding, or maybe the Cabinet Secretary could clarify that? As we understand it, there are concerns that it won't continue. It's been a fabulous project, as we've all heard. Thank you.

Jenny Rathbone (Labour, Cardiff Central)

Wrong person to ask, I'm afraid. I'm not in the Government.

The young person's guarantee supports people who are 16 to 24 to avoid being not in education, employment or training. So, the UK Government put a lot of emphasis on the fact that there's one in eight young people of that age not in work, not in training, not in education; that's absolutely shocking. Well, the initiative that the Welsh Government has, I want to have a really close look at it, to learn from it, because the First Minister, on more than one occasion, has said that we have half that rate in Wales, and if that is actually the case, we really do need to get the UK Government to learn from us.

This morning, I visited a charity that manages supported housing for people who have experienced homelessness. They have a great track record of working with people who have suffered adverse childhood experiences, addictions, gender-based violence, as well as the actual trauma of becoming homeless. Normally, they expect their tenants to live there for six months before moving into their own tenancy in the private rented sector, but the demand for affordable housing makes it almost impossible to become a social housing tenant with an affordable, secure tenancy. And even in the private rented sector in Cardiff, there's so little affordable housing, that those people typically remain in this supported housing for two to three years. Most PRS landlords refuse to take tenants in receipt of benefits, and insist on a UK home owner to be a guarantor of any tenancy. So, you can just see, illustrating this particular group of vulnerable people, all of whom, I imagine, are on benefits, just how difficult their lives are, and how much more difficult they're likely to be as a result of these benefit cuts.

Yes, there's going to be a £3-a-week increase in universal credit, and that's welcome, but it's overwhelmingly overshadowed by the £5 billion that the UK Government is wanting to cut from these benefits. I just can't overemphasise the importance of the need to have much more housing that people can afford so that everybody is appropriately housed. I just don't see that coming from the UK Government.

Last week, Rachel Reeves visited a construction site in Radyr to see what Wales is doing to tackle our housing crisis. I'm glad to hear that 30 per cent of the homes at Plasdŵr are social housing, and that's how it should be wherever housing is being built. But I'm given to understand that, of this 1.5 million houses that the UK Government is promising for England, a mere 1.2 per cent of them is social housing.

The UK Government has yet to get round to suspending the right to buy amongst council tenants. I mean, this is absolutely ridiculous. There's no use building housing at one end if you aren't dealing with the speculation on public housing at the other. It really pains me, in a way, to say that we are having this debate in the middle of what is an existential crisis.

Donald Trump is calling this day 'liberation day'. Well, I'm sure everybody in Argentina is having a big laugh on that because many of you may not realise that today is the anniversary of the invasion of the Falkland islands. The United States are no longer our friends. They didn't support the UK in the Falklands, and they won't take any notice of us under Trump if it gets in any way in the way of their conquest of precious resources in Ukraine, Greenland, Gaza, or anywhere else.

I'm not arguing against an increase in defence spending because of the way in which so much of the world is dominated by people who absolutely have no regard for the rule of law, but we have to ask what is this spending going to be put on—nuclear submarines that the US Government will never give us permission to use, and we frankly wouldn't want to use anyway because there is no winner in that. But we absolutely have to address these benefit cuts in the context of the recession—

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

You need to conclude now, please, Jenny.

Jenny Rathbone (Labour, Cardiff Central)

—that must be likely to happen with the 20 per cent tariff on goods entering the United States. The upheavals are enormous, and I'm sad to say that I'm not sure that the UK Government is on top of this.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

The Chancellor at Westminster, with her Cabinet colleagues, have collectively unveiled a plan so callous in its conception that it stands as nothing less than a betrayal of everything Labour once represented. Billions of pounds not taken from the coffers of privilege, not drawn from the vaults of excess, but torn from the threadbare pockets of those already struggling to survive.

We stand at a fairly stark crossroads, don't we? Down one path lies the continuation, as we've heard, of a cruel orthodoxy that measures a nation's success by the cold arithmetic of spreadsheets rather than the warmth of its compassion. Down the other, a recommitment to the principles that once made Labour the party of Bevan and Griffiths, Welsh architects of a welfare state born from the conviction that dignity is not a luxury to be afforded only to the fortunate few.

The economic folly of these cuts is matched only by their moral bankruptcy. Every £1 stripped from welfare is £1 removed from our local economies; it's £1 that would have been spent in our corner shops, our cafes, our small businesses. The Chancellor speaks of fiscal responsibility, while implementing policies, as we've heard, that will necessitate greater expenditure in the years to come, as children raised in deepening poverty require more intensive support, as communities hollowed out by desperation fall into crisis, as the social fabric that binds us together frays beyond repair.

