Plenary

The next item is the business statement and announcement. I call on the Trefnydd to make the statement—Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. There is one change to today's agenda: the statement by the Minister for Social Justice has been retitled 'Well-being of future generations national implementation'. Draft business for the next three sitting weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Trefnydd, can I call for two statements today, please? The first is in relation to the ambulance service. I know that the Minister for Health and Social Services has made it clear that she'll be receiving monthly updates on the delivery against the ambulance delivery plan, and I wondered whether those could be published so that Members of the Senedd could also have a copy of those updates, so that we can hold the Welsh Government to account for that delivery.

Secondly, can I call for a statement—an urgent statement—from the Minister for Climate Change on red squirrel conservation? I received a notification last week from Natural Resources Wales that they're planning to clear-fell 6,500 tonnes of timber from Pentraeth forest, which, of course, is a red squirrel stronghold, and one of the few red squirrel strongholds in Wales. The problem with this is that they're planning to clear-fell between October and March 2021. The peak of the breeding season is February and March for red squirrels. At that time, the young will be in their nests, and because of the population density in that area, it is likely that many will be killed. Clearly, that's not a good thing; it does need to be looked at, and I would appreciate very much if the Minister for Climate Change could take this up directly with Natural Resources Wales to discuss what may be done in order to mitigate that particular issue. Thank you.

Thank you. In regard to your second question around the tree felling on the red squirrel population in Gwynedd and Anglesey, I know NRW did consult stakeholders back, it's probably around 10 years ago now when they drew up the current forest development plan. So, they are in the process, obviously, of replacing that plan with a new forest resource plan, which is what you're referring to. So, again, there will be a detailed consultation carried out with stakeholders ahead of any final decisions, and that will of course include red squirrel groups.

In relation to your first question around the publication of the monthly performance data, I will ask the Minister for social services to consider your request.FootnoteLink

As we approach COP26, I'd like a statement about what the Government will do to address the climate anxiety being felt by increasing numbers of young people. I led a debate on this issue in June, Trefnydd, and I'm desperately keen for us to see progress. A University of Bath study found that 56 per cent of young people believe humanity is doomed because of climate change. This feeling of anxiety is endemic and it's escalating. And I've spoken to the youth climate ambassadors about this issue too. What young people want and need is to feel empowered, to be listened to, to know that they're not alone in feeling scared or worried, and to know what is being done to help combat the crisis, what we can all do to play our part.

Trefnydd, striking the right balance is key in terms of not downplaying the severity of climate change, but reframing it in the curriculum, in the guidance given to teachers, so that the focus is on the brilliant and resilient community projects taking place, preventative action, and the agency we all have. I know that this was raised earlier in First Minister's questions, Trefnydd, but young people don't want to be told that their fears are unfounded because they're not. They have every right to be angry as well about the state that the world is in as we hand it to them, but we need to work with young people not just on their behalf.

So, will the Government please make a statement as early as possible setting out how you will work with all of us who want to see climate anxiety and its causes addressed, and a stronger voice given to young people in helping us determine how we tackle humanity's greatest challenge together?

Thank you. Well, you will have heard the First Minister say, in answer to the question he was asked, about the work that we will be doing once again with children and young people as part of our climate change week, which is obviously going to be held in November. Certainly, the previous two years when we held our first conference, which I think was just one day when we held it in 2019, and then we held a week last year in 2020, children and young people were absolutely a vital part of that week, and we certainly encourage them to participate as well. So, I don't think we ever say that their concerns are unfounded, and you're absolutely right; it's a matter for each and every one us, not just in this Chamber, but outside, across the whole of Wales, to make sure that the decisions we take about the way we lead our lives help to mitigate climate change.

Firstly, I'm sure the Welsh Government finds the use of fire and rehire by companies as abhorrent as I do. Whilst the Welsh Government cannot outlaw it as employment law is not devolved, I'm asking for a Government statement on how companies who carry out this practice can be excluded from Welsh Government contracts, or from contracts with Welsh Government funded bodies, and also, how they can be excluded from grant funding directly or indirectly from the Welsh Government.

The second statement I'm asking for is relating to the continuation of home and hub working. I believe this is the way forward—bringing people to an office between nine and five was important in the nineteenth century, and even the early part of the twentieth century, but with data readily available online, the reason for a large amount of office work has disappeared. It would also actually reduce the amount of traffic on the road, removing any need for bypasses, and it would help the environment.

Thank you. In relation to fire and rehire, we're very concerned by the practice of imposing new terms and conditions on workers through the tactic of fire and rehire, and we're very clear that that sort of practice is absolutely not consistent with our values of fair work and social partnership. We encourage all employers to resolve difficult and challenging issues through social partnership, but, of course, as you say, it is a matter for the UK Government—they do have reserved powers to end the irresponsible use of fire and rehire practices, and we've certainly called upon the UK Government to act in this respect. Certainly, we would expect firms who benefit from public investment to act in a spirit of social partnership, and that absolutely should focus on the well-being of their workers and the wider public interest. Mike Hedges will be aware of the steps that we're taking to strengthen our approach, through the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill, which, when it's introduced, and if it's passed, will then introduce new duties in relation to social partnership.

In relation to continuation of working from home and hub working, Welsh Government advice is you should work from home wherever possible. As we know, that does make a big difference to preventing the spread of COVID-19. And I think what we've seen is old ways of working will not probably—well, I think they're very unlikely to return in exactly the same way, and we've certainly seen many businesses and employees stating a desire for a new pattern of work, which allows people to work in the workplace, at home, near home, or even in a local work hub. So this, I think, is something that—. That type of flexible working from businesses and from employers I think also strengthens local communities as well and the local economy, and I think it is certainly something that we will see continuing.

I refer Members to my entry in the register of interests. Firstly, I would like to thank the Minister for Climate Change for taking the time to answer my written questions on carbon offsetting and the net Welsh emissions account—the NWEA. And I'm sure the Trefnydd will share my alarm regarding the fact that international businesses are offsetting their own carbon emissions at the expense of traditional Welsh farmland—she and I have already briefly discussed this. Indeed, I'm sure the Trefnydd and her ministerial colleague, the Minister for Climate Change, are well aware that the offloading of Welsh carbon credits to businesses outside of Wales does nothing to reduce Wales's own carbon footprint; also, the sale of carbon in this way risks undermining the ability of Welsh farms, Welsh agriculture, or Wales as a whole to become carbon neutral. Therefore, will the Minister make an urgent statement on what steps the Government is taking to protect traditional Welsh farmland from being bought up by foreign businesses? And what safeguards exist to ensure that Welsh carbon credits, bought for the purpose of offsetting emissions from outside of Wales, are not double counted and used to offset Wales's own emissions? Diolch.

Thank you. It is about a balance, isn't it? And I've said on the floor of the Chamber before, we cannot tell farmers who to sell their land to, and it is something that obviously concerns us. I think the issue you raise—I just had a discussion, actually, with Llyr Huws Gruffydd on the way into the Chamber around this, and making sure that we avoid double counting. It's certainly something that we can look at as part of the sustainable farming scheme.

Could I ask for a debate, rather than a statement, on the availability of free banking for charities and community groups? Unfortunately, HSBC is the latest of the banks to take the money and run, and they'll be introducing charges for the Women's Institute, local scouts and girl guides groups, local sports clubs, and others, from the end of this month. It's a really important thing for some groups, who have had such a hard time coming through the pandemic, now to find that they're going to be facing charges. So, we need to signal to them how we can still continue to provide free banking services for them.

Could we also have a statement in response to many constituents who have written to me on the state of our rivers? And I declare an interest as the Senedd's salmon champion for the next five years. But they've written to me particularly on the issue of the Wye river, and what they see as the real dangers here that we are stripping life out of that river for invertebrates, for fish, and for other wildlife, and for that amazing habitat that it provides. And they draw a particular reference, I have to say, to the phosphate production now from Powys being, frankly, Europe's largest producer of free-range eggs within the whole of Europe. It's adding the equivalent of 2,000 tonnes now of phosphates across the whole water catchment area in the Wye, and it's of course affecting every constituency down. It's not the only pollutant, by the way, in that area, but it does of course have a major impact.

And could we finally have a statement on the charging of electric vehicles where there is no kerbside parking, no community hub charging, and no off-kerb parking in your own driveway? I've got people who live in terrace houses who are now asking is it legal to run a cable across the pavement. Some local authorities actually have a blanket 'no' to this; others have no policy whatsoever. It would be great to have a statement to give clarity. Thank you, Llywydd.

Thank you, Huw Irranca-Davies. So, in relation to free banking for charities and community groups, I think it's safe to say we've certainly seen a number of voluntary organisations, right across Wales, experience difficulties with regard to banking services. That's in terms of identifying an account that is free, as well as being open, in the first place, because, of course, we've seen a significant number of banks close, along with the free ATM machines as well. You'll be aware of the work that the Minister for Social Justice has done with Third Sector Support Wales, and I know she's about to appoint the Wales Council for Voluntary Action to establish a community loan fund—community asset loan fund, sorry—which I'm sure will help in that way.

Your second question around the River Wye—and you'll be aware of our programme for government commitment to begin the designation of inland waters for recreation, for instance. And what we really want to do is improve river pollution management in a way that we've done with our beaches and with our sea water. So, this is a significant piece of work, and, as you say, there are a diverse range of sources that are polluting our rivers, and NRW is working with Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, at the moment, to look at modelling to apportion sources to pollutant levels on a sub-catchment level. I'm obviously very aware of the concerns around poultry farms, and it's a discussion I've had around planning issues with the Minister for Climate Change, who has responsibility for planning, to see if we need to look at the threshold for these poultry farms, and that's an ongoing piece of work.

In relation to your question around electric vehicles, obviously highway authorities and local authorities do have the ability to adopt their own positions, and, as you say, there is perhaps a range of views across Wales, as to how we do that. I know there are some trials under way in England, at the moment, and I think we will watch those very closely, but, I think, it is a matter for local authorities and highway authorities to adopt their own positions in the way that you referred to—looking at highway safety—because obviously the local area and population is for them to ascertain what's best.

Minister, may I ask for a statement from the Minister for health on the availability of electroretinography services for eye patients here in Wales? Wales is the only country in the UK that does not have access to this service for eye patients, and I'm advised that the only centre in Wales, which was based in Cardiff, closed 18 months ago. I asked the Minister about this in a written question, and the reply said, 'A task and finish group has been formed to review the Welsh Government's approach to this' and the group's recommendations would result in appropriate action. Given that time is of the essence now in preventing sight loss, please could we have a statement on the timescales involved, and when we may expect the task and finish group to report back? Thank you.

Well, I'm unaware as to when the task and finish group will report, but I'm sure, when it does to the Minister for Health and Social Services, she will update us.

In the Equality and Social Justice Committee on Monday 20 September, the Minister for Social Justice was asked about the work being done to prepare for a basic income pilot. On more than one occasion, she was ambling to be more specific around some of the matters under consideration, giving the reason that she is due to give a statement in Plenary. Having listened to the business statement, there is nothing scheduled, meaning that the earliest chance of this happening would be Tuesday 9 November, some seven weeks since the committee meeting. The promise of a statement should not be used as an excuse for a Minister to avoid answering questions, when Standing Order 16 states that part of the role of a committee is to examine matters of Government policy. Otherwise, the promise of a statement, however far into the future, could become the standard defence for not providing detail in committee where scrutiny takes place. Can the Minister confirm that a statement will be made here, please? Thank you.

If the Minister for Social Justice has promised to publish a statement, either an oral one or a written one, I can assure the Member it will be absolutely included in our Government business.

I thank the Trefnydd for that item.

We'll move now to a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services: update on Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board. Minister, Eluned Morgan, to make the statement.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. Earlier today, I published the two latest reports by the independent maternity services oversight panel. I am very grateful to them for the role that they have continued to play over the past year and for their ongoing commitment to this work.

This has been the most challenging of times for the Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board, and the progress report on maternity services highlights the impact the pandemic has had on its ability to maintain pace in securing improvement. That said, I am sure that we're all encouraged by the panel's confirmation that, despite this, the health board has continued to make incremental progress in improving its maternity services, with a further five of the royal colleges' recommendations delivered—so, that's 55 out of 70. Importantly, they're also satisfied that the improvements made over the past two and a half years are now firmly embedded in practice, ensuring sustainable change. I'm particularly heartened to see that there's been a fundamental shift in the way in which the health board engages with women and families.

But we can't forget the past, and alongside this progress update, the 'Thematic Stillbirth Category Report', detailing the findings and learnings from 63 episodes of care that tragically resulted in a stillbirth, makes for particularly difficult reading. And whilst the findings are in line with those of the previous royal colleges' review and, indeed, similar reviews across the UK, this will not make it any easier to bear for the women and the families affected. It's tragic that in one in three episodes of care, it is possible that the poor outcome may have been avoided if the care had been different. There were also minor modifiable factors identified in almost two thirds of the episodes of care reviewed. Although these were unlikely to have contributed to the poor outcome, these findings highlight many deficiencies in the quality of care women experienced and the standards they had a right to expect. I was particularly saddened to read the feedback from those women and families who shared their stories, which reinforced this further, and I am truly sorry for this. Whilst nothing can change what they've experienced, I hope that the improvements that have happened as a result are of some comfort to them. And can I just say that I can't begin to imagine the pain that those women and those families who are grieving the loss of their babies still endure.

We can't underestimate either how difficult these findings will be for staff. I firmly believe the vast majority of staff go to work every day in our NHS to do a good job. It's the system in which they work that can prevent them from providing the best possible care. The commitment of staff in ensuring a continued focus on improvement, despite the operational pressures they have faced, shows this to be the case.

Whilst much has been achieved, the report reminds us there is still more to do, with the focus now very much on shifting to a more holistic, longer term continuous improvement approach. Key to this is building greater integration between neonatal and maternity services. Members will already be aware that the panel has already turned its focus to the neonatal service. The individual clinical reviews within the neonatal category are progressing, and the panel has advised me that they're aiming to begin sharing findings with women and families early in the new year.

