Good afternoon and welcome to this Senedd Plenary meeting. The first item this afternoon will be questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Sioned Williams.
Thank you, Llywydd, for that question. Families across Wales are experiencing the largest fall in living standards since records began. That is the bleak context in which the Welsh Government's efforts continue to alleviate the financial pressures, maximise incomes, and leave money in the pockets of families, especially those with children.
Thank you, First Minister. It is bleak, as you say, and bodies supporting children in poverty say that this winter will be even more difficult than last year for families in poverty, because of the cost-of-living crisis and because so many means of support have now disappeared. But the Government has scrapped the scheme to provide food to children in poverty during the school holidays, because it hadn't been budgeted for and was initially funded by additional funds that came as a result of COVID, and then from an underspend from free school meals in primary schools, which was part of the agreement with Plaid Cymru.
In July, you said that there was no such underspend available for the summer holidays, but then over £11 million was found in the expenditure line and cut from the education budget. In the statement just published in order to justify not continuing with such a scheme, the Government said that cost is the main reason, which echoes an attitude to poverty that we unfortunately hear from Conservatives usually. It suggests that some families wouldn't spend the money on the right things, which, if I may say, is disgraceful.
The Royal College for Paediatrics and Child Health say that they, daily, see the impact of lack of nutrition on the health and well-being of children. And, for many families, free school meals are a lifeline, particularly—
—during the bleak and expensive winter months. If it is unable to continue to fund these schemes, would the Government be willing to introduce a crisis programme for this winter to ensure that children in poverty at least have an assurance of food over the fortnight of Christmas holidays?
Llywydd, the winter is going to be tough for families with children, of course. That's true. But it's tough for all the public services as well, because we don't have sufficient funding to do everything that we want to do. And, at the end of the day, choices have to be made, and the Government has made a number of choices with Plaid Cymru. That's why we are investing in free school meals in our schools. And that's why we are continuing to provide funding to help with free breakfasts in schools as well. That's why we're providing funding every year now to families to help with school costs.
So, at the end of the day, Llywydd, when we don't have adequate funding to do everything that we want to do, and the things that we could do if we did have funding, we have tough choices to make, and we have to prioritise as a Government to try and protect those most vulnerable families in Wales, and to do that in a way that has an impact on their lives.
As we know, families with a disabled member or members are more likely to have a lower income than otherwise, which is why the direct support provided by the third sector in Wales is so vital. Cerebral Palsy Cymru has recently written to all members here, urging them to write to your Minister for Health and Social Services to support their request for funding for their early intervention programme, so that they don't have to turn away any baby or family in Wales who can benefit from their life-changing service. Only 20 per cent of their funding comes from statutory bodies via local health boards' specialist interventions, and their funding has not increased since 2009.
Family Fund supports low-income families raising a disabled or seriously ill child or young person, and I'm hosting their fiftieth anniversary Senedd event tomorrow. The essential work provided by charities such as these merits support not only because of the essential services they provide, but also because they take resource pressure off the NHS and social services in Wales, i.e., smart budgeting. How do you respond to the invitation extended to you by Cerebral Palsy Cymru to visit their specialist centre in Cardiff to see their unique work with children and families across Wales, and to the invitation to visit tomorrow's Family Fund fiftieth anniversary Senedd event?
Llywydd, I have no doubt at all that both organisations to which the Member refers do excellent work and make a difference in the lives of Welsh citizens. The position that the Welsh Government will be in is that there simply isn't money to do all the things we would like to do. It's as plain and simple as that. And Members who pop up, across the Chamber, asking for more money for this and more money for that, and why can't we fund something else, have, I'm afraid, to face the reality that our budget goes down every year. It's gone down year after year in real terms as a result of the austerity policies followed by the UK Government. And we have reached a point where there simply will have to be very difficult choices. Priorities that we will set—others may set them differently—. When you set priorities, let me explain to Members on the Conservative benches this: for everything you want to do, you have to be able to say what you would not do. That's what prioritisation means, and I look forward to Members of the Conservative Party standing up and explaining those things that they would stop funding, as well as all those many things that they say they would like to.
First Minister, I'd like to take this topic back to basics. I'm alarmed at the silence from the UK Government on whether benefits will be upraised in line with the rampant inflation that it has created. This is especially the case when we contrast this silence with their high-profile and vocal consideration of reducing inheritance tax, when we know that there is a link between inadequate benefits, including in-work benefits such as universal credit, and family and child poverty. First Minister, what assessment has the Welsh Government made of the impact of failure to do this on children from low-income families in Wales?
Llywydd, we know that there are hundreds of thousands of children across the United Kingdom who will be in poverty as a result of the decisions made by the UK Government. That is what the UK Government itself says. That's not something that I am making up—their own figures demonstrate that hundreds of thousands more children will be in poverty as a result of the decisions they have already made. And you know when the Tories are desperate, Llywydd, because they turn as ever on the weakest members of our society. And the shameful stuff that we've had to read over the weekend about targeting benefit claimants, saying that people who have health and disability conditions—. I wonder if Mark Isherwood is listening; no, I don't think he is. His Government's Minister is saying that they will be reducing the benefit of people with disabilities, who rely on that benefit for their weekly sustenance. I'm asked a question by Conservative Members about what we can do for people with disabilities, and I'm explaining that the things that we can do have to be set in the context of further cuts—further cuts—which his Government plans to make for people with disabilities. And that contrasts very directly, doesn't it, with news that the Conservative Party is considering cuts to inheritance tax. Four per cent—the richest 4 per cent—of people in the whole of the country to see their incomes increased, while people who manage on the smallest incomes of all have to worry about those incomes being eroded even further.
2. Will the First Minister make a statement on the process for drawing up revised bus network plans that the Welsh Government has asked Transport for Wales and local authorities to undertake on a regional basis? OQ60274
I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. Local authorities have been asked to plan a network and prioritise routes that best serve the needs of their citizens. They are supported in that work by Transport for Wales and Welsh Government officials.
Thank you. Well, firstly, it's not happening, and, (b), they're not being supported, because I can tell you. The main population hub for rural Conwy is the market town of Llanrwst. Forty-four per cent of residents have to travel more than 2 km to work. They certainly cannot rely on any bus service. The last one is in the evening at 6.50 p.m., and it is such a sporadic service that employees cannot get to work, and business owners are in despair at staff shortages as a result of this. Now, on 12 September, Lee Waters, the Deputy Minister, wrote to me stating that he has asked TfW to work closely with our local authorities on a regional basis to produce revised bus network plans. It's not happening. He has also said that the planning work under way for north Wales includes a careful examination of key routes in the Conwy valley. Despite writing to TfW and local authorities, no information whatsoever has been forthcoming. They just ignored the question when we asked for those plans. So, can you, First Minister, go back and find out for us as Members time frames and details as to when these plans for the revised bus network in the Conwy valley will actually be available for us all not only to see, but also to be consulted on as elected Members? Thank you.
Well, Llywydd, I don't think the fact that the work has not been completed should be taken as evidence that the work is not going on, because the work is progressing. It has been progressing on that regional footprint. Local authorities, working with others, will identify a core network of strategic services—services, for example, that serve key employment sites, healthcare facilities, education and training venues. The work may not be completed and it may not yet be available to communicate to Members, but that shouldn't be taken as evidence that the work is not going on.
The Fflecsi Bwcabus service came to an end at the end of last month in Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire and, in light of that, a request has been made that the buses themselves should be returned to Transport for Wales. Is the Government willing to give a pledge that those buses could be kept locally whilst there are ongoing efforts to try to find an alternative way of recommencing that service? And, in that context, rural public transport is a priority for Government in terms of transport policy. Would you be willing to look anew and creatively, if there were additional resources in light of any fiscal decisions in Westminster or indirectly through plans such as the SPF, to see if there is a way forward jointly with the local authorities?