We've witnessed this tragedy before. After 2008, successive Westminster Governments chose austerity over investment, punishment over compassion. The results speak for themselves—lost decade after lost decade, where child poverty surged, where foodbanks became more common than post offices, where the gap between the haves and have-nots has widened into an unbridgeable chasm. Andy Burnham in Manchester understands this and has condemned these proposals. So have the First Ministers in Edinburgh and Belfast.

The First Minister here and this Senedd possess a power that must not be squandered. Together with our counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, we can forge an alliance of conscience that Westminster cannot ignore. Where we have no power, then we must use our voice. And where have power, we must our imagination.

If Labour in Westminster persist in this betrayal of its founding principles, then let us here chart a different course. Where they dismantle the welfare state, then let us begin to build a Welsh well-care state that rejects the false choice between economic growth and social justice, one that recognises that investment in human potential is the surest path to sustainable prosperity, one that understands that a nation’s greatness is measured not by the wealth of its richest citizens, but how it treats the most vulnerable.

This is not idealism alone—it's sound economics. It's the insight of Keynes a century ago, who understood that, in times of hardship, the state must step up, not step back. It's the insight of modern economists, who have demonstrated time and time again that societies with stronger safety nets recover faster from economic shocks and grow more sustainably in the long term.

The times that we're living in demand courage, not capitulation. They require vision, not the recycling of failed policies. While others abandon the principles that once guided them, let us uphold them. While others sacrifice the vulnerable on the altar of political expediency, let us defend them. And when the history of these troubled times is written, let it be said that, here in Wales, when darkness threatened to engulf the most needy among us, we did not merely light a candle—we ignited a beacon of hope.

John Griffiths (Labour, Newport East)

Since the UK Government's announcement on welfare reform, Dirprwy Lywydd, I've had many conversations with constituents, as I'm sure other Members here have had as well. And I must say, I agree with the majority of my constituents that I've spoken to, in as much as what they believe is: that reform of welfare benefits should help people move from worklessness into work, because that's very good for those individuals, their families, and communities, and, of course, that in itself will reduce the benefits bill; that there must be a safety net for those unable to work, and we should not cut benefits for those in that position; we need to support the vulnerable; and they should not pay the price in terms of the challenge of balancing the UK Government's books.

There's a huge amount of worry and anxiety in our communities at the moment, which has been created by the communication around the announcement, which has worried so many people who are dependent on benefits. We do know, Dirprwy Lywydd, that there's a great deal of good work in Wales with devolved services working with the DWP and jobcentres to move people closer to the jobs market, as it's described, and get them into work. That's, sometimes, a long process, but it does bear fruit, and I do think we should take a longer term view on these matters, which, indeed, the well-being of future generations Act here in Wales directs us to do. There is much good work in Wales that we can build on, and further devolution in terms of what ability Wales has to help people move closer to the jobs market and into work would be very useful indeed. I believe discussions are very much under way in terms of that.

I have examples in Newport—and I'm sure there are examples right across Wales—of some very good work. Newport City Council, for example, runs job clubs at community centres for people over the age of 16 who are unemployed. It involves support for CV writing and writing job applications, developing interview skills, getting accredited qualifications, and it has free employment-related courses. Newport Mind, through their six-month Kickstart programme for young people, helps them to claim universal credit where they need to do that, but also supports them to improve their employability and, indeed, to get them into work and bridge the gap between those two things—being workless and eventually getting that paid employment.

And of course, Dirprwy Lywydd, several years ago now, when I chaired the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, we did some work on the way that the UK benefits system works in Wales. We recommended, amongst other things, that the administration of that benefit system should be devolved to Wales. We believed very strongly—I still believe very strongly—that that would bring many advantages. We heard so often that it's dignity and respect that counts for a lot and needs to be embedded in the culture of the way the benefit system is administered, that there needs to be a different approach to assessments for disability and illness benefits, for example, and a different approach to the way that the sanctions regime operates—just a few examples of the way that I think we could be far more constructive and effective in the way that we operate here in Wales.

I think at the heart of this debate is recognising the particular impact that cuts to benefits would have here in Wales, and, as a result of that, the particular need for the UK Government to work very closely with the Welsh Government to get our people here in Wales in a position where they can move from worklessness into work, and in doing so, cut that UK benefits bill. I think that's the constructive approach, that's the best approach, and that's the approach we should see.

David Rees (Labour, Aberavon)

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and Trefnydd—Jane Hutt.