I appreciate how difficult it is for those affected to have to wait for the results of the inquiry, but, unfortunately, the pace of the process has been impacted due to increased operational commitments of the clinical reviewers, as well as the health board's team, due to the impact of COVID-19 on service delivery. I understand that the neonatal reviews are more complex, and it is essential that they are undertaken thoroughly. However, I do want to reassure families that the ongoing deep-dive review into neonatal services at Prince Charles Hospital has not taken the panel's focus away from the priority of completing these individual reviews. The panel has advised me that the neonatal deep-dive review is nearing completion and will build on the immediate and short-term improvement actions that they have already identified are needed. It was important not to wait for the final report before taking the opportunity to make some immediate improvements. The panel will continue to support the health board in ensuring that these necessary changes are fully acted upon and that they are embedded in practice. My officials will also monitor this closely.

In addition to the focus on neonatal and maternity services, the health board has also continued to improve its quality governance arrangements and is striving to develop a learning, open and transparent culture. This builds on the recommendations of the quality governance review undertaken by Healthcare Inspectorate Wales and Audit Wales and their latest assessment of progress. A range of actions are in train to enable this, and my officials are working closely with the organisation to support and track progress.

I don't underestimate the scale of the challenges the organisation has faced, which has been made all the more difficult against the backdrop of the impact of the pandemic. What I've described today, and the reports you've seen, shows just how much work has continued despite this, and I want to thank all of those involved for these achievements. This is very much a journey to sustainable change and not a set of quick-fix actions. When I met the panel last week, they told me that this is now a very different maternity service to the one they first encountered. It is very important that individuals using the service today can also be assured of this.

In closing, Llywydd, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the outgoing chair, Marcus Longley, for his strong leadership during such a difficult period. I'm also grateful to Emrys Elias for agreeing to take on this role over the next 18 months. With his background and experience, he'll undoubtedly provide the direction and support required for the organisation to take the next steps on its improvement journey. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank the Minister for her statement today and also for the invitation to technical briefings? I know, Minister, that you, as much as I am, are appalled that one in three babies who were stillborn at Cwm Taf may have survived if it were not for serious mistakes made at the Royal Glamorgan and Prince Charles hospitals between 2016 and 2018. This is a tragic day for families in south Wales who have had it confirmed that their precious baby died needlessly. The report into the maternity service scandal at Cwm Taf makes, as you said, Minister, yourself, harrowing reading, and my thoughts go to the mothers and the families who went through such tragic circumstances. Women facing childbirth have the right to expect high-quality care and the best chance of delivering a healthy baby, but they were let down and ultimately failed.

The scale of this scandal is shocking, and it continues to pose many challenging questions for Cwm Taf, its regulatory system as well as, of course, the Labour Government here. In over a quarter of those cases, inadequate or inappropriate treatment was identified as a major factor in the outcome, and this is a clear failure to provide basic good care to women and their babies at the most vulnerable times of their lives. So, I suppose, my ultimate question, Minister, in that regard is: what went wrong?

And while the panel has not outlined any specific recommendations and has said that the board is back on the right track, the stories from women affected make distressing reading. One, I quote, said,

'My fear is that we will share our stories and nothing will happen as a result and we will be slowly forgotten about. This has opened old wounds and we hope that it will result in change.'

This fear seems to be justified, as deep concerns are still there about aspects of services provided by Prince Charles Hospital, which still did not meet, and I quote here from the panel,

'the standards of safety and effectiveness which it expected to see in a neonatal unit operating at that level within the UK healthcare system.'

So, what mechanisms, Minister, are you putting in place to ensure that every single maternity unit in Wales is operating at that level within the UK healthcare system? And, ultimately, how will you and health boards be monitoring them in the future?

I and my colleagues believe that there are wider problems within the healthcare service at play here. The former Minister took Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board out of special measures just six weeks after he said they needed further assurances from the health board in respect of progress in mental health services. But concerns about the health board's mental health services remain, and recent reports show that there were two deaths of patients in mental health service units in the board within six months. So, I think properly investigating staff complaints is still of concern to the board. And, in Tawel Fan, staff treatment was mentioned as a primary concern of families of patients there, who described staff as seemingly not concerned or not seeming to care about what was going on, or trying to cover up their actions.

Thanks, Russell. I think we're all clear that this was not the finest hour for maternity services in Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board. And I, like you, was quite shocked by some of those quotes from the women who had suffered in this way, and they really hit you hard. And you're absolutely right, and I think the one that you picked up was also one that I felt we absolutely need to take on board, and that is,

'we will share our stories and nothing will happen'.

You think about the trauma of having to share that story again and again with these people who are coming and asking you and investigating what went wrong. They have to know that something will change. And I can give them that assurance in the sense that we are putting systems in place. We had, first of all, that independent review by the royal colleges, which set out not just what went wrong but how to put things right. And we have got those lists of things, and I am pleased that we are a long way along that road to improvement. And I think that has got to be the lasting tribute that we give to these women, who were not given the respect that they should have been given.

One of the assurances that I was given, speaking to the representatives of the maternity services and oversight panel, who I met earlier this week, was that, actually, when it comes to communication, they are confident that the board is now in a different place. And I do think, very often, communication is absolutely key. Ultimately, however, it's got to be about respect. We've got to respect people who use our health services, and certainly we will continue in the Welsh Government to make sure that we look at areas that need to have those targeted interventions, those special measures to make sure that we can avoid any issues like this in future.

I think how quiet the Chamber is this afternoon in listening to this says it all. The stories and the report are very difficult to listen to, to read, and I know that many of you will have met many of these parents and the families and will have heard from them and know just how emotional it all is. I should also declare at the outset my own son was born in the Royal Glamorgan Hospital and that I received an apology following the appalling experience that we had at the hospital. This was back in 2013, and seeing that the lessons haven't been learned following that complaint is something that stays with me, too. Luckily, he is now eight years old, but everyone is reading this report and thinking how things could have been different, and I don't think anyone could fail to be impacted by the stories of those parents.

Once again, we've heard about grave failings in terms of the care received within Cwm Taf Morgannwg. It's a difficult day for the parents affected by these failings and it's right that the Minister has apologised, but we must emphasise, as you said, that there are no words that can bring those who are lost back or diminish the loss felt. From the beginning of this scandal, Plaid Cymru has been calling for broad-ranging reviews into what's happened, and we welcome the announcement of this further report today. We've always emphasised that it's important that the review looks at why so many babies died in such a short period of time. The new report published today, as has already been mentioned, shows that one in three of the stillbirths could have been avoided were it not for serious deficiencies in care, and this is frightening. And for me, it's not just that statistic in terms of the third of babies who could have survived, but the fact that, in 37 further cases, the review suggested that one or more minor errors could have happened, although it's unlikely that these could have led to a different outcome—but it's unlikely, not impossible—and only in four cases did the experts come to the view that nothing could have been done differently.

Although the health board and the Government welcomed the conclusions, it's clear that more needs to be done. Yes, this is an emotional topic for many people. The news has reopened a number of wounds for parents, and it's impossible to overemphasise the pain, the hurt and the anxiety caused to every one of these families affected by this scandal and that remains the case.

This isn't something that happened in the past; people will be living with this for the rest of their lives. The best possible outcome would be for the Government and the health board to implement the recommendations of these reports in order to ensure that these failings never happen again. And there are a number of questions in terms of accountability that remain unanswered, even with the publication of this report. The report and the statement placed a great deal of emphasis on the improvements and the learning that's taken place, but we also need accountability. And can the Minister say with hand on heart that there's been accountability in terms of this scandal, given that many of the previous leaders within the health board had been given large payoffs when they left and they continue to work in health now, perhaps at a different health board, whilst those who have suffered bereavement are left with nothing? Where is the accountability, Minister?

Well, thank you very much to the Member and I'm very sorry to hear about your personal experience in Cwm Taf and, certainly, you're one of many who has suffered over this very difficult period when things were in a very poor condition. I think that this statement answers, and the report answers, that question that you asked, 'Why did so many die?', and there are answers here in terms of why some did die; that built on the work that was already done by the royal college.

I think that it is very important that we are clear that this story isn't over, either; that there is more to go; there is more that needs to be done. And of course, there is another report to come, the neonatal report, and I'm afraid that that is also going to be very challenging reading.

I can confirm that we are going to be keeping an eye on ensuring that we do act on these recommendations, that we ensure that the board pushes on, and that the team that is currently in place ensures that they keep at it. I think that the point in terms of accountability is important, and one of the things that I am eager to see is to see that change of culture in the health board. They need to be much more open in terms of what is going on. One of the problems was that so much had been hidden for so long, so it is important that people aren't afraid to speak out, that they can come forward, so that we can improve the situation sooner and that we don't see so many of these tragedies.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement today. Once again, I want to place on record my thoughts for all those families who have been affected by this scandal, especially with data from the thematic stillbirth category report suggesting that one in three episodes of stillbirth might have been avoided if the care had been different. These numbers are shocking enough, but they represent real families torn apart by grief, families who I myself and other Senedd Members have supported over the past few years.

My questions today: we know that the ongoing pandemic has had a tremendous impact on front-line NHS staff, the vast majority of whom work really hard to provide appropriate care, in many cases going above and beyond for their patients. How is this pressure being managed within the context of delivering the long-term cultural change that has been identified? Secondly, the pandemic has caused additional pressures for expecting mothers and families, not least in terms of, for example, restrictions around partners attending appointments. How are these being managed to give reassurance to such families? And thirdly, a point in the thematic report also mentioned in your written statement is the panel's comments around more effective action to reduce the adverse impact of smoking and raised blood pressure during pregnancy, which can both reduce the risk of stillbirth. So, how are you working to embed this, not just across Cwm Taf Morgannwg, but across the whole of the NHS in Wales?

Thanks, Vikki. I know how much work you've done on behalf of so many of those people who have come forward explaining how they have been affected by this. Certainly, I am very aware of the pressures that the staff in Cwm Taf are already under. Staff across the whole of the NHS are under huge pressure, and I'm told that there's a COVID baby bounce going on as well, so the pressures are even greater than they normally are.

In terms of the long-term cultural change, it does give me some comfort to think that, despite the COVID pressures, actually they have still managed to deliver and change 55 of those 70 recommendations, and, more than that, to embed them. Now, there is still a long way to go. I think we've got to be absolutely clear about that. We are still a long way from being where we need to be in relation to maternity services in Cwm Taf, but I agree with you that, certainly in terms of the adverse impacts of smoking and blood pressure, there's more we can do in the broader sense of maternity health, where we need to encourage people to think about those things, and certainly one of the key issues that I'm concerned with at the moment is the number of women who are pregnant who have not been vaccinated. The number of people who are in hospital who are pregnant because they haven't been vaccinated is extremely worrying, and I would encourage all of those women who are pregnant in Wales at the moment to make sure that they get the vaccine. It will not harm you and it will not harm your baby.

Certainly, in terms of partners visiting, we've made it clear that, for the actual birth, the partner can be present, but the situation relating to visiting outside that depends on the situation locally when it comes to COVID rates.

I would like to pay tribute to all the staff working to deliver services in the Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board area, not just the medical staff, who have shown such resilience in the past 18 months, but those leading the organisation in what has been a challenging time. We know that the board were facing substantial challenges before the onset of the pandemic, and many of the weaknesses in our health services were exposed by COVID-19. Benefiting from higher quality neonatal and maternity services is still a priority of the local community, and I hope the board is focused on this.

My questions are, Minister: in your written statement earlier today, you said that there has been loss in momentum because of COVID, but that the programme is on the right track to deliver long-term and sustainable improvements. Unless something drastic has been done to regain the lost momentum, how is the programme on track?

No. 2: the independent maternity services oversight panel's thematic stillbirth category report paints a bleak picture. We should be valuing what women have to say about these services, and this has not been the case. What does this health board and others need to do to listen to the views of women who have been neglected and ignored? My last question, Minister: the oversight of the board is critical. In other spheres, people would have been replaced, and the competency of the board put under review. What are you doing to ensure that the board is fit for purpose? Thank you very much.

Thanks very much, Altaf. Certainly, I think it's fair to say that there is an understanding, of course, that maternity services are a priority not just for the local community, but also for the health board. It is one of the key areas that is the responsibility of the NHS—to make sure that babies are delivered safely. Of course, like other services, there has been a loss of momentum as a result of COVID. You wouldn't expect anything else. So, it has been knocked off track slightly, but we are very keen to make sure that we do all we can to get things back on track, and that we don't change the need to address the issue of culture within the organisation. And I agree with you that the picture that's painted in the report is bleak, and it is critical that we listen to the views of women who were affected by the services that they had.

But I think you make a really fair point in terms of the need for the board of Cwm Taf Morgannwg to take a real interest in this, and that their role in oversight is absolutely critical. And that's why I'm very pleased that Emrys Elias has taken this seriously. I know he understands the need to really focus on this as an issue, and it's not just this as an issue, but also the broader governance issues that really need to be addressed, particularly within this health board.

Thank you, Minister. We will now take a short break.

Welcome back, and the next item is a statement by the Minister for Social Justice on the well-being of future generations national implementation. I call on the Minister for Social Justice to make the statement. Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Sustainable development has been at the heart of devolution in Wales right from the start. In 2015, this Parliament made a historic decision to change the course of Wales onto a more sustainable path by passing the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. This reflected the tireless effort by people from across Wales to strengthen the way in which Wales's future is shaped. It remains Welsh society's commitment to a better quality of life for both current and future generations. For people, for the planet, for now and for the future.

Last month, we saw the United Nations, for the very first time, commit to putting in place a range of institutional mechanisms to improve solidarity with future generations. It also recognised the importance of representing future generations as part of any country's approach to improving the lives of citizens and responsibility to the planet. This includes proposals for a declaration on future generations, a United Nations special envoy for future generations and regular mechanisms to consider future trends. Our experience in Wales has encouraged other countries to do the same, and these changes are a strong endorsement of the Senedd's bold decisions to legislate for the future.

The Agenda 2030 declaration, which formed the United Nations sustainable development goals, specifically acknowledges the essential role of national parliaments through their enactment of legislation and adoption of budgets and their role in ensuring accountability for effective implementation. The Senedd is therefore an important and recognised component of the accountability architecture of the well-being of future generations Act. In recognition of this, I wanted to make an early statement in this Senedd term as we start the next cycle of rooting sustainability in how Wales works.

Wales is continuing to show its international leadership on the sustainable development agenda. The independent report launched last week by the First Minister and the climate change Minister shows that Wales's research base is making a significant contribution to the United Nations sustainable development goals. I am proud to see the contribution that our scientific community is making to global issues.