Well, Llywydd, I thank Adam Price for that point. I'm aware of the fact that buses are available at present in Carmarthenshire after the Bwcabus services, and what I understand is that the Government is willing for Carmarthenshire to keep the buses—there are five of them at present—for the next six months initially, to have more discussions with Transport for Wales and to see whether there is anything more flexible or creative we can think about or whether new ideas emerge. So, I'm happy to confirm that today.
First Minister, I'm really concerned that the proposed core network will have enough funding, going forward, after over a decade of austerity. And it has been so disappointing—you hear about a staggering £100 billion of Tory waste. That money could have gone on public services. So, that really concerns me. But, First Minister, local authority and driver and passenger knowledge is absolutely vital in creating sustainable bus networks. So, as we plan those, going forward, and with this in mind, could you outline what role Welsh Government sees for local authority-owned municipal bus companies under a revised bus network, which I think will be really important, making sure we've got that local knowledge? And if we can get that public service funding back into Wales, that would be marvellous. Thank you.
Well, thank you to Carolyn Thomas for that, Llywydd. And, of course, the Member is right to allude to the fact that, when bus services were marketised and privatised, the Government of the time introduced a prohibition on the further municipalisation of buses. We still do have two municipal bus services in Wales. I was very pleased to meet with the new chief executive of Cardiff Bus recently and hear of the plans that they have for developing their service. It's a very good model because it doesn't involve the distribution of private profit. Any money that is made is invested in improving the quality of the service. And that is why our forthcoming bus Bill will lift the ban on the creation of new municipal bus companies here in Wales as part of our determination to put the bus services of the future on a basis where the public interest is what drives decisions that are made.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, last week the Government brought a statement forward about its TB eradication strategy. Regrettably, the Member for Mid and West Wales posed a question about the viability of farms continuing if they find themselves in perpetual TB. That really is a question that is not worthy of putting on the floor of the Senedd because, ultimately, every livestock farm in this country has done everything that the Government has asked of it by meeting the biosecurity standards, going to annual testing, having pre-movement testing and complying as best they can with every measure the Government has put in place. The Minister, when she replied to that question, did not indicate whether the Government was actively considering such measures to farms that find themselves in perpetual TB. Can you confirm today, First Minister, that it will not be Welsh Government policy to remove livestock farms that, through no fault of their own, find themselves increasingly under threat because of bovine TB from having livestock on their farms?
That's very pleasing to hear, First Minister, but would you agree with me that it is regrettable that that proposition was put forward? Because if someone was accused, because of the colour of their skin or their religion, that they had to move from a community, that would be wholly unacceptable. And because someone finds themselves in a farming situation with perpetual bovine TB through no fault of their own—and we know the damage that bovine TB does to the emotional and mental well-being of farming families—that is an unacceptable proposition to put forward. Do you believe that that proposition is wrong and, ultimately, should the Member reconsider that proposition that she put on the floor of the Senedd in the statement for bovine TB last week?
Llywydd, first of all, let me acknowledge the emotional and mental health impact that farmers experience when, after many years of investment, in many cases, in building up herds, they find that TB requires them to take such dramatic action. And it's why the Welsh Government has invested so many millions and millions of pounds, year after year, in trying to make sure that, when farmers are faced with that misfortune, there is a safety net there provided by the state to assist them through that very terrible experience.
Llywydd, on the floor of the Senedd, Members are able to ask questions and express views. We often end up doing it in a shorthanded way because of the nature of debate here. I've read since that Joyce Watson has explained that, had she had an opportunity to set out her views more fully, it was never her intention to suggest that people would be forced off the land. It was more a matter of expressing concern for the well-being of people who, time after time in those hotspot areas, find that, having taken action to attempt to eradicate TB, the disease comes back, and the very adverse impact that that must have on those families.
In Pembrokeshire particularly, as the leader of the opposition will know, we now have a new project, a project involving 15 farms, six vets, a new way of trying to make sure that, where the disease has the strongest hold, there are new forms of co-operative action that we can take together in our shared ambition, which is to eradicate bovine TB in Wales.
And we share that ambition about eradicating bovine TB, and I commend the work of the Minister and her officials to do that, but, when you see such comments, and the comments ended with the words
'they need to find another business',
what can people think and deduce from such comments, when they hear them, of the support that they might be able to receive in this unified fight to eradicate bovine TB? I've heard what you said, First Minister. I'm sure others outside of this place have heard what you've said. People will draw their conclusions.
But if I could ask on another point about the regulations around bovine TB, my colleague Sam Kurtz has highlighted the regulation in particular when it comes to cattle that are heavily in calf, and ultimately being dispatched in not the most humane way—and that's the most polite way I can put it. In other parts of the United Kingdom, the regulations allow for a more sensitive approach to be adopted. That sensitive approach is adopted on animal health grounds as well as people’s welfare and mental well-being. Could I implore you to accept that regulation change here in Wales—because it has proven to be successful in other parts of the United Kingdom, and I can’t see how we are distinctly different here in Wales—to allow that change to happen that would make such a benefit to people’s welfare and animal welfare?
I thank the leader of the opposition for drawing attention to that. It’s a hugely sensitive issue and it must be absolutely awful for farmers who find themselves in that position. The Minister has asked the new technical advisory group that we are setting up—and adverts are out and people are being recruited to it—to give her direct advice on exactly that matter. If there’s evidence from elsewhere in the United Kingdom of how that set of circumstances can be addressed in a way that is humane and takes into account the human cost of having to slaughter animals on farm when they are in calf, then of course the Minister will be very receptive to that advice.
Diolch, Llywydd. Last month, Plaid Cymru tabled a series of amendments to the NHS procurement Bill, amendments aimed at protecting our NHS from creeping privatisation. Now, over the weekend, the Labour shadow health Secretary, Wes Streeting, said he would, and I quote,
'hold the door wide open'
to private sector entrepreneurs in the NHS. He said NHS England under the Tories had started to move in the right direction by bringing in more private companies, but he wanted to see a Labour Government, and I quote again,
‘put our foot on the accelerator’.
Does the First Minister agree that bringing in the private sector is the key to an improved NHS?
I wonder if I need to remind the leader of Plaid Cymru that health has been a devolved matter in Wales since 1999. We make decisions here in Wales for the Welsh health service and we will continue to do so. What is said in Westminster—where I know is where he would rather be—and what happens in Westminster is of no relevance to the decisions that we will make here.
Thank you very much for the answer. It’s such a shame, in that context, that the Welsh Government rejected our amendments to the NHS procurement Bill, which would have protected the NHS in Wales from creeping privatisation. But we’ll move on from that.
We do need innovation, actually, in the NHS—absolutely. But that does not need to mean privatisation, and the clear implication from Wes Streeting is that Labour supports more private sector delivery of NHS services.
Now, we need investment, too, in the NHS. I fear tomorrow’s autumn statement will be a pretty desperate tax-based headline grabber that will make investment in people and in public services even more difficult. The alternative? Well, the Institute for Fiscal Studies’s Paul Johnson says Labour is only promising what he calls a ‘teeny weeny’ uplift of £1 billion in health funding for the whole of the UK if they come into power. That equates to something like £16 per head for Wales if there are consequentials. Fifty million pounds—does the First Minister believe that £50 million is enough to bring the Welsh NHS back from the brink?
Llywydd, it seems to me we repeat this game every week, in which the leader of Plaid Cymru wants to ask me highly speculative questions about a Government that hasn't been elected, and I'm just not going to indulge him in that. My efforts, and the efforts of my colleagues here, will be directed to making sure that we get that Labour Government, and then we will get the investment that we need in our public services. No incoming Government, faced with the aftermath of the Liz Truss crashing of our economy, will be able to fill every hole in every service that has been created over the last 13 years. But I'll say this to him: if there is to be a chance of having investment in our public services, it will come with that Labour Government, and that's what we will be working here to achieve.