Our action and leadership on the well-being of future generations agenda is accelerating in this Government term. Our programme for government, with the well-being objectives at its heart, demonstrates the central role of the well-being of future generations approach in our thinking and policy making. We've brought public bodies together to discuss how we take forward our sustainable development ambitions for Wales through a well-being of future generations national stakeholder forum. I plan to meet members of the forum shortly to discuss how Welsh Government will continue to provide leadership in the national implementation of the Act, and how we can take forward specific actions in collaboration with the forum and bring these actions together in a plan for this Government term.

Last month I launched a consultation on national milestones for Wales, which will shape future action towards achieving the shared well-being goals. And, at the end of this year, we’ll have the first set of national milestones within the Act, we’ll have updated our national well-being indicators to reflect the impact of the pandemic so far, and updated our report on future trends likely to affect Wales. This work provides an opportunity to raise awareness of the legislation, which is something I know the national forum are keen to work with us on.

We will also be reviewing the list of public bodies subject to the Act, as we recognise that there is value in extending these duties to other public bodies, and that many bodies are already adopting the sustainable development principle voluntarily. We’ll also continue to engage with our international counterparts through our continued membership of Regions4 sustainable development and the Wellbeing Economy Governments network, alongside Scotland, Iceland, Finland and New Zealand.

At the end of the last Senedd term, we saw three significant reports focused on the Act being published. The 'Future Generations Report' provided the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales's assessments of improvements public bodies should make to act in accordance with the sustainable development principle; the Auditor General for Wales reported on the results of their examinations of all public bodies; and the Public Accounts Committee of the fifth Senedd looked into the barriers to implementation. I’ve welcomed these reports because they provide a stock take every Senedd term on how the Act is enabling Government and public bodies to work in a more sustainable way.

Our response to the PAC report has now been published, and we will also shortly publish our responses to the auditor general’s and the future generations commissioner’s reports. Members and the relevant committees will need time to consider both the findings of these reports as well as the responses from Government, the commissioner, the auditor general and the public bodies charged with carrying out sustainable development.

I understand that the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee will be considering the responses to the PAC report tomorrow, and I hope that our response to the recommendations are helpful in their discussions. But I also appreciate that members of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee and, of course, the Equality and Social Justice Committee, whose remit includes the Act, will need time to consider our response, and I’d be happy to respond to any further points that come out of these discussions.

In recognition of this, today’s statement is focused on our continued action on the well-being of future generations agenda in Wales and how the legislation can drive better decision making for current and future generations. The well-being of future generations Act continues to inform and shape what we do, how we work, and how we work with others. We will lead both the message on delivering a sustainable future for Wales, and the changes to how we work, so that sustainable development is reinforced as the central organising principle of Government and public bodies in Wales.

I imagine that the 'Delivering for Future Generations' report must have made for some uncomfortable reading for the Minister, given the overwhelming number of criticisms that have been laid at her feet and how poorly implemented this legislation has been.

The commissioner herself has expressed deep concern that her office is massively underfunded to fully implement this Welsh Government’s flagship future generations policy, and although it has been shown that the future generations commissioner does deliver in some select cases, there are many reported instances where public bodies in Wales have felt totally unsupported. Indeed,

'For some, communication and correspondence is "limited", and attendance at Public Services Boards (PSB) meetings',

by the commissioner, is 'fairly sporadic'. The Welsh NHS Confederation goes a step further, highlighting that they're unsure about what level of support they can actually expect, that the implementation of the Act is not always clear, and that they would actually welcome more practical support from the commissioner's office. Upon being questioned about this, the future generations commissioner felt that she lacked the resources to deliver this programme of work because she has the lowest budget of any commissioner in Wales. Moreover, the commissioner highlighted that 43 per cent of their office time is actually taken up by,

'supporting, advising, and lobbying the Welsh Government'

to implement the Act within its own organisation. It is unbelievable, yet not surprising, given the overall incompetence of this Government that they cannot even implement their own legislation in their own organisation, and their commissioner is so fed up that she is willing to state that it's not her job to lobby the Welsh Government.

Minister, why is the future generations commission spending a disproportionate amount of its time trying to get this establishment to work within the confines of the well-being of future generations Act, when it should be looking at increasing its profile and supporting outside organisations? Given that 87 per cent of the Welsh public, and, more startlingly, 8 per cent of Welsh public bodies, have never heard of the well-being of future generations Act, can the Minister agree with me that after five years the Welsh Government has failed to deliver its flagship policy? And will the Minister agree with the students who engaged with the inquiry that it's the fault of the governing party if ultimately things aren't right?

Further analysis of the report shows that the Welsh Government seems to have no idea whatsoever on how to implement this legislation, a fact highlighted by WWF Cymru, whose investigation concluded that there is no systematic, coherent approach by the Welsh Government to implementing the Act and there is a little evidence as yet that the Act's framework is driving any policy development. Indeed, the inquiry also heard from other public bodies and stakeholders that there was a siloed approach to working in Welsh Government, that there was a lack of consistency in how the Act is applied, and that there is a culture of slow change within the organisation. More negative criticism came from the auditor general, who stated:

A very disappointing set of questions and comments on reports—reports that I think actually reflect a very different view about the implementation of the well-being of future generations Act. I think it's really important that we look at the reports—the report, first of all, most importantly, of our own Public Accounts Committee, which, of course, reported before the end of the last session, to which we are responding today. I understand the committee is meeting tomorrow, and I think it will be very useful to see what their response is to our Government response to their recommendations. I thought the Public Accounts Committee report was extremely constructive, extremely useful, and, of course, we have Members here who've sat on that committee and who took part in that inquiry. But, also, I look forward to hearing from them in full.

But let's just recognise that over the past 18 months the well-being of future generations Act has received considerable scrutiny on its effectiveness as a legislative framework to improve Wales's sustainability, and that's why these reports are so important. We need to look at all three of them in terms of a response. I think the reports from the Public Accounts Committee, the future generations commissioner and the auditor general provide a whole range of findings and ideas on how Government and public bodies can embed sustainable development in how they work, and advance the implementation of the well-being of future generations framework in Wales. So, I really welcome these reports, as they remain an integral part of the cycle of the Act. It would have been good to have heard some questions and comments on our responses to the recommendations that came through these reports.

The Welsh Government continues to provide leadership on the well-being of future generations agenda, we recognise our role as custodians of the legislation, and we want to use the legislation, as it has done already, to drive positive improvements in the way we make decisions in Wales. I've mentioned the new national stakeholder forum that has been set up, and the exchange events to share best practice. And also, I would hope that you have some interest in the consultation on national milestones and the national indicators. I hope that you will respond to these in terms of the consultation that we set out. This is about national milestones, the seven well-being goals for Wales, to provide a description of ways in which we want to achieve an economically, socially and environmentally just Wales.

I just want to finish, in terms of response to your points today, by giving some examples of the difference the well-being of future generations Act has made. It's interesting; in my own portfolio, the community facilities programme provides grants for community-led projects. They're used to improve the environmental and financial sustainability of community facilities; they're very much driven by the five goals—the more equal, more resilient, more sustainable Wales—but also the way in which we work on those. The disability equality forum, which I chair, is also considering the ways in which we can engage more frequently with the voice of disabled people, to ensure the voices of disabled people are heard, and also informing us in terms of the way we implement the socioeconomic duty.

I'm pleased and grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the statement today.

The well-being of future generations Act has been lauded internationally, and rightfully so. It's a groundbreaking piece of legislation that has the potential to transform our country for the better. Who could argue with legislation that enshrines seven cross-cutting well-being goals of prosperity, resilience, health, equality, cohesive communities, a vibrant culture with a thriving Welsh language, and finally a global, responsible Wales? In terms of a wish list for Wales, it's hard to fault it. I also think it's important for devolution that we have a point of difference that demonstrates that we can do things differently and better here in Wales. This Act, on paper at least, certainly does that.

However, as is often the case with legislation, the best of intentions are often let down by the execution. Unfortunately, that is what we have seen with the well-being of future generations Act. The Senedd's Public Accounts Committee, which reported in March of this year, found that the Act's radical ambitions have not been met with the necessary culture change across public bodies. Also, these public bodies have not done enough to build awareness of the shift to sustainable development across public services.

Such an ambitious piece of legislation also requires ambitious funding, but that has not been the case. Short funding cycles and late funding announcements have made it difficult for public bodies to plan, work together, and make the most of the resources they have. Nor has the future generations commissioner's budget been sufficient to allow their office to provide enough of the practical support that public bodies need to implement the Act. I acknowledge that Brexit has made matters worse for the Act's implementation as it has made it harder for public bodies to plan for an uncertain future.

I'm pleased to see that, in today's statement, there are several measures that have been taken to get things back on track. I welcome the bringing together of public bodies to discuss sustainable development and emissions through a national forum. The intention to draw up the first set of national milestones within the Act by the end of the year is also to be lauded. Looking to widen the scope of the Act to include more public bodies is also a positive move. I hope, together, your measures will address some of the shortfalls that have been identified as preventing the legislation meeting its full potential.

If we are to achieve the seven goals, we will need to see more action on a range of policy areas. Until we see further progress in tackling matters like the housing crisis, the destruction of our environment and the awful rate of child poverty, the well-being of future generations Act will not be brought to life. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr, Peredur. Thank you, also, for acknowledging the importance of this groundbreaking legislation—the well-being of future generations Act—which is lauded not just in terms of those who engage with it proactively, but across the world as well. But obviously it's the first five years, and we have to learn and address the issues that have, most importantly, come out very constructively, I believe, in the reports that we've had from our former Public Accounts Committee, and from the auditor general as well, and, indeed, from the well-being and future generations commissioner herself, in terms of her report.

As I said in my statement, I'm shortly writing to the future generations commissioner to ensure that we conclude our response to the future generations report 2020, which was a very impressive and deep and wide-ranging document in terms of her policy ambitions, priorities and, also, reflecting on what has been achieved, but, also, recognising, as she did—. The future generations report recognised many of the actions we've taken to lead Wales down a more sustainable path, which is what quite clearly and rightly you were asking me. What have been the impacts and outcomes? The declaration of our climate emergency, changes to our national planning policy, work to support community-level actions through the Local Places for Nature and community hubs programme, and, also improving our budget process—all acknowledged in her report.

I do think it's important to just report, as I did in my response to the Public Accounts Committee report, that the commissioner's funding has been increased this year to provide parity with the children's commissioner. What's important, in her positive response to this, is that this will be used to meet the statutory demands on her—statutory work demands at the end of this financial year and into the next. Of course, it's also important to recognise the huge level of demand the Welsh Government recognises that the future generations commissioner's office has in terms of seeking guidance. So, we're certainly working with the commissioner to help relieve these pressures.

But I do think it's really helpful, again, Peredur, that you've outlined the importance of the way forward in terms of the national milestones and the well-being indicators that we're consulting on, because this is what people want to hear about, and how we want to drive our priorities. It does include the ecological footprint of Wales, the percentage of people in employment, pay equality for gender, ethnicity and disability, emissions of greenhouse gases within Wales, the number of people who can speak Welsh. All of these issues are now being consulted on in the national well-being indicators, which are actually crucial to the well-being of future generations legislation and what it will deliver.

Well, if Members aren't aware, I'm responding as Chair of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee rather than in a party capacity.

Well, as Chair of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee, now abbreviated as PAPAC, I must remind Members that the role of this committee is to scrutinise the efficient and effective use and administration of public resources, which cuts across all areas of Welsh Government business. It is practice for committee Chairs to receive Welsh Government responses to committee reports in writing, enabling detailed consideration by the committee. But we only received a written response last Wednesday, and the committee doesn't meet until tomorrow. Furthermore, PAPAC reports, and ministerial responses to them, are not usually debated via ministerial statement. The approach taken by the Welsh Government today is therefore considered discourteous, as is the replacement, only yesterday, of a tabled statement with a title, which included our report, by a generic statement—the statement being debated now.

Minister, do you recognise that this is not the usual way for a committee report to be responded to, and that this does not allow for an adequate debate or discussion on this very important cross-cutting issue? I advise the Minister that the committee will consider tabling a further Plenary debate on this where a previous Plenary debate in March preceded the Welsh Government's response.

The Minister has referred to the three reports published relating to the Act, namely the previous Public Accounts Committee report, the Auditor General for Wales report and the future generations commissioner's report. However, responses to the latter two have not even yet been shared by the Welsh Government. The fifth Senedd Chairs' forum tasked the then Public Accounts Committee to undertake an inquiry into the implementation of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, involving other committees in its work. The subsequent report recognised, in recommendations 13 and 14, that the Business Committee of the sixth Senedd should give consideration to how scrutiny of the Act should be taken forward. The Equality and Social Justice Committee now does have remit for the Act, but, in responding to these recommendations, the Business Committee stated that making one committee responsible for scrutiny of the implementation of the well-being of future generations Act will hopefully ensure it receives focused post-legislative scrutiny, but this need not be done in isolation from the work of other committees. Do you therefore recognise the important point here, that any scrutiny of this Act has to be undertaken collaboratively, and that PAPAC will maintain a key role in this work?

Minister, I only received the Welsh Government's response to the PAC report, as you know, last Wednesday, with its acceptance in principle only of the majority of the report's recommendations directed at the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government explained this approach was taken where they agreed with the recommendations themselves but not their timetable for delivery or the means in which to achieve the recommendation. Why, when the Permanent Secretary previously gave the Public Accounts Committee a commitment, in January 2018, to end the practice, in light of Members' concerns that acceptance in principle did not constitute an adequate response to all but one of your responses, accept in principle only? Further, do you recognise that it is not clear how the Welsh Government has agreed with the recommendations, even in principle? Although many of the Welsh Government's responses suggest there is other activity being undertaken, do you accept that implementation of legislation requires monitoring, evaluation, and a clear timetable, not only for the recommendations you have agreed to in principle, but also for the implementation of the Act? It's regrettable—[Interruption.]

I have given the Member additional time, because he is Chair, but he has gone beyond that time now.

It's regrettable I have insufficient time to question you about our report's recommendations themselves.

Diolch yn fawr, Mark Isherwood. Congratulations on your role as Chair of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee—PAPAC, as it is now called. Obviously, you are responding to—taking forward the report that was undertaken by the previous Public Accounts Committee, and I've already written to you, as you've outlined, with our response to your report, and I wanted to make sure that you did get that response in time for this statement today, and also knowing that you will be discussing this tomorrow.