I'm desperate to get rid of the Tory Government, but I will repeat every week here how little Labour offers Wales as they go into next year's general election. Yesterday, I met GPs and primary care leaders on Ynys Môn. I did the same in Ruthin recently with Llyr Gruffydd. It's clear that a squeeze on primary care budgets, bringing them to well below the historical levels of share of NHS funding that they used to have, means inadequate resources, it means unsustainable workloads, it means a workforce under pressure. Now primary care is at the heart of preventative measures. For example, if Ynys Môn’s surgeries were given modest resource to manage chronic kidney disease, and if by doing so they could stop maybe a dozen people from needing dialysis down the line, it would then pay for itself.
A good way of giving reassurance to primary care that things could get better would be to admit some mistakes that have been done in the past. So, does the First Minister, as a former health Minister himself, agree with me now that the current funding model, the underfunding of primary care as a share of NHS funding, has been a mistake?
Well, I'll put things positively to him, because I don't share his constantly negative view of the world. I'll put it positively to him that successive Welsh Governments have made efforts to move funding out of secondary care and into primary care. And I can tell you, from all those efforts, that it is far, far harder to do than it is to sloganise. Because the inherent tendency in the health service is to draw money into hospitals and to draw money into the things that constantly attract headlines whenever anything goes wrong. We continue to invest heavily in primary care alongside all of that: money last year in the general practitioners committee negotiations to take account of the new access standards that we have implemented this year and are already making a significant difference; the extra money we have put into the pharmacy contract. There is a very good example of where services are relieving pressure on our GP surgeries as people are able to use the minor ailments scheme—thousands and thousands of new consultations in community pharmacies in Wales this year—and the new contract that we will negotiate with our optometrists will have the same effect.
It's the policy of the Welsh Government to move activity into primary care, into preventative work, but—I can tell you this—the policy intention and the ability to implement it, I wish it was as easy as Plaid Cymru think it is.
I thank Siân Gwenllian for the question. The Welsh Government is currently discussing with private sector developers and Ambition North Wales to progress proposals for Parc Bryn Cegin. Interest in the site has increased, and it's expected that more use of the plots that are available will be made.
The development of this park is the Welsh Government’s responsibility and you'll know that I have been asking questions here since 2016 in terms of what's happening there, and I won't apologise for returning to the issue once again. There has been some progress recently, as you've outlined, but that's after almost 20 years of no progress whatsoever there. And almost 30 years since the great pledges on job creation were made, not a single job has been created in Parc Bryn Cegin. So will you please give priority to creating jobs on this site? This is the least I could ask you to do, as the representative of the people of the area, to prioritise this issue.
I thank Siân Gwenllian for that supplementary question and, of course, I understand why she, as the local Member, is drawing attention once again to Parc Bryn Cegin. The news is better. It's been a long time coming, but it is coming now. Three of the nine plots have been sold already, there are another three where people have made bids to buy them, and with the three remaining plots, we are co-operating with Ambition North Wales to invest in a new plot to have new facilities that, if we succeed, are going to create 70 new jobs in the park. So, I'm happy to tell the Member today that we are working very hard as a Government. We've had more success over the past year and we're very eager to build on that to draw more jobs into Bangor and the area.
Thank you, First Minister, for that response there, and it's good to hear that some progress is being made at the site. I think credit needs to be given to Siân Gwenllian for continuously raising this issue here in the Chamber time and time again; I believe this is the fourth time I've had a supplementary question to one of these similar questions here in the Chamber.
First Minister, you mentioned the role of Ambition North Wales in the work there, and, of course, it's now established as a corporate joint committee, with the ability to hold assets and to employ people as such. I wonder what consideration you've given to Parc Bryn Cegin being handed over to the CJC in north Wales to manage in the future, and parks similar to it in north Wales, so a more local, regional body, like Ambition North Wales, can manage this more closely.
Well, Llywydd, thanks to Sam Rowlands for that. I'm encouraged by the progress that has been made through Ambition North Wales in the creation of the CJC, and that's why I was able, in my answer to Siân Gwenllian, to point to the project that we are jointly engaged in with Ambition North Wales in one of the three remaining plots to create new facilities there that we think will bring renewed interest from the private sector in taking up those facilities.
I think the Welsh Government is open-minded about the long-term way in which the park might be managed. I don't want to hand over anything to another organisation until we are confident that it is in a successful place. I wouldn't want to hand it over as a problem to anybody else, but, given that there is progress, both in terms of the use of Parc Bryn Cegin itself, but also in the maturity of the arrangements across north Wales, then future possibilities, we'll be open-minded about the best way in which those could be discharged.
Resilience is achieved through diversification of the workforce, making the maximum use of all clinically qualified staff, and strong collaboration and integration between all aspects of primary care, using an accelerated cluster model in order to do so.
Thank you for that response, First Minister. It does not take a genius to conclude that primary care is far from resilient. I, like most Members, have been overwhelmed by letters from general practitioners expressing dismay at the breakdown in negotiations around the general medical services contract. Many indicate that they are considering leaving general practice. GPs are the backbone of our NHS, yet they have been underfunded, undervalued and overworked for decades.
Now, with backlogs in secondary care putting additional pressure onto primary care, we are at a crisis point. GPs are leaving the profession in droves as workloads and underfunding take their toll. Over the last 10 years, we have seen a 93,000 increase in patients, but at the same time a loss of 84 surgeries and over a fifth fewer GPs. General practice now only accounts for around 7 per cent of NHS funding. First Minister, will you pledge to save our surgeries? Will you commit to a fully funded workforce plan that retains existing GPs, at the same time as training sufficient new GPs to meet demand? Thank you.
Well, Llywydd, let me just put a few facts on the record here. We have a system in which, absolutely, month after month, we assess the state of pressure in our primary care services. The latest figures show that 86 per cent of GP practices report the lowest level of escalation. So, while it is absolutely true that the system is under huge pressure of demand and of numbers—I completely accept that—the idea that it is somehow in a crisis is to exaggerate and, I think, to underplay the resilience of the system itself.
The reason that there are no current discussions is because the General Practitioners Committee Wales paused contract negotiations, not because the Welsh Government paused them; GPC Wales paused those negotiations. There had already been five meetings with GPC Wales, and I must say again this afternoon, and to them, that we are at the limit of the finance available to us in what has been put on the table already in those negotiations.
And the Member says to me that GPs are leaving the service in droves. Let me quote to him the latest figures that were published on this matter. In the last 12 months, despite all the financial difficulties that we face, there was a 4 per cent growth in the head count of GPs in Wales—not leaving in droves; a 4 per cent growth in head count—and a 1 per cent growth in full-time equivalents as well. Amongst trainee GPs, head count and FTEs up by 3.2 per cent, and amongst wider primary care practice staff, the head count is up by 2.9 per cent and full-time equivalents are up by 2.8 per cent. So, on every single measure, numbers are growing, not falling, and certainly do not bear out any suggestion that people are somehow leaving the service in droves.
I want to thank the First Minister for that answer and the full update on where we are with the GPC contract, but also on the recruitment and retention of GPs.
I want to take him back, if I may, to a visit that the two of us made earlier this summer to Jonathan up in Caerau pharmacy. Jonathan Jones, it's probably fair to say, is one of the pioneers, actually, of prescription-led pharmacy, doing minor illnesses and non-serious diagnoses. Because he's doing that and doing it in conjunction with the surgeries throughout the area, alongside working with other pharmacists, but working with other GPs, he's helping to reduce some of the pressure on those very surgeries—they're working with them. So, would he agree with me that it's on that sort of work, right across the primary care sector, right across preventative medicine, that is where we need to also focus? This is not a one-stop shop, it's not one solution; we need all the players working together to give the very best treatment and diagnoses to people in our communities.
I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for that, Llywydd, and it's exactly what I meant in my original answer when I said that, in order to confirm the resilience of the primary care sector in Wales, we have to use the talents of all those people who work in the different branches of primary care. It was a memorable visit that we made together. Here is a pharmacy that, not that long ago was struggling to provide services to its local community, but now, with an independent prescriber in community pharmacy, it is absolutely thriving. You and I saw people coming through the door, able to access advice and able to access prescriptions as well when they needed them, and doing so in a close arrangement with the local GP practice as well.
Llywydd, in 2017-18, there were no community pharmacy prescribing services in Wales—none at all. This year, we expect that there will be around 77,000 consultations of that sort and that's up from 46,000 last year. So, this is a rapidly growing number, it's a result of contract reform, it's a result of investment and it's a result of the actions that we are taking to make sure that the practical placements that are necessary for our pharmacists to become independent prescribers are made easier in the sector. I think it's been a remarkable achievement here in Wales at a time when community pharmacies across our border in England have been closing; the numbers that have closed are more and more for each of the last five years, and where the closures in deprived communities of the sort that we visited have been twice the level of closures in better-off communities.
Llywydd, by 2035, we want 100 per cent of our annual electricity consumption to come from renewable sources while also retaining wealth and value in Wales. We are streamlining planning and consenting processes, working to secure an effective energy grid and co-operating with others to maximise the potential of new technologies.
Diolch, Prif Weinidog. Jane Dodds and I recently joined a round-table discussion at RWE power station in my constituency with developers, stakeholders and key industry bodies to discuss the opportunities in the Celtic sea, at Pembroke port and within the south Wales industrial cluster area. A key takeaway from that discussion was the need for grid capacity for renewable projects in the Celtic sea and the prioritisation of projects, so that large-scale renewables aren't held in the same queue as, say, domestic solar photovoltaic installations. With the Great Grid Upgrade project announced earlier this year, what actions are the Welsh Government taking to feed in the views and the needs of Wales, and potential Welsh developments, to the National Grid to ensure we have a grid to allow our projects to be successful?
Well, I thank the Member for that supplementary question, and for the consistent interest he takes in this matter and the huge opportunities that I know he believes—and I share that belief—are there for residents in Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire. I was in RWE myself earlier in the summer, and it's a hugely ambitious programme that they have in the field of hydrogen. And, as Sam Kurtz said, Llywydd, the grid is absolutely fundamental to this.
I wrote to the Prime Minister on 12 October. And I write very rarely to the Prime Minister, because I think a letter from a First Minister should be rare enough to have an impact. And in that letter I raised, alongside a number of other matters relevant to Pembrokeshire, the need for critical infrastructure in the grid, and to ask the UK Government to recognise that the existing grid infrastructure across the Celtic sea is not fit for purpose, requires innovative solutions both on and offshore, and to ensure that anticipatory investment becomes the way in which the grid is able to operate in future. As the Member will know, the pattern of grid investment has been they've not been able to invest, other than where there is already a demonstrated demand. We need to be able to anticipate demand because of all the electricity that we want to see generated from renewable sources around our coastline. I'm looking forward to a reply from the Prime Minister. I'm sure there will be one, and, then, we will be able to work together.
The Member will know that we published 'The Future Energy Grids for Wales' report in July this year, and the Minister for Climate Change set out our next steps here in the Senedd only a week ago. There is more that we can do, but we can only do it together, and that's why I hope that we will have a UK Government equally committed to making sure that the investment that is necessary, if we're to take advantage of the huge opportunities that are there for Wales, that that investment is readily forthcoming.
Good afternoon, First Minister. As Sam Kurtz says, we went to this round-table, and it is quite inspiring, the plans that they have for renewable energy in that particular area, which obviously covers Mid and West Wales as well. So, just focusing on one of the other key takeaways, jobs and skills, it was really hammered home to us how many people they actually need in Pembroke in order to develop the ambitious plans they have. So, for floating offshore wind, which I know you have supported and you continue to support, for every 1 GW of energy produced in the first phase they need 10,000 new jobs, and that will go on obviously over 20 years or so. And so, you can imagine the potential to create new jobs that are needed in that region, but they actually need them quite quickly, as 2035 is only 12 years away. So, I wonder if you would consider accelerating the net-zero action skills plan, in order to ensure that they can lock in to the people and jobs that they need in that area. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Look, I hope that all those jobs absolutely will be realised. They will be jobs in parts of Wales where it's sometimes been difficult to find new economic opportunities, and they will be jobs that will allow young people who want to stay and make their futures in those parts of Wales—they will be able to see that future in front of them. There is one prior step before we can be confident about that, and that is that investors in the renewable energy future of Wales have to have the confidence that there is a long-term prospect for them too. At the moment, we're not in that position. We have a four-year horizon from the Crown Estate, and that simply is not enough. If you speak to the very big developers, who have very large sums of money that they're looking to invest in Wales, they say they're only able to mobilise that level of investment if they know that there are 20 years in front of them in which those leases, those new possibilities will be there for them. If they don't see that in front of them, then those jobs are not going to be realised, the jobs won't come.
That means that it is sometimes difficult to persuade young people in that part of Wales to take that leap of faith, and that when they have choices in front of them about careers that they could pursue, they should choose to take up the courses at Pembroke college, for example, that will create the skills that we need for floating offshore wind in future. Why would you do that as a young person if you weren't confident that those two years you will spend will genuinely lead to a job in that industry? When I was at Pembrokeshire College not that long ago, Llywydd, I was talking to people who are running these new courses. They were explaining how they'd go out into schools, they try and meet young people when they're 14 years of age, they make a special effort to talk to young women, and they enthuse them with what might be possible for them in their lifetime. Then those young people go home, they talk to their parents, and they say, 'I'm going to go on a course that will equip me with the skills I need to be part of the renewable energy future of Wales.' Their parents say to them, ‘Well, I haven't heard much about that. I know what a teacher does, and I know what somebody who works for the council does.' We have to create the confidence amongst those young people and their families that if you choose to acquire the skills that you will need to be part of this industry, that industry and those jobs are going to materialise.
That's why I say we will do more. We are already investing in Pembrokeshire, particularly, to make sure there are skills there. We're working with Blue Gem Wind, Floventis Energy and others to make sure that the voice of employers is heard in the way those courses are designed. But until there is a pathway, not just for the next couple of years but well into the future, the investment that we need will be stifled, and the jobs that we want to train people for will not come in the volumes that we would wish to see and that were being discussed at the round-table.
Prif Weinidog, the transition to renewable energy will play a huge part in our carbon-neutral future, as will work to make the public sector carbon neutral by 2030. Members will be aware of my campaign of public sector disinvestment to also be achieved by the 2030 date, a date in line with climate science and recognising the need to act now. In December, the Welsh Local Government Association has a meeting with leaders and its pension leads; the meeting is all about getting consensus around pension investments, the need to meet that target date of 2030 and the need to move away from fossil fuels and invest in other sectors, like the growing market of the renewable energy sector. First Minister, will you join me in congratulating partners in local government and the WLGA for taking these steps and urge them to find consensus around the 2030 date?
Thanks to Jack Sargeant for this, and thank you to Jack for all the work that he has done to highlight this issue and for the meetings that I've been able to have with him and with other players in this field. The Welsh Government continues to encourage local government pension authorities to decarbonise their pension investments, and it's good to know that there will be that workshop happening in early December, a pensions and decarbonisation workshop. But the point I think that I'd like to emphasise, and that ties the two parts of this question together, is we don't simply need pension funds to decarbonise, we need them to have positive ambitions to invest in those things that will make a difference to all our futures. I think Members will have heard some things in the news today about new ways in which pension funds can be encouraged to invest the huge sums that they have at their disposal in creating the jobs of the future. As pension funds decarbonise on the one hand, wouldn’t it be fantastic if they were also part of the investment that we will need in those new forms of renewable energy that will sustain jobs in Wales, and at the same time play our part in meeting that huge challenge of our lifetime, climate change?