Well, it is important that I respond to the point about how we're managing and responding to this, and what the role of the scrutiny of the Senedd is in terms of the well-being of future generations Act. As I said in my statement, I wanted to look at the whole picture of all the reports that are coming before us on the well-being of future generations Act, given it's the first five years. It's the first time that we've had all the reports, and we do need to give Members time to consider both the findings of the reports, not, obviously, just our response to your report, but also, as we respond, as I said in my statement, to the auditor general's report and the future generations commissioner report as well. And I'm very happy to come back to respond to further discussions and the outcome of your consideration tomorrow.

In terms of why I'm responding today, the recommendations within the report are directed at Welsh Government. Those that are directed to Welsh Government are for Welsh Ministers to determine, and they do cover key decisions, such as reviewing the list of bodies subject to that—that has to be Welsh Ministers who consider that; funding cycles as well—those are for Ministers to lead on. And the nature of the well-being of future generations Act, rightly, is that it cuts across all the responsibilities of Welsh Ministers, as well as the Welsh Government civil service. So, I do look forward to—. I will respond to points that come out of your discussion tomorrow.

As far as scrutiny of the Act by the Senedd, obviously, as we've said, the Senedd is an important part of the accountability architecture of the well-being of future generations Act, and I think the approach taken shows that the legislation can't be considered just by one committee, nor is it the responsibility of one Welsh Minister. It's a collective responsibility and duty to promote and carry out sustainable development in what we do, and I understand that the Llywydd as Chair of the Business Committee has provided a response to the two recommendations from the PAC report concerning scrutiny of the Act. Hopefully you will see that what's very important, in terms of my response to the PAC committee, is the fact that I have accepted your recommendations—that I have accepted, within the remit and the prospects that we have in terms of timing, all of the recommendations.

I agree with Mark Isherwood, particularly that we do actually need a full debate in Government time on these important issues, because we simply can't afford not to use the Act to ensure that all public bodies are working together to collectively deliver the aims and required outcomes of the well-being of future generations Act, not least because of the cuts in funding by the UK Government, so we have less money to play with, but also because of the really overriding challenges we face as a result of COVID, Brexit and all manner of other things.

Although I Chair the Equality and Social Justice Committee, we haven't discussed this at all, so I'm speaking in my capacity as somebody who was involved in the PAC report that the Minister is replying to. I have to say that I share Mark Isherwood's sadness that so many of the recommendations have only been accepted in principle, because I don't think that is in the spirit of the way the Government should be working. Either you reject them, or—

Can the Member ask a question now, please?

—you accept them. So, the question really is—I don't understand why you've not accepted fully recommendation 2, that you look at the way the public services boards are funded, simply because—. This is not about giving them loads of money so they get into the whole cycle of bidding for grants; it's about ensuring that they can access pooled funds so that they're not thinking about who is going to be covering the minimum hiring of rooms for meeting together—

Thank you. Time.

They clearly have to use their funds collectively to do whatever they think are the priorities for their area, but I do think that there is something that the Government can do to make it easier for them. So, that is certainly one, and I have plenty more to say, but I can see that the Deputy Presiding Officer is not going to let me proceed.

Thank you very much, Jenny Rathbone. I recognise your roles here today as Chair of the Equality and Social Justice Committee and also having been a member of the previous Public Accounts Committee, and you're absolutely right, we can't afford not to use this Act in terms of the impact of COVID-19, particularly, which has had an impact on how we've been able to respond to the legislation over the past year at the end of the first five years of the Act and also the decade of austerity and, indeed, the committee even looked at the impact of Brexit as well in its considerations.

But I will respond to that key recommendation. Accepting in principle or in full is about have you got full control over saying 'yes' to some things, so in terms of public services boards funding, it has been our policy that it's for the boards themselves to decide how they collectively resource their work, including pooling funding, and there are some good examples of how boards have taken this forward. But, there have been varying degrees of success, and it's reflected in the report, about pooling funding or drawing on funds outside of the budget of those particular PSBs. So, what we need to do is work with the PSBs, the public services boards, to learn the lessons of the past and current work to pool resources to get some common practice on effective pooling of funding between members, but also look at how we can raise awareness of the range of other funding sources available and how they can access them, and then also—and this is crucially important in terms of the Welsh Government's response—consider annually the package of funding and support Welsh Government must make available directly to PSBs. So, there were a lot of elements in that very good recommendation that I'm responding to where we can in principle and then in full respond to it. So, we aim to complete the funding work ready for them to deliver on their next well-being plans from May 2023, because it's crucially important—we have to assist them in delivering their local assessments of well-being.

The future generations commissioner has the scope to challenge all of us and the way we work to deliver a better future. I would like to congratulate the current and first commissioner on establishing the office, building its profile and relationship with public bodies, working with them to embed the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 in their work. I also want to recognise the organisations not within the scope of the Act who have also worked to understand the potential of the legislation in the way they deliver services.

Minister, my questions are: increasingly, public bodies will turn to the commissioner's office for help and assistance in using the well-being goals. On the one hand, their engagement is welcome, but it does raise the matter of resources. What consideration are you giving to the resourcing of the commissioner's office to ensure they are able to support the work being taken forward by public bodies? Also, in your statement you said that the programme for government demonstrates the central role of the well-being of future generations approach in your thinking and policy making. Can you be more specific in how Government departments have changed to reflect this, and on what evidence can you rely? Last is—

The Member has asked questions and we've gone over time. Minister.

Thank you, and thank you very much to the Member. It is crucially important that we are able to use the well-being of future generations legislation, and it is important that we do have the scope to challenge how this is being used. I have already answered the question on how we've increased the funding of the commissioner, but also have given some examples about how we have used the well-being of future generations Act to deliver on the changes. I've already mentioned a few, but I think I'd like to also, for example, mention not only—. I've already mentioned that the Welsh Parliament was the first in the world to declare a climate emergency, that we're upholding our policy of opposing the extraction of fossil fuels in Wales, but we've also signalled our intent to pause all new road schemes against the backdrop of our legally binding target of reaching net zero by 2050.

Also some other examples in terms of the ways of working, in terms of involvement and engagement, are the fact that the national museum has been involving young people in all aspects of the museum of Wales's work and also, indeed, the arts council and Welsh NHS confederation. These are bodies that have ensured that they can draw on the well-being goals and the ways of working to deliver.

But finally I want to say that there is a very important recommendation in terms of remit letters. The remit letters now include a requirement to meet fully the well-being duties set out in the well-being of future generations Act. And that's a very important public accounts committee recommendation that I'm very pleased to accept.

And finally, John Griffiths.

Minister, it's really good that we have this internationally recognised legislation here in Wales to help guide us, and I would say a very strong commissioner to help drive progress. And I'm glad that you've been able to find some additional funding for the office. You mentioned the pandemic, Minister, and new processes being put in place. Certainly, I've heard, and I'm sure other Members will have, of very good joint working, integrated working, during the pandemic between local government and Welsh Government, local government and voluntary organisations, the health service and key partners, for example. So, could you say a little bit more about how that process will recognise that new working that's very much along the lines of what the Act requires and help develop it and embed it for the future? And also the corporate joint committees and public services boards—both of them are very important. They're on the sort of same footprint, really. How will the Act make sure that they're a key part of delivering the necessary progress, working together?

Well, thank you very much, John Griffiths, for the key role you've played in this Senedd and in Government in terms of bringing us to this point where we have such groundbreaking legislation with the well-being of future generations Act. In 'Shaping Wales' Future', which is the publication for our consultation on our national milestones, it's so important—it says that we have a law in Wales that helps us all work together to improve our environment, our economy, our society and our culture, and that's all of the well-being goals that have already been identified today. The fact that the ways of working, which include collaboration, integration, involvement, long-term prevention, have actually guided the work that we've done during the pandemic, I think, in terms of the ways of working not just with local government, Welsh Government, but also with all our other partners in the third sector, obviously the health service, but policing as well, is a testament to the fact that those public bodies have signed up to the principles of the well-being of future generations legislation.

And I think that the public services boards have a key role to play, and you will probably be aware, I'm sure, being the Member for Newport East, of the work that's been done in Gwent, where all of the public services boards have come together to ensure that they can make the most of that integrated partnership working at that sub-regional level.

I think it's going to be very important to look at their assessments—the public services boards' assessments—of well-being. They're being undertaken by next spring, but I would also very much encourage Members to look at our 'Well-being in Wales' report, which was published last week, as well as looking at the future trends report, which will be delivered in the coming weeks and months.

I thank the Minister.

The next item is item 5, the Education Tribunal for Wales (Amendment) Regulations 2021. And I call on the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language to move the motion—Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As we continue with the work of preparing the ground for introducing the additional learning needs system in full, it's come to our attention that there is an incorrect cross-reference in regulation 17(2) of the Education Tribunal for Wales Regulations 2021. Regulation 17(2) outlines the timetable that an individual that wants to make a claim related to discrimination on the basis of disability under the Equalities Act of 2010 had to present a case. The amendment that we want to make today will correct this incorrect reference to 13(2)(c) with the intended reference to 13(1)(b). If this is amendment is approved, regulation 17(2) will make provision that the period of the case statement for the claimant starts on the date that the claimant is notified by the tribunal, which was the original policy intention. Without this amendment, the Education Tribunal Wales Regulations 2021 will be deficient. I want to thank Members for their time and I'm confident that we can make this necessary correction today.

There are no speakers for this item. Minister, do you wish to say anything else? I see that you don't. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 6, a legislative consent motion on the Professional Qualifications Bill. I call on the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language to move the motion—Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome this opportunity to explain the background of this LCM, and to explain why I suggest that the Senedd should not agree to this LCM. I'm grateful to the Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee for considering the legislative consent memorandum and for producing a report, and I have responded to the questions raised within it. I'm also grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their consideration and their report. The committee has made a number of suggestions, and I will respond to them in the near future, but I can confirm today that I will accept all of the committee's recommendations, and, where the committee asks for further information, I will seek to provide orally that information before writing to the committee. In particular, I note the conclusion in the report, which corresponds to my concern about concurrent powers contained within the Bill. I urge the UK Government for amendments to the Bill, but, until we're given the assurances that we are seeking, I can't change my recommendation on this Bill. I can also confirm that we are still awaiting guidance on definitions, which is one of the issues raised by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee.

As you're aware, my advice to the Senedd is that we should not give approval to the Bill in its current form. The Bill was developed at speed by the UK Government, and the majority of this activity took place during our pre-election period, which prevented Ministers from engaging in the development of the Bill. This rapidly turned the development of a non-legislative common framework, which is our preferred option to manage mutual recognition of professional qualifications, into a Professional Qualifications Bill rushed forward into the House of Lords with little opportunity for Welsh Ministers to comment. I do see that clause 5 arguably is necessary as a helpful way of modifying legislation consequent on EU departure, but the process left little time for regulatory bodies, including the Education Workforce Council and Social Care Wales, to properly consider the implications of the Bill on their regulatory functions. The passage of the Bill so far in the House of Lords has also indicated that many other regulatory bodies across the UK have concerns about the Bill and the impact it will have on their autonomy and existing arrangements to facilitate recognition of qualifications.

However, my main concern with this Bill is the inclusion of concurrent powers. These powers have been written into the legislation with no meaningful explanation from the UK Government as to why they're necessary in the area of regulated professions, leading, I'm afraid to say, to the conclusion that this is another move by the UK Government to act in areas that are clearly devolved. In view of the type of concurrent powers included in the Bill, as well as the speed at which the Bill has been developed by the UK Government, an early debate has been brought to the Senedd to clearly set out our position against any attempt by the UK Government to threaten the devolution settlement. Our starting point is that concurrent functions should not be created. However, if the UK Government is determined, as it may well be in this case, to create them, then at the very least we would expect a consent provision. It is the Welsh Government's conclusion that provisions 1 to 10 and 12 to 19 in the Bill fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd. The Bill cannot be allowed to progress as it currently stands. We must see the amendments that we have sought. I therefore move the motion, and I urge all Members of the Senedd to reject the motion and deny the Bill our consent.

I call on the Chair of the Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee, Paul Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As you said, I rise to contribute as Chair of the Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee.

Now, the Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee did consider this memorandum on 16 September 2021, with a reporting deadline of last Thursday. I note that the report of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee on this memorandum has made nine recommendations to the Welsh Government on matters relating to powers and scope—of course, our committee's work and scrutiny was confined to matters of policy alone.

Now, in our report, we did ask the Minister for Education and Welsh Language to provide further information to all Members in advance of today’s debate. Given the time restraints, we also, as the Minister said, wrote to him last Tuesday to draw his attention to this request. In particular, we asked for an assessment of the impact of the Bill on regulated professions in Wales; we asked for an outline of the impact on regulated professional qualifications in Wales for the purposes of ascertaining demand levels for certain professions; we asked for an update on discussions with the UK Government on its request for clarification of the scope of the Bill and its application to certain sectors, such as further education; we also asked for details of any discussions with the UK Government regarding any amendments to the Bill that Welsh Government has requested; we asked for an update on discussions the Welsh Government has had with affected regulators in Wales, including public sector organisations; and we also asked for a description of the relationship to, and combined effect of, the Bill with other relevant UK arrangements, such as the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the new immigration system and future international agreements.

Now, the committee’s report stated that in advance of that information being provided, we were not in a position to make a recommendation to the Senedd as to whether or not to approve the legislative consent motion before us today. I can confirm that the Minister has sent me a response to the points that we made as a committee, and I thank the Minister for providing that response in a letter received yesterday afternoon. This information has been circulated to committee members, but as Members will acknowledge, we haven't had time to consider the information provided by the Minister to formulate a response as a committee. So, even though I'm grateful to the Minister for providing that additional information to the committee, considering the fact that we haven't had an opportunity to consider the information as a committee, we're not yet in a situation to reject or approve this LCM before us today. Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Last week, I spoke to our committee’s report during the debate on whether this Senedd should give consent to the Environment Bill. This week, we’re discussing consent for the Professional Qualifications Bill, and with your invitation, Dirprwy Lywydd and also the Llywydd, you will likely see me on quite a regular basis given the number of legislative consent memoranda that we, and the Senedd as a whole, are considering at the moment.

In our report on the Welsh Government’s consent memorandum for the Professional Qualifications Bill, we have identified trends that are, unfortunately, already emerging quite early within this Senedd, and we've made nine recommendations to the Minister, and our report also sets out a number of conclusions to reflect our overall consideration of the consent memorandum for the Bill.

The Minister, unfortunately, was unable to formally respond to our report in advance this afternoon. It's probably a rare, if not unique, situation, which causes some obvious issues for scrutiny, although we appreciate the Minister's apology based on the timescale, and some of this is the pressures of the timescale the other end as well. The Minister has made clear, however, that the Welsh Government will be, we understand, accepting all the recommendations in the report, and we hope in full, of course, and he highlighted in his remarks today, in particular, concerns over concurrent powers in the Bill, which we draw attention to as well.

So, let me go through some of the areas we are concerned about. As with the Environment Bill, the Professional Qualifications Bill also contains those concurrent powers, exercisable by the Secretary of State in Wales on devolved matters. While we acknowledge that the Minister is seeking changes to the Bill to address the Welsh Government's concerns with these powers, we're not sure that the Minister's solution offers a role for the Senedd at this moment. So, we question why the Senedd is not only being denied a role in directly affecting the detail of primary legislation on a devolved matter that will take effect in Wales, but also then having no role in scrutinising the secondary legislation that will also become law in Wales. So, we consider this to be constitutionally improper.

And there is a wider issue, broader than this consent decision before us today. This is the second of 14 UK Bills that are currently the subject of Welsh Government legislative consent memoranda, and I gently remind the Welsh Government collectively and Senedd Members to consider the cumulative effect. Scrutiny of all these memoranda laid before the Senedd, whilst a heavy task, places my committee in a prime position to monitor closely the overall impact of the UK Parliament legislating on behalf of the Senedd, whether consent is given or not. And I respectfully lay that marker down today for the Welsh Government and for the UK Government.

Our report also draws attention to other matters of important constitutional significance. The combination of concurrent functions and Henry VIII powers in the Bill means that the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor could potentially exercise their regulation-making powers to amend Senedd Acts and regulations made by the Welsh Ministers. We do not consider this to be acceptable.

It is vital that the Senedd pays close attention to their combined impact and can continue to play a full part in safeguarding Wales's best interests in the face of these new arrangements. Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd.

We would like to welcome the introduction of the UK Government's Professional Qualifications Bill, which will ease the transition for professionally qualified citizens of the EU to have their qualifications recognised and allow them to work in the UK. These proposals will make it easier for professionals and businesses to navigate the UK's regulatory landscape by simplifying the process. The Bill will give devolved administrations the power to equip their regulators with the ability to enter into arrangements with international partners. It will allow the new laws to help meet the demands of individual professions across the country. These proposals will create a joined-up approach to the rules relating to the recognition of professional qualifications and ensure that the UK has continued access to the best and brightest talent from across the world, which will help to address the skills gap we are facing in Wales. We note that Welsh Government have been in discussions with the UK Government and we also note their concerns, but at this juncture I would urge the Welsh Government and other Members to support this motion today.

Thank you very much to both committees for your thorough work in looking at all of these issues. The work carried out by your committee, not only with this Bill but all of the legislation that is coming towards us very quickly, is so crucially important. We cannot allow these issues to go beneath the radar. It's crucial that they are carefully scrutinised and I can see that you are doing that.

It is a fundamental constitutional principle that the legislative competence of this Senedd should not be reformed via regulations made by UK Government Ministers. The Professional Qualifications Bill does provide powers to the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor to make regulations that do amend this Senedd's legislation. There are powers in the Bill that could amend the Government of Wales Act 2006 also. And therefore, for those reasons, we will be voting against this LCM and I hope that everyone else will also vote against and will recognise the constitutional dangers that come as a result of it.

I'm very pleased to hear that the Welsh Government has also been convinced that the majority of the measures contained within the Bill are needed, and the Government is of the opinion that the concurrent powers contained within the Bill do undermine the long-established powers of this Senedd and Welsh Ministers to regulate in relation to issues that are within devolved competence. Welsh Ministers and devolved regulators already have the necessary powers to implement the current and proposed policies and regulations contained within those devolved competencies, including powers to recognise all foreign qualifications on a case-by-case basis.

We, like the Government, are concerned about the scope of the Bill, and are uncertain as to whether further education is included within it. So, on the basis of what we've heard and because of our grave concerns and the risk to the constitutional principle at stake here, I urge you all to vote against, and I look forward to seeing that vote take place this afternoon.

Just a brief contribution on this. I agree entirely with the Minister and I'm very grateful to you for what you've said.

I am disappointed but not surprised to hear of the UK Government's failure to yet again—yet again—engage with Welsh Ministers on a matter that is clearly devolved to us here in Wales. The rushing of this Bill through the House of Commons is typical of the UK Government's contempt for the devolved nations.

Wales is embarking on the largest set of educational reform since the second world war and it's so important that future qualifications arrangements across the UK reflect our distinct and unique approach to education here in Wales. This Bill has the potential to undermine Welsh regulators and key sectors of our economy and we should not support this. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call on the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language to reply.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I thank all contributors to the debate today and acknowledge what Paul Davies said about the committee's work, and thank him and the committee for their work on this?

Can I also thank Huw Irranca-Davies and the committee for their work, as I mentioned at the start, and for his forbearance about the question about replying to the recommendations in the report? I can assure him that we will be accepting the recommendations in full. Partly, it's a question of timing, which illuminates the larger picture, which I know his committee has been concerned about in their report.

The judgment we've made as a Government here is to bring forward an early debate so that the voice of the Senedd can be loudly heard and gives it the best chance of being taken into account. I do hope that the UK Government will take into account the strength of feeling that's been described today by, I think, all speakers apart from one. And I just would say to Laura Anne Jones that this isn't a debate about whether we think qualifications should be recognised or that things should be conducted on an orderly, co-operative basis across the UK; it's about where those powers rest and whether the UK Government respects the devolution boundary and the devolution settlement. That's what's at the heart of today's discussion, not the belief that we should not be recognising international qualifications. Those powers already exist; they exist here.

I just want to echo one point that Huw Irranca-Davies made about the aggregate effect here. I do think it's very important to see the big picture, because we can discern very troubling trends in the way that he described. The legislative consent memoranda echoes, I think, a number of the points that Members have made today. We do see here, in addition to the concurrent powers question that I mentioned at the beginning, the Henry VIII powers, and the combined effect of those together with concurrent powers is really a very pernicious incursion, I think, into the devolution settlement, and I hope that Members will reflect on that in the debate today and vote to withhold consent.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, I think that was an objection there, so we will defer voting on the motion until voting time.

I'm going to suggest that we take a short break now, just whilst we wait for a few Members to return to the Siambr for the next item. So, we'll take a short break.

The next item is the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2021. I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motion—Eluned Morgan.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I move the motion before us. The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No.5) (Wales) Regulations 2020 put in place the legislative framework for the alert levels described in the coronavirus control plan. Officials are working hard to update the current control plan to cover the autumn and winter period. Across Wales we’ve recently seen transmission of COVID-19 increase, as has the percentage of people testing positive. While evidence continues to indicate that the link between cases and hospitalisations has weakened thanks to the vaccination programme, it has not been broken. Pressure on hospitals has been rising steadily and wider pressures continue to impact our health and social care system.

The First Minister was clear in his announcement on 17 September that, whilst we’re able to remain at alert level 0, there is a need to take early action to avoid longer term harms. On 27 September, draft amended regulations were laid that will require people to show an NHS COVID pass that will prove that they’ve been double vaccinated or demonstrate that they can produce a negative lateral flow test in the last 48 hours. They will need to produce this if they want to enter the following venues and events from 11 October: nightclubs and similar venues; indoor, non-seated events for more than 500 people, where people are mixing closely for prolonged periods; outdoor non-seated events for more than 4,000 people, where people will be mixing closely for prolonged periods; and any event of any nature that has more than 10,000 people in attendance. My officials have been working with stakeholders to ensure that they are ready to implement the systems next week, and we’ve prepared guidance to help the public understand why and how the system will work.

Llywydd, let me be clear: the COVID pass has already been used in Wales for some events over the summer, and some premises already require the pass to be shown as a condition of entry. This is not a vaccine passport, and people will have the opportunity to show that they've been fully vaccinated or they can provide evidence of a negative lateral flow test 48 hours before an event. I'm aware that the COVID pass currently states 'valid in England'. This is unfortunate and reflects the fact that we share the infrastructure with the UK Government. This wording will change before the system becomes mandatory in Wales. We are developing a Wales NHS app that will include our own NHS COVID pass as part of the digital services for patients and the public being delivered by Digital Health and Care Wales. This will be available early in 2022, and this will be available in Welsh as well.

Marriage, civil partnership and alternative wedding receptions, together with wakes, will be exempt from the COVID pass requirements, together with protests and mass participation events. I'm aware there have been some teething problems with the system in Scotland. Here in Wales, the COVID pass is already being used extensively, as it is in England. The NHS COVID pass has been in use in Wales for four months already, and has been downloaded and used by thousands of people already to access events and to travel abroad. We already have clear instructions on gov.wales on how to access the pass, and we'll continue to raise awareness of the use of the pass in future communications.

Can I be clear? We haven't taken the decision to introduce such measures lightly. Where we know that the rates amongst those under 25 are around 1,000 per 100,000 people, and that this age group is the most likely to attend some of these venues, in particular nightclubs, we are taking these measures to support venues to stay open and enable events to continue taking place through a potentially very difficult and challenging autumn and winter. Keeping these venues open is not an easy decision in the light of such high COVID rates.

As we head into winter, it's vital that we all work together to keep Wales safe. I'm pleased we've had the opportunity to debate this motion today, and I look forward to hearing Members' contributions. I urge Members to support the motion to keep Wales safe this autumn and winter. Diolch.

Just earlier this year, the First Minister, also in the Chamber this afternoon as well, stated that the Welsh Government had no intention or plans to introduce vaccine passports for venues here in Wales. We are now in a positive position where 70 per cent of the entire population of Wales are now fully vaccinated. I feel quite strongly about this, but I just do not think that we should become a checkpoint society by introducing a vaccine passport. [Interruption.]

Carry on.

There is a wide range of ethical, equality, privacy, legal and operational ramifications of COVID passports. [Interruption.] I hear some Labour Members chuntering in the background, but it was the First Minister himself—and the Minister herself—who have said these are finely balanced decisions. [Interruption.] So, take that into account. I don't mind taking an intervention.

The Home Secretary, speaking at the Conservative conference today, outlined plans to prevent people moving freely around the United Kingdom if their intention is to take part in a protest. If you do not believe in a checkpoint society, I'm sure you will join us in opposing such a draconian law.

I am pleased that the Labour Member supports the fact that a checkpoint society is the wrong approach, so I look forward to him voting against the regulations this afternoon.

There is a real risk here that the implementation of COVID passes could be a complete disaster. In Scotland, we have seen the roll-out has been a disaster there—I don't use that word lightly; it has been a disaster there—and the Labour Party conference in Brighton was plagued with problems; we know that as well. The Welsh Government—I would really urge them to think again before bringing forward these regulations.

The roll-out of the vaccination programme has been a success across the UK and here in Wales, and that is to the credit of our key workers across the UK. The majority of the UK population are now vaccinated. So, all this amazing effort, I think, negates the need for COVID passes, which impact so much on people's freedoms. I have to say, as well, I've had contacts from groups this week, from those representing disability groups, those with disabilities and those that are unable to take the vaccination, about the consequences on those people as well. We mustn't become a two-tiered society, and this is—[Interruption.] Yes, I do, Joyce Watson. Yes, I believe that we will become a two-tiered society, and this is what this issue is, Joyce. You need to listen to this debate this afternoon. The introduction of this policy puts Wales at a real risk of becoming exactly that, and it simply undermines the freedom of choice. I don't think this is a party political issue as well; I think that views across this transcend party lines.

I listened to what the Minister said in her opening comments about that particular age group as well, those under-25s, but I note that the Welsh Government's own technical advisory cell advises against using vaccination passports, stating that the studies have shown that their use could backfire. The study produced many points as to why vaccine passports are a bad idea. This is the Welsh Government's own technical advisory cell. They concluded that they have had a detrimental effect on people's motivation and willingness to have the vaccination. And's it's important to note that the study also said that vaccination passports will have an effect on people's relationship with local government and health authorities as well. We don't want people to lose that trust in Government officials or our health boards and our health and care workers. We don't want that to happen, and we don't want to have a checkpoint society.

I really think that these regulations will be a stumbling block to so many groups of people, and I think there's a real danger here if they are agreed this afternoon, which is why I strongly urge Members to vote against these regulations today. Diolch yn fawr.

It was my mistake not to call the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee to contribute before the party representatives. So, I call on the Chair now, and then I'll come to Plaid Cymru next. Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. We considered these regulations at our meeting yesterday, and laid our report immediately afterwards to inform this afternoon's debate. I thank the committee's legal advisers for turning around their analysis so swiftly.

I also thank my committee colleagues for their diligent scrutiny. We've noted what will now be familiar points in relation to the instrument's potential interference with human rights and the lack of formal consultation. We also noticed that there was no equality impact assessment for the regulations, and acknowledged the reasoning for this, as set out in the explanatory memorandum. I acknowledge the further information on these matters that the Welsh Government has now provided in its response to our report.

In addition to our more common reporting points, we noted that the explanatory memorandum refers to taking scientific advice into account and, in particular, advice from SAGE on the importance of acting early. In our report, we highlighted that that the explanatory memorandum does not, however, contain any specific reference to the evidence on which the Welsh Government relies when making provision under this instrument. We therefore asked the Welsh Government to set out two additional things. First, we asked the Welsh Government to set out the evidence that shows that requiring certain settings to check evidence of vaccination, prior coronavirus infection or a recent negative test result will

'slow down a growing epidemic'.

Secondly, we asked how the Welsh Government will monitor the effectiveness of requiring certain settings to carry out these checks.

I note and welcome the response we have received from the Welsh Government on these points. While we appreciate the overall context within which these changes to the law are drafted, I remind the Welsh Government respectfully that the information provided to my committee on request should have been included in the original explanatory memorandum for the benefit of all Members of the Senedd and members of the public. Therefore, I would ask the Welsh Government to reflect on this to improve the level of information in all future explanatory memoranda. Thank you very much, Llywydd.

A few words on matters of principle, first of all, in principle, and I think this is something that we in Plaid Cymru have shown time and time again during the course of the pandemic, we have been ready to support the introduction of a range of measures to control and limit the transmission of the virus. Indeed, we've been encouraging the implementation of such measures, and it's been true in situations where sometimes quite severe limitations have been imposed on our freedom. That kind of curtailing of liberties is something not to be taken lightly, and it'll be our job as legislators to ensure that those freedoms are restored as quickly as possible.