I thank Darren Millar for that question. The cystic fibrosis treatments Kaftrio, Symkevi, Orkambi and Kalydeco are all today routinely available in Wales, in accordance with the commercial access agreement reached with the manufacturer in 2020. Future use is currently subject to a consultation being undertaken by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Thank you for that response, First Minister. There have been huge leaps forward in cystic fibrosis treatments in recent decades. We’ve seen life expectancy leap from being in the thirties to being in the fifties. Thanks to the modulator therapies that are currently available to patients, now a near-normal life expectancy is expected for many cystic fibrosis patients. But as you said, there is now some draft guidance from NICE in relation to a number of modulator therapies and there is a prospect potentially of them not being available in the future because of the significant cost of these particular medications.
I appreciate, and everybody in this Senedd appreciates, the importance of balancing the public purse against the benefits that people might derive, but these are game-changing therapies that are available to hundreds of patients in Wales, and may not be in the future. If NICE do make a decision not to recommend these treatments, what consideration has the Welsh Government given to continuing to have a commercial arrangement with the manufacturer of some of these modulator therapies? Can the First Minister confirm that the individual patient funding request route to accessing these medications may still be available?
First of all, I completely understand the anxiety that the consultation has caused for so many families. I want to make completely clear to people that anybody who is currently a beneficiary of these drugs will continue to be so, including those younger children between aged two and seven who have recently been eligible for the drugs.
I think we have to recognise that NICE is often in a negotiation with a pharmaceutical company, and I think that this is what you see happening at the moment. At the moment, the price that the company requires is one that NICE says it could not recommend. So, part of what will need to go on will be a negotiation with the company to bring the price within that affordable range. I think you see those negotiations lying behind what we see going on today. I very much hope that Vertex Pharmaceuticals will come to an arrangement that would allow the drug to be available not just in Wales but across the whole of the United Kingdom. That is the right outcome for patients, and I believe it’s probably the right outcome for the company as well, because they get paid a great deal now for making those drugs available.
In the end, we rely on the advice of NICE: independent, expert, impartial. We take it when we like the advice, and we have to take it when we don’t like the advice, because otherwise, the system is broken. And that’s always been the case in health; not just with NICE but with organisations like the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. We’ve had many questions on the floor here about whether we could support a vaccine for this condition, and so on. We take the advice of the JCVI. If they say we do it, we do it. And the same would be true of NICE. My hope is that, as a result of the consultation and the discussions that go on, we will reach a position where these drugs, life-saving in the way that the Member described, will continue to be available here in Wales.
Many of my constituents continue to get in touch with me—including the Perkins family and their daughter Delilah, and I’m also meeting another family this Friday in Bridgend—because they have children with cystic fibrosis, and as we have said, these therapies can give people with this life-limiting condition an extra 50 years—like an actual life. So effective are these therapies that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency announced approval for Kaftrio for eligible two to five-year olds just last week. As you said, First Minister, NICE's committee concluded that modulator therapies, including all the ones we've talked about, do have important benefits for people with cystic fibrosis, but they cannot be considered to offer sufficient value for money at the current price for them to be recommended for routine use on the NHS. This does sound incredibly cold and callous, I think, to many of the families out there and their children. I would also hope, therefore, that the manufacturer really does work with NICE to offer a price that presents better value, because it is incredibly expensive, what they're trying to charge. First Minister, will you join with me in encouraging all of our constituents to provide feedback to the consultation so that they can have their say—for themselves and for their children—and hope that a negotiation can come forward with the best option for everybody? Diolch.
Diolch yn fawr, Sarah Murphy. I certainly agree that the voice of the patient needs to be heard very clearly in the consultation and those individual stories need to be fed through to both NICE and to the manufacturer as well. It's a very important job we ask NICE to do in coming to that calculation. If we didn't ask them to do it, companies would simply be able to set their own price, and you can imagine what that would mean. So, cold-hearted as it sounds that this is a matter of negotiation and getting a price that the NHS can afford, it's an absolutely necessary negotiation. I hope that those families who have been worried by the fact of the consultation and know the difference these drugs make in the lives of their children will contribute to the consultation, and contribute not simply to NICE but also to the company itself, so that a price can be agreed that allows the good that these drugs undoubtedly do in people's lives to continue.
Diolch, Llywydd; I'm grateful to you. First Minister, a constituent contacted me about the new drugs that are coming out to help children with cystic fibrosis. Young Bertie, a constituent of mine, is now approaching his second birthday. At three weeks old, he was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, but the only hope that the parents were given then was that these new treatments would prolong his life and his quality of care. So, First Minister, following on from the consultation, can you outline to the Chamber today what informal discussions you've had as a Government with NICE and what you've put in to this consultation to make sure that no children in Wales are left without the treatment they need and to make sure that we can extend the lives of our young people in Wales? Because I think that is fundamentally what we are here to do—to improve the lives of our young people here in Wales.
I agree with the points that the Member makes. We won't have informal conversations with NICE; I don't think that would be right or proper. We will quite definitely represent the views of the Welsh NHS and Welsh patients in the consultation exercise, and that will reflect many of the views that have been expressed around the Chamber this afternoon.
As a reserved matter, monitoring of postal services and the Royal Mail lies in the hands of the UK Government. Royal Mail has failed to meet its obligations to people in Wales over recent years and the Welsh Government raises this at every opportunity.
Diolch. First Minister, the Royal Mail continues to play an important role in the lives of communities across Wales, but its workforce on the ground is overworked, physically exhausted and stressed to the limit. And yet, the privatised Royal Mail has been fined £5.6 million by Ofcom for failing to meet both its first and second-class delivery targets. In 2023, post rounds are physically impossible for its hard-working employees. The workforce are facing 13-mile rounds, told to take on extra rounds, told to leave letters and told to focus on more valuable deliveries such as tracked or parcel deliveries. So, it's no wonder that morale is at absolute rock bottom. And in September, Royal Mail raised the price for a book of first-class stamps to £10, and that's the second rise in six months. This increase in the price of a book this year alone is an increase of more than four times the rate of inflation—another blow to the people of Wales that use Royal Mail. But all this further pain is being inflicted whilst International Distributions Services, Royal Mail's owner, has paid £447 million in dividends to its shareholders since March 2021. First Minister, Royal Mail was controversially sold off by David Cameron's Tory-led UK coalition Government, and the selling off of the family silver saw the universal service obligation retained, but a responsibility that Royal Mail now wishes to divest itself of. So, then, First Minister, how does the Welsh Government assess the performance of the privatised Royal Mail for the people of Wales? What actions can it take to hold the Royal Mail to its lawful commitments? And, secondly—
Well, Llywydd, I well remember the promises that were made at the time of privatisation—how this was going to be yet another magic bullet, if only you handed it over to somebody else, the service would be better run, it would be more effectively run, it would provide a better service to customers. Well, none of that has turned out to be true at all. In the way that Rhianon Passmore has set out, users of the service get a worse service now as a result of privatisation, and the people who work for the service, quite certainly, have borne the brunt of those failures.
Now, we take those opportunities that come our way to raise these matters. The Minister for Social Justice and I met the regulator recently, alongside other regulators, asking them what they are doing to protect the most disadvantaged customers—people who can't afford those rates of increases to buy a simple postage stamp. Beyond our responsibilities, of course, we rely on our colleagues at Westminster to discharge their scrutiny responsibilities, and I look forward, Llywydd—I look forward to the day when people in Wales are served by Labour Ministers at Westminster, where we will be able to do a better job of making sure the Royal Mail provides the service in Wales to which people in Wales are entitled.
Llywydd, working with Transport for Wales, we continue to develop a metro system for Swansea bay to deliver safe, accessible and affordable public transport for the region. This work will inform regional transport plans, which are due to be submitted by the end of March 2025.
Thank you, First Minister for your answer. I wonder if you could cast your mind back to 23 March 2001. And if it helps, Bill Clinton had not long left the White House, Hear'Say's 'Pure and Simple' was No. 1 in the charts—a great song, I'd recommend it—and a young Tom Giffard was looking forward to his tenth birthday. It was also the day that the then Welsh Labour Government Minister, Sue Essex, held a turf-cutting ceremony to begin the works at a brand-new Brackla railway station. But the 22 and a half years since have been anything but pure and simple, as the station has not been built and the land remains barren. And whilst it was included in the initial metro plan, the south Wales metro phase 2 interim evaluation report makes no mention of a Brackla station either, and it's instead pushed into a future phase with no date.