When we have backed restrictions, it's been when (a) we're convinced that the evidence is clear on the positive impact those measures would have and (b) that they can be implemented in practice. The principle, therefore, is: back what works. So, the principle in this case is: is there an argument for the introduction of a measure in some circumstances that shows that an individual is likely to be less infectious? My response to that question is, 'Yes, there is.' In fact, Scottish Government is in the process of introducing a system whereby individuals have to show proof of vaccination; the UK Conservative Government is considering such a scheme in a plan B for the winter period; France and Israel are among many countries that have either already introduced or are working on some sort of COVID passport scheme. It's also something that's emerged in some specific sectors, for international travel, for example. Many event organisers across the UK have introduced voluntary schemes. So, though not everybody supports it, that principle, I'd argue, is something that is well established.

But today, we're not being asked to vote on a principle, we're voting on a specific set of regulations, and I'm afraid that those regulations, at this point, as they stand, raise more questions than they provide answers. I look at a number of elements. Some countries, as I mentioned, have already gone down the COVID passports/vaccine passports routes; what we have here is a hybrid scheme where proof of vaccination is only part of what can be offered as evidence that an individual is less infectious. They can also show that they've had COVID in recent months or register a lateral flow test result. Now, LFTs are very, very useful, as quick, self-administered tests that can give a good indication of whether somebody may be infectious, but because of very well-known issues around their accuracy as tests, coupled with the fact that there's no control whatsoever on the accuracy of registering the results, I think there are real questions here around their validity for this particular purpose. That then raises questions around the creation of a false sense of security for people attending events, and, yes, a new law is proposed here making it an offence to falsify results, but I'm not convinced about the policing of that, and what about some of that emerging evidence suggesting that allowing the lateral flow test option could be a disincentive for people, young people perhaps, to be vaccinated?

Llywydd, we have given these regulations the careful consideration they deserve and, in coming to the conclusion that they have to be rejected as they are, I emphasise that we are still willing to look at the evidence, to read detailed action plans and guidance. But, given that we don't have those today, we are voting the way that we believe is right in the hope that a more robust proposal based on evidence could be put forward.

I think we have plenty of evidence of the need to take this measure. Public Health Wales has all the evidence you might need from people who went to music festivals over the summer and the numbers who returned with COVID. We know that, when young people congregate together, that is when the spread of infection occurs. And one of the really disturbing things is that, although we've got 564 per 100,000 infected in Cardiff in the general population, young people have infection rates that are twice that. And guess who goes to nightclubs; young people, in the main. So, if I want to catch COVID, there's no shortage of opportunities. I've got thousands of students milling around, going to all these three university campuses and partying on a nightly basis, and no doubt they are spreading COVID as we speak.

So, what we need to do is to be realistic about what we can do to encourage young people to take this seriously. There was a 15-year-old last week, in Portsmouth, who died of COVID four days after she got it, and she was a healthy young woman who did lots of sport. So, I know it's a rarer occurrence than in the older population, but COVID is a very nasty disease and you can't say that you won't have a poor outcome. So, let's try to prevent people catching it in the first place.

I don't understand why a nightclub wouldn't want to screen their customers, to make sure that their venue is not being used as a super-spreading event, which would cause them to have to close down while they were doing a deep clean.

Will you take an intervention, Jenny?

Okay.

Thank you, Jenny. I think what the nightclub industry would say is that it's the length of time it takes to process people through. And there have been examples where, by the time that people are processed to get through, then it's the end of the evening. I'm not somebody who attends nightclubs very often these days, but that's what the industry are saying in that regard, Jenny, and that's what we've seen with regard to the issues in Scotland.

Thank you, Russell. I don't buy that argument, because they're going to have to screen these young people to make sure that they're above the age for drinking alcohol in any case; otherwise, they're going to be non-compliant with the law in other respects. So, they are going to have to do their checks in any case, and they can do it all in one shot with the COVID pass, which shows you what the date of birth is, and therefore, it doesn't in fact increase the procedure required, it just simplifies it.

So, I also think we have to really understand just how much pressure our emergency services are under, because demand for emergency services is now back to where it was before COVID, and on top of that, we've got all the doctors and nurses who are exhausted after 18 months of having to deal with an unprecedented pandemic, and they're having to screen everybody who turns up in an emergency, to make sure that they're not bringing COVID into the hospital, so they are under massive pressure. Why wouldn't want we to be responsibly trying to ensure that we're not giving them an even bigger task than they've got already?

I just think that it absolutely is something that we need to do, and I'm really not buying the Plaid argument that we don't know enough. I really do think that there may be some holes in the way that the lateral flow tests are going to be done, and maybe PCR tests would be more secure, but that is not a reason for not saying we need to have COVID passes before we go to these events.

Thank you for taking an intervention. I just want to say in this intervention: I agree with everything pretty much that you've said. And that is where this falls down; we're not talking about the principles of what you have been portraying. I have children myself at university; I want to make sure that they're safe. Our argument today is that these particular regulations and the proposal by Welsh Government in this particular way to do it isn't, in our view, the way to do it in terms of the evidence in front of us.

Well, I'm really surprised that Plaid's not taking the precautionary approach, because there's nothing stopping us passing the procedures today and then amending them if we think there's going to be widespread abuse of the regulations. I think we just have to bite the bullet now, because the universities are all starting up, and this is one of the places where it really is going to create a worse problem. We know that COVID likes winter, and the winter is nearly upon us.

I don't think this is about creating a two-tier society; I just don't think there's any evidence of that. Practically everybody in the over 40s and in the vulnerable groups have all been vaccinated. We're talking about rates in the high 80s, if not 90s; it's young people who think that somehow, they are going to be able to skip getting vaccinated because they're not the ones who are going to die of it. Well, that isn't necessarily the case.

And I just simply want to say lastly, that in France, our near neighbour in France, you can't even go for a cup of coffee on the pavement unless you show your COVID pass, and frankly, I don't think that society has ground to a halt as a result of that.

No-one could have predicted the COVID-19 pandemic that hit the world 18 months ago. Its impact has changed all our lives, turned the economy upside down, and changed the relationship between those in positions of power and the people of this great nation forever. The conversations around COVID-19 restrictions are not straightforward. They're complex, they're intricate, and the public have wide-ranging views on lockdowns, restrictions and vaccine passports, or the so-called vaccine pass.

Today, we discuss the proposal about the vaccine pass in Wales brought forward by the Government here in Wales. I am wholeheartedly opposed to the introduction of any type of internal passport or pass for anyone to have to use to be able to live their lives in this country. Freedoms and democracies are hard won, and anything that erodes personal freedoms, I simply cannot support. There are various reasons for my opposition to domestic vaccine passes or passports; some are economic, some are medical, some are legal, but many are moral and based on the foundations of a free liberal society. The road this Government wants to take the people of Wales down is an extremely slippery slope; to create a system where only those who are vaccinated can have access to certain venues and events will, I believe, create a two-tiered society where those for medical reasons or others do not want to have the vaccine are barred from participating in our society. World history does not make pretty reading when you start to discriminate against people because of a single issue. I find this a terrible prospect, and not one that anybody who wants to live in a twenty-first-century liberal democracy would support.

The slippery slope, however, is one that concerns me greatly. Of course, the Government will say this system will only be implemented for as long as COVID is with us, but Governments of all colours and all political persuasions change their minds, and, once introduced, regulations are very rarely repealed.

But where has this Welsh Government u-turn come from? A few months ago, the First Minister himself was opposed to domestic vaccine passports, and now he wants them introduced here in Wales. Why impose a system where only those who have had the jab can attend events? Scientific data shows that those who have had the jab can catch and spread COVID-19 just as much as those who have COVID-19. It only reduces the risk of serious hospital admission.

We in the west have one thing that many countries across the world do not have—that is, freedom. This freedom must be preserved at all costs. To close, I'd like to quote the American President Ronald Reagan.

'Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation'.

Delyth Jewell, Chair of the culture committee.

Thank you very much. I have a series of questions here, Llywydd, not a speech. The committee hasn't discussed this issue amongst ourselves, and I'd like to emphasise that.

This is an issue that will be of great interest, clearly, to many different cultural and sporting groups, so I'd like to ask the Minister, when she responds to the debate, to outline the rationale for introducing these passes, please. Does the Government want to do this to increase vaccination rates or to control the spread of the virus? I'd like to hear what additional support will be provided to businesses that are affected by this attempt to achieve a public health objective. I'd also like to hear about what arrangements will be made to ensure that there won't be issues with the introduction of the passes as has happened in Scotland. And finally, I'd like to hear in the response to this debate what has been learned from the test events held earlier on in the year, as no mention is made of that in the TAC advice nor in the explanatory memorandum.

But just a short list of questions there, not a stance from the committee.

I should say that our committee's not debated these matters, so I don't understand how the Chair can speak as the Chair of the committee. But the debate we're having today goes to the heart of what a democracy is and the role of a Parliament in debating these matters. I do wish that, as a Parliament, we had more time this afternoon to debate this matter. I think this is a matter that demands more time and attention than we have available to us.

Can I just confirm I'm perfectly happy to extend the time available to Members if more Members wish to speak?

I'm grateful to you, Presiding Officer, for that.

When I look at these matters I ask myself, 'Is this a proportionate response to the public health challenges we face?' We've all wrestled with these challenges over the last 18 months. We've all asked ourselves, 'Is this right or is this proper that the Government seeks these powers to intervene in the way that we live our lives?' For myself, I agree very much with much of what Russell George said in opening his contribution, because I believe that liberty is something that we should cherish, and I believe that liberty is something that should be taken from us only for the greatest reasons that Government can assemble.

The heart of this debate for me is: has the Government made its case in this instance? And I believe it is clear that the Government has made its case here, and I believe it is important. My argument would be very similar to Rhun ap Iorwerth's, actually—I think the Government should go further and propose a vaccine passport that would demonstrate vaccination rather than simply a test; I think the Government should go further on it. But, in terms of where we are now, how does that affect our freedoms and our liberties? It was John Stuart Mill, of course—. And those of us of a certain vintage did spend some time reading On Liberty; I think it was published in the 1850s. And in what he said there he was very, very clear that liberty—an individual's liberty—can only be taken away if it is in the interests of the rights of the majority and to protect harm for the majority. And he was the father of liberalism, and it's something I very much agree with, because we do have a responsibility to prevent harm to others. And we cannot say that our liberty—my freedom to go to a nightclub—is more important than your freedom to live without the fear of harm or ill health, and to protect your well-being.

And this isn't unique. Let me say, it's not often I quote Margaret Thatcher, but when she spoke, she said, 'There's no such thing as society', of course, but she went on—many members of the Labour Party wish she hadn't—but she went on and she said, 'But there is responsibility', and we all have responsibility, she said—Margaret Thatcher said—to our families and for the well-being of our neighbours. And we do have that responsibility, and it was Tony Blair, actually, who taught the Labour Party, which spoke enough about rights—and the Labour Party talks constantly about rights—but it was Tony Blair that reminded us that with rights come responsibilities, and I believe that we do have responsibilities to each other, and I believe that we do have responsibilities for the well-being of those others in society: people who are weak, people who are vulnerable, people who have particular health needs.

Wow, follow that, Janet. Minister, I cannot support the mandatory use of domestic vaccination passes or passports, and this is largely due to the wide-ranging ethical, equality, economic, privacy, legal and operational ramifications that such regulation will bring. The Equality and Human Rights Commission in their response to the UK Government's consultation on the idea of COVID status certification highlighted the important ethical and equality issues that would need to be considered before any such legislation could be implemented. In particular, as highlighted in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the commission's reply, these concerns fall within the following areas: 13, that

'there are concerns about potential for discrimination or for infringement of civil liberties in the use of certification status to travel, go to work, enjoy social activities and access essential services, and the creation of a two-tier society'—

and that was said by Russell George—

'whereby only certain groups are able to fully enjoy their rights. These equality and human rights considerations must be considered'—

and must be proven in detail by this Government here—

'with clear steps taken to address any anticipated negative impacts.'

So, with this in mind, would you clarify whether the Welsh Government considers a COVID pass to be discriminatory and an infringement on civil liberty? Given the protected status of an individual's medical information, including vaccination status, will you also outline what consideration you've given to the data protection implications of occupiers requesting the vaccination status of individuals entering buildings?

Now, recent conversations that we've had with the Night Time Industries Association Wales have made it clear that club nights and shows can take place at any bars and multiplace venues, as well as out-and-out nightclubs. Similarly, many pubs and bars have very similar late night offerings to nightclubs. So, Minister, how is the Welsh Government defining a nightclub under its COVID passport regulations? Specifically, at what point does a pub and bar become a nightclub requiring passport access?

Vaccine passports would require nightclubs to change a key part of their operating model, having just invested in reopening without this requirement. Nightclubs are already amongst some of the most badly hit businesses during the pandemic, with a number of businesses now saddled with severe debt and rent arrears. And, to be honest, there's no support mentioned for the additional capital investment that they'll need. With this in mind, Minister, what impact assessment have you undertaken prior to implementing these regs, and what financial support will be available to assist with the implementation and enforcement of these passports? So, you can understand these—

Are you taking the intervention? Are you taking the intervention, or—?

Oh, sorry, Jenny—yes.

I just want you to clarify: what is this capital investment that people would need to make? All they might need is an extra person on the door. I don't regard that as capital investment.

But where have you got any evidence that you need one extra person on the door? This is all very vague. At the end of the day, we all know that it is not safe to keep people queuing in very close proximity, so there will be capital investment needed.

There are legitimate concerns by our businesses that these regulations may directly lead to potential confrontation between security and other venue staff. Our nightclubs are already suffering from security staff shortages and fear they may not be able to find the additional staff required to safely administer the vaccine passport system, raising yet further concerns over the implementation of exemption and protection of staff. Minister, with one prominent north Wales businessman calling for a new law to protect retail and hospitality workers from abusive customers, what steps are you taking? Are you fully understanding what you're expecting our businesses now to prepare for? I would ask all Members, and certainly the Member, not to support this going forward. I really do believe that this is a step too far. Diolch.

We have supported the cautious approach taken by the First Minister to date, and I am pleased that I live in Wales, because this Government's approach to coronavirus feels so much safer than that of the Conservative Government in Westminster. I also want to be clear that the responsibility taken by the Welsh public in relation to wearing masks, keeping their distance, being clear that they have to ensure that they are abiding by TTP, are absolutely there. And so I actually believe that the Welsh public are responsible in this situation. I also want to loudly condemn the anti-vaxxers who I believe are outside of the Senedd at this time. They are dangerous and they are a risk to everybody, and I'm sure we would all condemn them.