So, First Minister, I just think people in Brackla want clarity. If the station isn't going ahead, wouldn't it be better just to say so now, and then the land could be used for something else, rather than remaining in limbo for another quarter of a century? So, how are you working with TfW and the south Wales metro to offer people in Brackla that clarity?
Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, and Trefnydd
Diolch, Llywydd. There are no changes to this week's business. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.
Can I please ask for a statement from the Deputy Minister for Climate Change about the ongoing fiasco happening at Quakers Yard? This train station—a vital transport hub for many in the area—was closed in April to allow upgrade works to be carried out. We were told that Quakers Yard would be opened in October, yet here we are in November and it's very much closed. Recently, it was revealed that the blame for this sorry saga lies at the doors of Transport for Wales, and it would appear, Minister, that TfW oversaw a series of planning blunders that has resulted in long delays to the station reopening.
A spokesperson in Merthyr council said that if TfW had followed planning procedure, this could have been avoided. Minister, commuters are really genuinely paying the price as a result of this shambolic situation, with many residents at their wits' end. This Government is constantly attacking motorists, telling them to get out of their cars and onto public transport, yet it's near enough impossible when blunders like this are unfolding. It's getting beyond a joke, and residents are understandably feeling neglected and frustrated.
Early 2024 has been given as the expected reopening date, but how can we have any confidence in that, given that previous reopening dates have come and gone and Quakers Yard is still closed? So, a statement from the Deputy Minister outlining how on earth this has happened and what has been learnt from this situation would be really greatly appreciated, because we don't want to see this happening again. Thank you, Minister.
Over the past couple of months, I've become increasingly concerned to see the nightmarish, overwhelmingly dystopian circus of the UK Conservative Party unravelling in real time. And whilst I'm glad to see the prospect of a UK Labour Government, there remains a very real prospect of a scorched-earth tactic up until then. Chief amongst these, Minister, is the UK Government's desire to give police instant access to not only private dashcam footage, but also the passport database and the immigration and asylum system databases, potentially turning loved ones against each other, in an alarming Orwellian fashion. At present, the police national database is limited to individuals who have been arrested. So, Minister, would you be able to confirm whether the Welsh Government has had any discussions to ensure that a firewall is in place, to protect those who have done no wrong, and, additionally, have you had any discussions with the UK Government about more police officers on our streets and in our communities, instead of being part of a Big Brother scheme? Diolch.
Thank you. Well, as obviously you're very aware, policing is not devolved to the Welsh Government, and is a responsibility of the Home Office. But, obviously, Welsh Government Ministers do have many conversations with our policing leads here in Wales, because there is a very close interface with community safety, for instance, and the Minister for Social Justice leads on those conversations. I think what is really important is that the public must have trust and confidence in the actions of the police, especially, I think, in terms of clarity for what their data is used for. And I know it was something that was discussed at the recent policing partnership board for Wales—I think back in September. The Minister for Social Justice chairs that board, along with the First Minister. I think you make a really important point. We know that the number of police officers funded by the Home Office is still lower than it was back in 2010.
Trefnydd, I'd like to call for a statement from the Minister for Climate Change on local authority housing allocation expectations. I've heard concerns from residents in Gwynedd, in my region of North Wales, regarding the social housing register, and they've shared with me that, when their circumstances change within the house that they're in, or if they move within private rented accommodation, they automatically come off the social housing register, and then that person has to reapply, go to the bottom of the list, and the whole process starts over and over again. I have a resident in particular who's had to move a number of times in private rented accommodation, mainly for reasons outside of their control, desperate to get into social housing, but the way in which the housing allocation works means they're right at the bottom of the list every single time, and it seems to be unfair. So, I'd be grateful to receive a statement from the Minister for Climate Change, outlining Welsh Government's expectations when it comes to the allocation of local authority housing. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Thank you. Well, the Welsh Government obviously gives all our local authorities guidance in relation to the way they allocate. I think you make a really important point—there can be nothing more disheartening than applying and then going back to the bottom of the list, or indeed reapplying. I will ask the Minister for Climate Change if there are any plans to update that guidance.
I want to raise a deeply concerning matter relating to an alarming increase in the number of hate crime and Islamaphobic e-mails that have inundated Swansea central mosque's inbox recently. I'm asking for a Government statement on how they are working with the police to support those of the Muslim faith in Wales.
The second statement I'm asking for is an update on energy standing charges. Can the Welsh Government provide an update on discussions taking place with the regulator regarding energy standing charges? Standing charges punish those who can least afford to pay. At a very minimum, no standing charges should be paid on days when no energy is used. People who cannot afford to use energy, when they finally put a £10 token in, discover a large portion of it has gone to pay for their standing charge, before they actually use any energy at all. This in my opinion, whilst legal, is both cruel and unnecessary. Thank you.
Thank you. Well, this month does see Islamophobia Awareness Month, and it's really important that challenging Islamophobia should not be left solely to Muslims. I think it's important that every one of us calls out and eliminates hate and prejudice in all its forms. And I think every one of us has a responsibility in this area. The Welsh Government have spoken to policing leads regularly across the last few weeks particularly, where we have unfortunately seen a rise in hate crime, and we've emphasised the importance of people across Wales feeling safe, no matter their faith or ethnic identity, and no person—no-one—should have to tolerate hate or prejudice. And I absolutely encourage everyone to report every incident of hate.
In response to your second question regarding energy standing charges, I think there are two issues with standing charges. We've obviously got the postcode lottery around the amounts charged, and the fact that costs are applied, as you said, even when people have used very little or even no electricity or energy that day. As Ministers, we've regularly called for urgent reform of standing charges by UK Ministers. The Minister for Social Justice recently reiterated this with the UK Minister for Energy Consumers and Affordability earlier this month, and we will also be reiterating our call in a formal response to the Ofgem review into standing charges, which Ofgem announced, I think, in the middle of November.
Good afternoon, Minister. I wonder if I could request two statements, please. One is from the Minister for Climate Change on the issue of building safety remediation costs, which are currently and still continue to be passed on to residents in properties with fire and other safety defects. I've been contacted by a growing number of distressed constituents and other people who are facing unaffordable costs for essential safety works on their buildings. And as the Minister has said previously, these costs should rightly be paid by developers. So, I wonder if there could be a statement from the Minister, please.
And the second statement is with regard to the funding of the arts. Organisations in my region such as the Hafren, Mid Wales Opera and Impelo have lost their funding completely. The Wyeside Arts Centre, which is an iconic venue serving the people of Powys in Builth Wells for decades, has had its support cut to a mere 20 per cent. And, sadly, if it doesn't get any funding by 2024, the curtains could come down for good. Whilst I understand the allocation of funding is by the independent Arts Council of Wales, I wonder if consideration might be given to any interim funding to tide them over until the outcome of an appeal. Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd.
Thank you. The Minister for Climate Change will be bringing forward a statement on building safety next week in the Chamber.
With regard to your questions around arts funding, the Welsh Government, as you point out, funds the arts mainly through the Arts Council of Wales, which operates in accordance with the arm's-length principle. You mentioned three particular organisations in your own area, and I'm aware of Mid Wales Opera and Hafren. I think it would be important, if they don't agree with the outcome, that they have the opportunity to engage with the appeals process. Unfortunately, that did close, so I hope they did do that, if that was the case. And around Wyeside Arts Centre, as you say, they have been successful. They haven't received the full amount, and unfortunately many successful organisations, with the current financial position, did not receive indicative awards for the full amounts requested through the investment review. Obviously, the outcomes of that review are a matter for ACW.
Trefnydd, could I please ask for a statement from the Deputy Minister for Climate Change on the review of transport solutions in South Wales East? With the introduction of the 20 mph policy increasing the already insurmountable congestion in Chepstow on one of the most congested roads in Wales, my constituents have been absolutely reaching out, expressing their desperation for the Chepstow bypass. Now, I raised it with the First Minister here some 18 months ago, and he explained that no action would be taken until Monmouthshire County Council had consulted on their possible solutions. Today there is still no update on this. But the Deputy Minister then informed me that Transport for Wales would undertake stakeholder workshops to deal with travel issues at the end of this year. We are now just 40 days away from the end of the year, and the situation in Chepstow and many other areas in South Wales East is getting worse. Constituents need hope and clarity as soon as possible, hence the request for this statement. Thank you, Trefnydd.
I wonder, Minister, if we might have a Welsh Government statement on a policy of treating care experience as a protected characteristic. Local authorities, for example, can pass motions adopting that policy, and care experience could then be treated as a protected characteristic in terms of equality impact assessments. So, it is a policy that can have practical benefits, and it has been adopted, for example, by some local authorities in England. We know that care experience does have many lifetime consequences, unfortunately, Minister—in terms of health and well-being, in terms of income, in terms of the likelihood of experiencing homelessness, and a number of other important aspects of life. So, I wonder if we might have a Welsh Government statement on these important matters.
Thank you. The Equality Act 2010 determines protected characteristics, and, obviously, that is a reserved matter. It's outside of our competence, but we are all aware that there are differing views and potential unintended consequences around the issue of assigning a protected characteristic. As a Government, we remain committed to talking to young people about this issue, to shape our policy thinking, going forward. I absolutely understand the stigma that can be felt by care-experienced young people in their day-to-day lives. It's really important that we do listen to children and young people. I know the Deputy Minister absolutely does that and continues to meet many to be able to help form her thinking around policies. I'm sure you're aware Welsh Government is signed up as a corporate parent, and we will continue to work to support the consideration of the needs of care-experienced children when we're looking at that policy development across Government.
Can I have a statement from the Minister for Health and Social Services this afternoon regarding north Denbighshire community hospital in Rhyl, or the lack of north Denbighshire community hospital for my constituents in Rhyl, Prestatyn, Rhuddlan, Dyserth and other areas, at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in the town? I know, in previous answers, you and the health Minister have said you are waiting for the submission of a business case from Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, but I believe this is not the case, unfortunately, Trefnydd, as the business case was submitted way back in November 2020 with approval from the board, and has been on your desk for over three years. I have a copy of it, which confirms the date on which it was submitted to the Welsh Government, while my constituents are suffering on a daily basis with a struggling accident and emergency service at Glan Clwyd Hospital, with long waiting times, as we don't have a minor injuries unit in Denbighshire, with local people needing to travel out of the county to Holywell or Llandudno to access MIU for the walking wounded. As you know, north Denbighshire community hospital with a minor injuries unit has been promised for over a decade, with no progress from the Welsh Government in these 10 years, leaving the people of Denbighshire struggling to find timely healthcare. And with such a high level of elderly people, your failure on this matter really is affecting the most vulnerable people in society. So, can I have a statement from the health Minister detailing what progress has been made on this since I last raised it with you, and, if there is no progress, will you admit that you and the Labour Party have failed the people of the Vale of Clwyd?
Well, I don't have to do that, because there has been progress, and I'm very happy to update Gareth Davies. There was a meeting on 17 October with representatives from the Welsh Government, Conwy, Denbighshire and Flintshire local authorities, and the health board have agreed to review the model for the north Denbighshire hospital, with a focus on a minor injuries unit, intermediate care beds and integrated care.
Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd appreciate a Welsh Government statement, please, on support for farmers to diversify their business. During last week's statement on bovine tuberculosis, I attempted to explore issues around recurring breakdown. It's important that Members speak freely—truth through argument, and all that—but we must always do so responsibly. In this case, I was clumsy and I didn't express myself terribly well, and I'm sorry for any upset that was caused. I should have been clearer that I was talking about farms that have been continuously impacted by TB and the ongoing pressures of the current system. I know that the cycle of having to test, to cull, then to start all over again causes huge stress. In those cases, I think there should be a conversation about how that situation can be resolved, or at least improved, and diversification should be part of that. So, I would appreciate an update on Welsh Government support for farmers looking for help to do that. Thank you.
Thank you. Well, I'm sure your words will be very welcome in the agricultural sector. Around diversification, we've supported our farmers to be able to diversify through a wide range of schemes. Just now, I've got the second agricultural diversification scheme window open. I think that closes in the middle of January, and I've put aside an indicative budget of around £1 million for that window. So, any farmers are able to apply for that. But, as I say, we've worked very closely with the sector, being led as to in which way they would like to diversify. So, probably when I first came into post, there was a big push, I remember, around glamping and what support we could give, and then renewable energy, and there's still a focus on renewable energy. You'll be aware, during the passing of the Agriculture (Wales) Act earlier this year, Jane Dodds brought forward an amendment about diversification in relation to renewable energy. I think, at the moment, an area that farmers are really keen to look at is horticulture. So, again, we've had schemes, and we will continue to bring forward schemes, such as the horticulture development scheme, going forward.
Item 3 is a statement by the Minister for Finance and Local Government on the Local Government Finance (Wales) Bill. I call on the Minister to make the statement—Rebecca Evans.
Yesterday, the Local Government Finance (Wales) Bill and explanatory memorandum were laid before the Senedd. This Bill will make a significant contribution to the delivery of a major package of reforms to the local taxation systems in Wales, addressing many of the limitations of the current arrangements identified from extensive research and experience of operating the current systems for over twenty years. Some of the Bill's provisions will deliver specific improvements in the short to medium term, while others enable the Welsh Government to better adapt the system as circumstances and priorities change. Our experience, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis in recent years, has been that these systems need to be more agile so that we can respond to changing contexts for households and businesses.
In relation to non-domestic rates, the Bill provides for a range of reforms, which were the subject of consultation last year. These include a fundamental improvement to the system, in the form of three-yearly revaluations. This is a core aspect of our non-domestic rates reform agenda, ensuring that valuations are updated more frequently to reflect recent market conditions. It will also be possible, in future, for the revaluation year or cycle to be adjusted by regulations. To ensure more frequent revaluations are sustainable over the longer term, the Bill provides for changes to the way ratepayers provide information to the Valuation Office Agency.
In future, ratepayers will check the information held by the Valuation Office Agency annually and report any changes when they occur through the year. This will help the Valuation Office Agency maintain accurate records and reduce the amount of additional evidence gathered from ratepayers ahead of each revaluation. We will commence these new requirements when a clear and straightforward online service for ratepayers to use, supported by guidance, is made available by the Valuation Office Agency. Providing information in this way will support the ongoing maintenance of accurate rating lists. This aim will also be supported by the extension of the completion notice procedure for new buildings provided by the Bill. In future, completion notices will also be served on buildings that have been temporarily removed from a rating list while alterations are made. This closes a gap in the procedure. Timely information benefits all stakeholders by ensuring that bills are accurate and improving fairness.
The non-domestic rates tax base is unique to Wales. Our reforms seek to ensure we have the necessary levers to adapt the system in future as circumstances and priorities change. The Bill provides regulation-making powers to confer, vary and withdraw reliefs and exemptions, and to prescribe differential multipliers. The extent to which we are currently able to adjust these parameters of the system in a responsive manner is inconsistent. In relation to the ability of local authorities to award relief, the Bill removes a timing restriction that's not compatible with their otherwise broad discretion.
Finally on non-domestic rates, the Bill delivers on two established commitments relating to avoidance. Strengthened eligibility conditions will address the exploitation for avoidance purposes of charitable relief for unoccupied properties while ensuring it is still available for genuine cases. Techniques for tax avoidance continually evolve, and non-domestic rates are no exception. The Bill makes provision about counteracting advantages arising from artificial non-domestic rating avoidance arrangements. Specific avoidance behaviours will be defined in regulations, which will enable us to be more responsive in future. Taken together, these provisions amount to a significant refresh and modernisation of the framework for non-domestic rates.