This is not—[Interruption.] Yes, thank you; I'll take the intervention.

Thank you ever so much, Jane. I wholeheartedly agree with you in terms of the anti-vaxxers that are outside the Senedd today, but I did notice there are some more sensible people outside the Senedd today that are supportive of the position against these regulations, and to some extent I think perhaps they've been overtaken, perhaps, by the other events. But that's just to put that on record. Thank you, Jane.

Thank you. Well, you ventured out there, and well done you.

I am also grateful to your officials, Minister, for sending me information and also for meeting with me this morning.

Finally, I am astounded at the Conservative position on this in Wales, because I do understand that Boris Johnson is keen on looking at this to be introduced across England. So, the situation there kind of perplexes me slightly. But I want to be clear here that I cannot support this, and there are six reasons, very quickly, Llywydd, that I want to just outline, really.

COVID passports will not reduce the harm. What's being proposed here is either—let's be very clear—that you present something to demonstrate that you're double vaccinated, or a lateral flow test within the last 48 hours. In relation to the lateral flow test, you could absolutely meet somebody in those 48 hours before you enter that venue, and you could, therefore, catch COVID. The queuing for passes, as well, as we've heard, could actually mean that that is transmitted from one person to another. And finally, I understand from the briefing provided by your officials this morning that there is discretion at venues to actually not check everybody. The larger venues, I understand, are allowed to spot check. So, this immediately, for me, breaks down this argument. This is about doing it properly or not doing it at all.

My second reason is this: if it's designed to encourage people to be vaccinated, the evidence doesn't support it. Again, I did hear from your officials this morning—and I'm grateful for this, diolch yn fawr iawn—as quoted by Russell George, there is evidence in here, the first page actually very clearly states that the evidence does not support, that certification is one of the factors that might discourage people from being vaccinated—that is, that going to a venue and requiring vaccination does not encourage people to seek that vaccination.

Thirdly, this is about it being proportionate and my concern is that it will discriminate against people. I've had concerns raised with me by the National Autistic Society that their members are extremely concerned and, indeed, confused about this.

My fourth point is that this is about poor law making. These amendments represent the seventeenth set of amendments to the fifth set of COVID regulations and there's no end date for their use. It's poor law making, in my view, which could set a dangerous precedent.

Fifthly, it will be bad for business and bad for workers. I am really confused as to why people going into venues have to have this COVID pass, but actually the people working in the venues or volunteering in the venues don't have to have a COVID pass. So, straight away, you end up with people being put at risk because they don't have to have that COVID pass. If the Government is certain of the efficacy and need for COVID passports, then why would you leave workers at risk of transmission?

I will be voting in support of introducing the COVID pass, and I want to repeat that: it is a COVID pass. It isn't a vaccination certificate, it isn't any of these elaborate names that it's been given today, and it's almost like, somehow, we've been talking about something that doesn't exist and that's the truth. I don't, however, dismiss the unease that some people feel about the civil liberties debate, but I'm content that the inclusion of the lateral flow test result deals with that.

And if we're talking about rights—and we've heard a lot about rights today—we don't actually have an automatic right to go to a nightclub. I don’t ever remember that being written into the human rights legislation that you have a human right to go to a nightclub. But we do have, and it’s been quoted here—and I prefer the Tony Blair to Thatcher, I have to tell you—we do have some responsibility as individuals to other people.

I’ve heard the debate about needing an extra member of staff that was put through by Janet Finch-Saunders. If we don’t check people who are coming into venues—and we do know there is sufficient evidence that tells us that these can be become superspreaders—I can assure you of one thing, Janet, you’ll have fewer staff the next week because they will have caught COVID, so they’ll be running a little bit on empty, and we’ve seen that happen where people have opened up already. There is plenty of evidence there already that tells you that people are being infected in their place of work. So, what we’re trying to do is actually protect those workers and we’re also trying to protect people.

If you want evidence about people’s behaviour after they pile out of or towards a nightclub, come with me on Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday night in Haverfordwest when I take somebody to work at 11 o’clock. It seems that people think that they become superhuman, they’re hanging off each other, and I’m sure that they’re talking really closely, and I can guarantee that they don’t remember the next day who they’ve been talking to. Some of them won’t even remember where they were going to or coming from. My experience in the licensed trade tells me that that will be the case.

So, let’s be clear that this is not a vaccine certificate, and I think I’m going to keep repeating it as many times as it was already repeated. I don’t buy the argument either that I’ve heard that this measure is the thin edge of the wedge, nor that it’s a checkpoint Government. Let’s be clear, these are very silly words to bandy about in this debate. We’ve all made extraordinary sacrifices and compromises. We’ve stuck to the rules and followed advice in order to stay safe and to look out for each other, and we all know that people have made huge sacrifices, and that is really how we’ve managed to get through this together as a community.

Will the Member take an intervention?

So, it's not a step too far. I will, yes.

Thank you. I'm very grateful. Is it the case that at the Green Man Festival all the workers and all of the volunteers also were required to produce proof of vaccination?

I've no idea. But what I do know is, for the event to go ahead, the people who wanted to take part in it had to have a COVID pass. That’s what I do know, and that’s the point that’s being made here. That point is actually irrelevant, as far as I can see.

So, let’s be clear here: this is proportionate, is sensible and is a fair precaution, and I really do urge everybody to examine their conscience here today, to do the right thing and support this.

I now call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply. Eluned Morgan.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I want to be clear that the Welsh Labour Government has not suggested the introduction of this measure lightly; it has been challenging for us, because we wanted to think through very carefully what were the practical, what were the legal, what were the ethical implications of introducing a pass of this type. But we understand our public health responsibilities, and we understand that we are facing some of the highest COVID rates that we have seen since the beginning of the pandemic, particularly amongst young people—over 1,000 cases per 100,000. And we know that we've got to do something to stop the turbocharging in terms of the spread of the virus in these places where lots of people congregate. And you want evidence to show that that happens: well, we know how many Welsh young people came back from Cornwall, from Boardmasters Festival, and spread the virus here; we know how many came back from Reading and spread the virus here. We know that we've got to do something to address this situation.

And let me remind the Tories—[Interruption.] Let me remind the Tories—[Interruption.] I'm sorry, but I am responding to the debate. Let me remind the Tories that the COVID pass remains a tool in the armoury of the UK Government in their own winter plan, and it's quite possible that we will see the introduction of this measure in the United Kingdom. And Plaid has asked us to back what works. Well, this system has been working for four months. We know that lots of venues have been using it already across Wales. I know, because I attended a Nile Rodgers concert, and it worked extremely well under those circumstances. Nobody is being forced to be vaccinated. Let's be absolutely clear about that. There is an option for people to have a lateral flow test to show that they don't have the virus.

And you tell us to listen to what the scientists are telling us. Well, I'll tell you what the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is telling us. They're telling us, 'Act early; act now.' And every day, every day we hesitate, those rates go up. And every day we hesitate, those rates will put more pressure on our NHS services. And let's be clear: not accepting this suggests that you're happy to do nothing in the next few weeks. Nobody is suggesting that any facility should keep data. We fully understand that businesses want to remain open, and this measure will help us to do that throughout the winter. And let me be clear: not supporting this measure today will be an act of gross irresponsibility when it comes to public health in Wales. And this measure will allow the facilities to stay open in the face of one of the most challenging winters that we are yet to face. The public is on our side on this, and they are watching you in this Chamber today, and I urge you to support this measure.

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

There is now a debate on the devolution of new tax powers, and I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to move the motion. Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. We first debated the case for new taxes in 2017, beginning a national discussion about how new tax powers could provide opportunities to help us realise our ambitions for Wales. More than four years later, those opportunities are still not available to us.

The Wales Act 2014 allows for the devolution of new and existing UK taxes, but gives scant detail on how that process would work. The Welsh and UK Governments worked together to carefully design a process that would enable the introduction of new devolved taxes, respecting the interests of both Governments. There are two distinct phases of the process. The first phase is to devolve the powers. This requires a proposal to be developed, and consulted upon, before being presented to both the UK Parliament and this Senedd for the agreement to devolve and receive the powers. The second phase is for the Welsh Government to bring forward the detailed policy and legislative proposals to this Senedd to introduce the new tax.

We identified a vacant land tax as the first new tax we would seek competence for using the agreed inter-governmental process. We chose a vacant land tax because it can play a key role in helping deliver on our commitments to provide more housing, and support the regeneration of our towns and communities. We also chose a vacant land tax because we believe the case for devolution was clear and straightforward, and that this would allow us to test and refine the process for devolving further taxes.

High-quality, safe and affordable housing is the cornerstone to better health, better educational outcomes and better well-being. We know from housing need estimates that we will need an additional 7,400 homes per year for the next five years, and we are doing everything in our power to deliver the housing Wales needs. But, with new tax powers to incentivise developers to progress stalled developments, we could do more. A vacant tax alone is not the solution to the housing crisis, of course, but it is an intervention we can make to bring forward timely development. As it stands, land owners benefit from an uplift in the value of their land when it's identified in the planning process for development. Where the land is then developed, providing much-needed homes, this system works. But, where the landowner holds on to that land and it's not developed, there is a private gain, but at a public cost. By increasing the cost of holding on to land that has been identified for development, a vacant land tax could help to encourage development and rebalance who bears the cost when development doesn't take place. A vacant land tax could also help contribute to regeneration, tackling the blight of idle sites and their impact on the well-being of those who live nearby.

To begin to properly explore the opportunities of the vacant land tax for Wales, we first need the powers. We have always been clear that in seeking new powers for the first time, we will be testing the Wales Act 2014 mechanism, and we have never underestimated the challenge of navigating this process. Two years of work went into ensuring that the UK Government had the information it needed to consider the case for devolution, before we made a formal request for the transfer of powers. I had a constructive discussion with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at a Joint Exchequer Committee meeting. We agreed it was for the Welsh Government to make policy decisions about how any new devolved tax would operate, and for this Senedd to decide whether to pass any new tax into law. The role of the UK Government and Parliament is in deciding to devolve new tax powers. However, when I made the formal request in March 2020, their response was to ask for yet more information on the operation of the tax. We have worked with the UK Government in good faith to determine and to provide the information that they will need, but it is not appropriate for the UK Government to get involved in matters that are, rightly, for the Welsh Government and this Senedd.

The Conservatives' amendment calls on us to acknowledge that there are a number of reasons why developments may stall. Well, this is something that we've always acknowledged. We commissioned research into the reasons and their prevalence across Wales. We have also always been very clear that we're not looking to penalise those who are actively developing within the timescales of a normal process, nor those who are prevented from development by reasons that are outside their control.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on Peter Fox to move the amendment tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Peter Fox.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the amendment tabled in the name of Darren Millar. I would like to thank you, Minister, for the statement, although I do question why the Government has used its parliamentary time to bring forward a debate on further devolution of taxation and to drive yet another wedge, it seems, between Wales and the UK Government. Once again, it seems like we're banging on about devolution, rather than talking about the big issues facing the people of Wales, looking inwards at ourselves, obsessing over process, rather than the policy outcomes that will deliver real change for families across the country.

We are at a delicate time in Wales's recovery from the pandemic, and I firmly believe that Welsh Government resources should be solely focused on delivering on the people's priorities: jobs and levelling up the economy, the NHS and helping young people to catch up with their education. You acknowledged today, Minister, that the UK Government—that you've been in conversations with them. I'm pleased you've acknowledge that. As we know, your own tax policy report in 2021-22, published earlier this year, acknowledges an agreement, as you referenced just now, at the Joint Exchequer Committee in 2021 that proposals for the vacant land tax could be moved forward onto the next stage. And I know that the UK Government has since requested more information and that has delayed this process, and I acknowledge your frustration at this delay today, Minister.

What I'd say in response is that it is absolutely correct that these plans are fully scrutinised by all parties to ensure that they deliver on their aims and do not have a negative impact on the UK internal market as well as the house building and wider construction sector. To use a house building analogy, Llywydd, you wouldn't move into a new home without checking that it's been properly built first and that the structure is safe; you ask a surveyor to check for issues, you ask tradesmen to make sure the fixtures and fittings are as they should be. This is what the UK Government are doing, and the additional layers of scrutiny should be welcomed and not seen as a hindrance. This is the thing, Minister: you are asking the Welsh Parliament to support the eventual devolution of a vacant land tax without actually really saying what the Welsh Government's plans are. Members, the Minister is trying to sell us a house without allowing us to look at the plans first.

So, Minister, what would a vacant land tax look like in Wales, and do you know what impact this would have on house builders and the wider construction industry? Llywydd, I do broadly understand what the Welsh Government is aiming to achieve through the introduction of a vacant land tax, however, it's important to recognise that there are a number of reasons, as the Minister has referenced, as to why new developments may stall. Research found that of all stalled developments in Wales, 13 per cent have a stall due to site-specific issues, such as ground conditions, ecological and flooding matters and suitability of the land itself, 6 per cent have stalled due to planning negotiations, a further 6 per cent have stalled due to lack of finance. The report also notes that 47 per cent of non-residential stalled sites have come to a halt because of planning negotiations, and these are issues that would not be solved by a vacant land tax.

There are two parts to this motion before us today: first of all, the potential of a vacant land tax, and then, secondly, the deficiencies of the protocol. On the first element, I think there are strong arguments in favour of considering the introduction of a vacant land tax. It would, of course, help to tackle scenarios where large developers abuse the system in order to inflate profits at the expense of communities. Peter Fox said that we need to focus on improving people's lives and not obsess with process. Well, if so, give the Welsh Government the powers to proceed with that work, because this practice of land banking is immoral and wrong, and it's quite right that this Senedd should seek powers to address that issue effectively. There's a similar tax already in place in the Republic of Ireland, which is a levy on vacant plots, and we need similar powers in this place in order to help to tackle the housing crisis in Wales.

Having said that, there are questions remaining of course that need to be answered before such a tax could be introduced. We'd need to ensure that the tax targets developments that have been deliberately delayed and doesn't impact on those that have failed to make progress for entirely valid reasons. There are pros and there are cons, but it's a matter for this Senedd to discuss and refine those arguments, because they are operational considerations—considerations that come after the high level inter-governmental debate on the principle of devolving or not devolving. And this brings us to the second part of the motion.

The failure of the current protocol is plain for all to see. It's been compared a number of times, hasn't it, to the old legislative competence Orders, which plagued the Senedd back in the late 2000s. They were very rapidly replaced because of concerns over the complexity of the negotiations involved in those, and this arrangement should also be dealt with in a similar way. The protocols have fallen at the first hurdle, as far as I'm concerned. It's the first time these have been tested, and they've been shown to be flawed and failing. And, frankly, the Treasury is trying to get too deep into operational issues instead of the higher-level principles of where these powers should lie. Of course, they're intentionally making the process unnecessarily complicated and drawn out, because we all know what this current Westminster Government thinks about devolving any further powers or responsibilities to Wales.

In my time as Chair of the Finance Committee in the last Senedd, I saw how the Welsh Government went to significant lengths to set out the rationale for the vacant land tax, but it's just another case of Wales fulfilling its end of the bargain and Westminster failing to meet theirs. And the Minister's right; this process isn't fit for purpose, and the crux of the problem, of course, is that the UK Government is the final arbiter of its own decisions. Professor Gerry Holtham gave evidence to the Finance Committee in the last Senedd, and he said that

'the judge and the jury and the witnesses are all the same person, and so it's a little unclear how to proceed. If the British Government says "no", what do you do then, even if your request is perfectly reasonable? So, I think it is something, like a lot of things in the British constitution, that would benefit from a little more clarity and perhaps a little more codification'.

The Minister has said that there's a case for some kind of third-party assessment of the information, some sort of independent view and oversight of it. Well, if we are to stick to this protocol, then that is something that we have to insist on, because it's very lopsided towards the UK Government as things stand. Now, it's a bit like my local grocer telling me that he won't sell me eggs unless I tell him whether I'm boiling them, scrambling them or poaching them. It's quite perverse, isn't it, really?

Fundamentally, this is a competency issue, not a policy issue. We saw in the last Senedd how the Chief Secretary to the Treasury just wouldn't engage with the Finance Committee, refusing to appear before it and I know that those sentiments are still there. If truth be told, Westminster Government has absolutely no intention of devolving any further powers on this or any other area to Wales. In fact, the UK Government's mission is pretty clear, isn't it? They're taking back everything through legislation, the internal market Act, we've had references to the raft of LCMs that are now coming before us at an unprecedented rate. There is an irony here, of course: it's Labour putting forward this motion, when of course, it was the Labour Minister, Mark Drakeford, the finance Minister at the time, who agreed this protocol with the UK Government. So, I hope now that you realise that Westminster just doesn't want this protocol to work. It's a fudge; it's a mechanism not to facilitate progress, but to block progress, and of course it's working. So, the sooner we're freed from those Westminster shackles that are holding Wales back, the better.

Taxation exists to pay for public services. Too many people believe that we can have the same quality of public services as Scandinavia when our taxation system is more akin to that of the USA. The Conservatives oppose increasing any taxes or bringing in new taxes. We need a debate on what public services we have and how to pay for them. When you look at the cost of private education and private healthcare, it puts into perspective the value for money we get from our taxation system. It is not by random chance or serendipity that those countries with the highest tax levels have the best public services and those with the lowest tax levels the poorest. It's because taxation is necessary to raise the money to pay for the public services we all need, services like the roads we travel on, the safety of people at work, the safety of food, education and the health service—which we all depend on—policing our streets; they're all paid for out of taxation. If people want quality public services, then taxes are needed to pay for them.

Whilst nobody likes to pay taxes, some rich individuals and multinational companies are experts at reducing their tax payments. For a multinational company, corporation tax is an optional payment that's value can be reduced by things such as intra-company charges, paying for intellectual property rights, transferring charges for goods and services, or making the point of sale outside Britain. Each ensures business profit occurs in a low-tax or no-tax country. Providing quality public services means that if some people do not pay tax or their fair share of tax, then either public services suffer, or others like us have to pay more.

Every time tax cuts are made, they're shown as beneficial—they appear to be to those who are paying less tax and have more money in their pocket. The effect that the introduction of the Government income tax cuts has on public expenditure, on services such as health, local government and education is completely ignored until the cuts start affecting people. The more difficult the tax is to avoid, the more unpopular it is with the rich and powerful. By far the most difficult taxes to avoid are the property taxes, non-domestic rates and council tax. Land value tax is a tax like those. There are no tricks such as internal company transactions or having non-domiciled status to avoid paying the tax; the land is not movable, and the tax becomes liable and must be paid.

There are various ways of raising taxes, and whilst with an expenditure tax such as VAT what I pay on an item is the same as anyone else living in Great Britain, it's not true of tax on income, for example. Take somebody earning £30,000 a year, then if they're under retirement age, they pay income tax and national insurance. When that person reaches retirement age, they cease to pay national insurance. A graduate on the same income pays back a student loan as well as income tax and national insurance. Someone who receives their income via dividend will pay a 7.5 per cent tax rate on income over £2,000. This to me appears very unfair.

Thank you. You're quite right. This isn't just something that Wales has considered. The New Zealand Treasury looked at this and concluded that the tax was unreasonably complicated to design, and they said that the commission previously suggested that a vacant land tax could reduce housing supply in the longer term, and that the tax incentivises landowners to construct dwellings earlier in time than they otherwise would. It's just demonstrated that the land tax isn't working in some countries and we don't want to replicate that here, Mike.

Thank you, Peter Fox. You've raised one country—can I just throw some others back at you? Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Russia, Singapore and Taiwan, some regions of Australia, Mexico, individual states of the United States of America. Land value tax removes the financial incentive to hold unused land solely for price appreciation. The selling price of a good when it's fixed in supply, such as land, does not change if it is taxed. It costs nothing to store land, it isn't going anywhere, and it will almost certainly be increasing in value with time. I fully support the introduction of a land value tax in Wales. It's a good way of raising money for the benefit of the people of Wales.

Another week in the Senedd and once again the same old Welsh Labour—more debates about powers and wanting more devolution to raise taxes, which will eventually hurt the hard-working people of Wales. One thing I've learnt since becoming a Senedd Member is that the Government of Wales don't really want to tackle the issues facing our country, and they want to use this precious time to debate constitutional matters. The people of Wales are no fools. They see that you're struggling to fix the huge problems Wales faces, but they just want you to be honest and step up to the plate and deal with them. The Welsh economy—Wales has consistently had the lowest GDP of all the GB nations. The Welsh NHS—one in five people on a waiting list. And do you know, you're currently failing to meet housing targets, and a vacant land tax will not work, as my colleague Peter Fox has mentioned. It is very complicated and very difficult to introduce.

These are just a few examples of how this Labour administration is failing, but what we want to see you do is just get on with things. All this constitutional chit-chatter is not helping this country. What is clear is the Government is just running out of ideas. You're running away from the big issues, and if you can't show the leadership the country needs, I suggest you step aside and let others have a go. We need more houses in Wales, but instead of calling for more tax-raising powers from Westminster, build more homes with the powers you currently have available to you. You're struggling to deal with the problems we currently face. We have had over 15 Government debates and statements on constitutional matters. You're dodging the real issues facing Wales. The thought of this Government having any more say over taxes sends a shiver down my spine and out of my shoes. You cannot run Wales with the powers you currently have, and you're currently not building the houses we need to meet demand. All the while, things aren't getting better, they're getting worse, and if you can't take the real steps needed to get our country back onside, I suggest Labour step aside and let the Welsh Conservatives have a go at running our country.

The Chair of the Finance Committee is next, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm very pleased to speak in this debate today on behalf of the Finance Committee.

Tax-raising powers, including the ability to create new taxes, are essential tools for governments to use as a means of raising revenue to support spending for public services and to influence behavioural change. The Wales Act 2014 devolved fiscal powers to the Senedd for the first time, including conferring tax powers to replace stamp duty land tax, landfill tax, as well as the ability to vary the Welsh rates of income tax. These additional fiscal powers mean that approximately 20 per cent of the Welsh Government’s budget is now funded from tax revenues. This in turn has increased the accountability of the Welsh Government to the people of Wales—clearly, a welcome development.

Last week, the Welsh Minister told the committee that she was continuing to work with the UK Government to secure devolution of a vacant land tax, but that the process has been both time-consuming and frustrating, with discussions already having taken over two years. The Minister has highlighted the challenges from HM Treasury continually requesting further information and has previously said that the UK Government is the final arbiter on whether enough information has been provided to support a proposal.

The Minister has mentioned pursuing an independent dispute resolution on whether or not the Welsh Government has provided the necessary information in relation to the vacant land tax, as set out in the Wales Act 2014. This is the first attempt at seeking competence for a new tax and, as a result, it is reasonable to expect teething problems as the process is ironed out. However, it is unlikely that the intention in the Wales Act was that this process would take so long, and casts doubt on whether the mechanism for devolving taxes is fit for purpose. As I’m sure Members from the third Senedd will remember, it has unfortunate echoes of the tortuous LCO system of devolving legislative competence on a piecemeal basis, which added an additional level of complexity and bureaucracy to an already protracted process. I don’t imagine anybody would like to return to those days.

In the previous Senedd, there was a reluctance from the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury to give evidence to the Finance Committee on its inquiry into the implementation of the Wales Act 2014. However, Simon Hart, Secretary of State for Wales, did attend and when asked about the mechanism for devolving new taxes he said

'if there is a legitimate concern that is raised about maybe the speed of progress or the manner of engagement'

he’d be very happy to discuss the issue with the Treasury. We very much welcome the approach, and hope that the new Chief Secretary will be more willing than his predecessor to progress the devolution of this tax with the Minister. We also hope he will be more willing to engage with us as a committee, and participate in the scrutiny of powers that fall within the remit of both the UK Government and the Welsh Government on the devolution of tax powers and other fiscal matters.

Over the last 10 years, I have seen developers landbanking and abandoning brownfield sites that have previous industrial uses for easier-to-develop green land. The brownfield sites cause issues then for the local community. Some have dangerous buildings, unkept trees and fencing adjacent to the highways and private properties. Run-off of water and contamination to highway drains make a community seem uncared for. They are ideal sites for development of houses, which would improve the viability, sustainability and well-being of communities.

If a brownfield site or greenfield site is included in a development plan, it increases in value. Once it has planning permission, it can then increase by four or five times the original cost of that land. Introducing a vacant land tax for those that have allocated sites and/or planning permission, and have stalled, would help stimulate development of them, and make them more of a priority. The tax could then be used to pay for the administration and training within overly-stretched planning authorities. It could be part of a package of other measures, such as decreasing or waiving 106 contributions, if it is a brownfield site.

And it's now time, I think, that we move forward with this and start using up all the brownfield sites allocated. Thank you.

I now call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to reply to the debate. Rebecca Evans.

I'd like to thank all colleagues for what I think has been a really interesting debate, and I'll just begin by saying that I do fully recognise the importance of HM Treasury's role in the assessment and scrutiny of our request, in order to ensure that any proposal for new devolved taxes does not have unintended or unpalatable impacts on the cohesion of the UK tax system as a whole.

And that's why Welsh Government has been fully and openly engaged with HM Treasury officials over the last two years, providing the UK Government with a number of documents addressing the criteria set out in the command paper, including the scenarios in which a tax is likely to apply and not apply, who would be the intended target of any tax, potential interactions with devolved and reserved taxes, tax bases and tax revenues, and impacts on the UK tax system for devolving this power. This work culminated in a joint paper by Welsh Government and HMT officials, recommending the material provided to date serves as the basis for the Welsh Government writing that formal request to the UK Government.

So, when I met with the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, back in February, it was on the understanding that sufficient information had been provided by the Welsh Government and that HMT were content for our proposal to proceed to the next stage of the process, which would have been agreed between our two Governments for the devolution of the new powers. And at no point in that meeting did the then FST indicate that he felt proposals weren’t sufficiently developed to progress, and I’m still not clear what specific concerns have arisen between February and now that will require the Welsh Government to return to the start of the process. A draft Order in Council had been prepared, as well as an explanatory memorandum, which illustrated how the information provided would support the passage of the draft Order through both the UK Parliament and the Senedd. And it's very much my hope that the new Financial Secretary to the Treasury will draw comfort from the level of the detail that we've already provided, and recognise that throughout this process we have been more than willing to provide as much detail as we were able.

And, at this stage, no decisions have been taken by Welsh Government on how any future tax on land identified as suitable for development would apply in Wales. And, as we've outlined on numerous occasions, this detailed policy work will occur after the tax has been devolved to Wales and will follow an appropriately rigorous process here in Wales. And lots of the contributions from the Conservative benches today have been about the appropriateness of the tax, and the desirability of the tax, and it’s absolutely right that those discussions are had here and the scrutiny is done here in this place, and that, I think, is the crux of the point of this debate today. In the event that we are able to proceed to the next stage of the process and a UK consultation highlights any key scenarios or issues not addressed in the information that we've already provided, then of course my officials and I are committed to working with HMT to ensure that the UK Government has enough detail to inform a considered assessment. But, really, without any urgent movement, there really does have to be a review of the process.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.]

Yes, I gave you a bit of time there [Laughter.]

I will therefore defer voting on this item until voting time.

We will now take a break as we prepare for voting time.

That brings us to voting time this evening. The first vote is on the Education Tribunal for Wales (Amendment) Regulations 2021, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths [Translation should read: That brings us to voting time this evening. The first vote is on the legislative consent motion on the Professional Qualifications Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths.]

But we will now open the vote on item 6, and it's the

legislative consent motion on the Professional Qualifications Bill.

The LCM.

Open the vote.

Close the vote. For 14, abstain 0, against 40. So, the LCM is not consented.

And for the next vote, Rhys ab Owen, if you're still not able to vote, then I'll ask for an oral vote.

And, Llywydd, we still have a Member who's desperately trying to get into Zoom and cannot get into Zoom.

No, no, no, no. Darren Millar, we are holding the vote, please, and we have made every opportunity possible for that named Member to get in, including sharing my personal phone, so he could ring—[Inaudible.]

Now item 7, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2021. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, no abstentions, 27 against, and therefore the regulations are approved.

The next vote is on the debate on devolution of new tax powers, and I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 41 against, and therefore the amendment is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. There are three votes still to be cast. There may be a problem, and therefore I will call for oral votes. Delyth Jewell, how do you vote?

[Inaudible.]

Close the vote. The result of the vote is 40 in favour, no abstentions and 15 against. And therefore the motion is agreed.

That brings today's proceedings to a close.