In relation to council tax, Wales continues to lead the way on reform. Earlier this month, I launched a phase 2 consultation on making the system fairer. We will not shy away from grasping the issues presented by a regressive and outdated tax, and this aim is shared within this Senedd through the co-operation agreement. In the phase 2 consultation, I set out three possible approaches for how a reformed system could look under a revaluation. Looking ahead, the Bill will put more frequent revaluations on a statutory footing. This serves to maintain the integrity of the tax base on a regular basis, ensuring households are paying the right amount of council tax. I'm clear that we need to avoid distortions that can occur when revaluations are postponed over many years. After consultation, I believe revaluations should take place every five years, and the Bill reflects this. The Bill sets out that the cycle will begin in 2030. However, this date might need to change during the passage of the Bill as we receive and understand the responses to the consultation that I issued last week on the scale and the pace of council tax reform. As part of each revaluation, we will be able to review the bands and the tax rates to ensure the system remains fair. We will also have the ability to shorten or lengthen the cycles if needed. The Bill will also confer regulation-making powers that will enable changes to the labelling of any future band structure developed as part of a revaluation exercise, and to amend the date for publishing a draft list.
Achieving a robust and fair council tax is one of the single most beneficial actions that this Government and future governments can take towards making Wales a fairer country. I hope the benefits of what I'm setting out today will be felt in the pockets of many households over the years to come. The provisions relating to council tax discounts and disregards are important levers for ensuring certain households are supported, and to contributing to broader socioeconomic goals, such as tackling poverty. The Bill provides an opportunity to change the highly restrictive legislation applying in this area and supports efforts to make the system fairer, reduce complexity and achieve greater alignment with our goals. Provisions within this Bill will allow greater flexibility to set, create and make changes to council tax discounts and disregards in the future, and to respond to changing needs. The Welsh Government has been clear that the existing one-adult council tax discount will remain in place, and this is confirmed in the Bill. It is also our intention that this will continue at 25 per cent. The phase 2 council tax consultation provides an update on our review of the framework of discounts, disregards and exemptions and on our review of the council tax reduction scheme. I have been clear that the arrangements must be fit for purpose and that there must be robust arrangements in place to help low-income households.
I look forward to the scrutiny of the Bill by Members and to hearing the views of stakeholders, delivery partners and the public during the legislative process. Diolch.
Thank you, Minister, for bringing forward this statement to the Chamber here this afternoon. Certainly, local government finance is hugely important, and we're seeing it now play out with councils, coming up to the budget-setting process at the moment. I certainly appreciate the complexity of this and the effort that goes into sustaining and supporting councils and the services that they provide to our residents.
In terms of the Bill, there is, of course, a long way to go on this journey, and I welcome the chance to scrutinise it as it makes its way through the Senedd. I'll do this, of course, as a member of the Local Government and Housing Committee, but also in my role here in the Chamber as the shadow Minister for local government, and, of course, there are lots of different parts to scrutinise within this Bill. As a gut reaction, there are elements of the Bill to welcome, including the desire to make the work of the Valuation Office Agency more transparent for ratepayers here in Wales, in terms of the information that's held, and also the desire for a more efficient system, as I think you describe it, to close the gaps in procedure. I'm sure ratepayers would welcome that.
In terms of the initial read of the explanatory memorandum and the statement here today, I also do have some concerns. I'd like to start by focusing on the provision for council tax within the Bill. It states that the Bill would allow Welsh Ministers greater flexibility to create and make changes to discounts and categories of disregard. I am concerned that this could lead Wales towards higher taxes through the back door, further increasing the burden on working people here. And also I'm not clear how much of the decision-making power in this area would be removed from locally elected councillors, because it looks as though more power is going to Welsh Ministers and perhaps away from local councillors. So, perhaps some clarification on that would be welcome. In terms of discounts and disregards, Minister, you'll know that they can be life savers for certain people, and I'm pleased again today you've confirmed that the 25 per cent single person discount will remain. But there are of course other discounts in terms of council tax that people rely on, and I'd perhaps like to hear more from you today as to where you see those finishing, with the result of this Bill. Will some people suffer because some of the discounts will be taken away from them?
Just going back to that broader point of local democracy, I do have some concerns that this Bill could water down the role of locally elected councillors. It looks as though there are a number of powers that Ministers are looking to take on, such as the duty for a single national council-tax reduction scheme. I would have thought that—. My general ethos is that those being seen to take the taxes should also be the ones responsible for setting that tax, and I'm sure, Minister, you'd want to see local democracy strengthened not weakened. So, I want to know perhaps what you'll do to protect local council powers. And in addition, in terms of the role of corporate joint committees at a regional structure as well, I haven't seen anything in particular in here that is a role for them to play in terms of taxation, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on that as well.
I'm grateful to the Member for those questions—an awful lot there to go through, and I know that we'll have many more opportunities to get into the depth of it through the committee scrutiny process. But just to reassure colleagues that this has been a culmination of an awful lot of work over many years. So, colleagues will remember when we published 'Reforming Local Government Finance in Wales: Summary of Findings', in 2021, and that looked back at all of the research that we'd undertaken since 2017. And I think that the message there was strongly that the system does need to be reformed to bring it up to date. That's because local taxation is just so central and important to our daily lives. Local government spends over £10 billion annually delivering services, and around 30 per cent of that is raised through local taxes, so it's important that the system that we have is up to date and is robust.
In terms of the purpose of the Bill, then—and I don't want to conflate the discussion that we had on the phase 2 consultation on council tax reform last week with the work that we're doing now, nor on the reviews that we're doing in terms of the discounts and exemptions and so on—the aim, really, is to ensure that the council tax and non-domestic rates systems are more reflective of market conditions, and it does that through the more frequent revaluations, that the frameworks for council tax and non-domestic rates are more responsive to changing priorities—so, we've seen through the pandemic how we had to operate very quickly to address some of those issues—and also that the changes are tailored to Wales's needs. So, I think those things are very important.
In terms of the non-domestic rates provisions, Sam Rowlands referred to CJCs, and I think that in that he was referring to the potential for rates retention. That's something that, obviously, we are looking at through the work that's going on in terms of free ports and also the work, potentially, around investment zones as well. We have to work through the parameters of that, but it wouldn't be relevant to this Bill, but just to reassure colleagues that that's part of the consideration as we move forward on those and other important economic development agendas.
Considering the revaluations and particularly the revaluation year, we have listened to calls from stakeholders in the business community that have been asking for these more frequent revaluations, and the three years has been warmly welcomed by the business sector. It does provide a balance between certainty but then also ensuring that the tax base is current and it is up to date, and that there is a degree of predictability and certainty in terms of when rates might change, so it doesn't happen too frequently, whilst also recognising that there are changing economic situations that we have to respond to too. So, I think that's the difference, really, with the council tax five years and the desire of businesses to have it slightly more up to date, if you like, and to do it more frequently.
I know that there is some interest in the antecedent valuation date and we are exploring with the Valuation Office Agency, because there is that gap between the AVD and the date that the revaluation comes into force. So, we are exploring whether there could be longer term, and it would be more fundamental, change in the system, and that could be considered, but, again, that's not part of the Bill—it's something that we are considering for the future.
In terms of the council tax reduction scheme, what this Bill does is make it a duty for Welsh Government Ministers to put in place a council tax reduction scheme in the future, because we know how important it is to supporting households. It doesn't take away the important roles that local authorities have in terms of delivering that scheme, and it doesn't take away their local discretion that they have in that area as well. What it does do is give people certainty that that scheme will be there for them if they need it in the future.
Diolch to the Minister for the statement today. As has already been alluded to, this Bill encompasses a wide range of measures that, taken together, will amount to the most radical and progressive reform of local government finances in the devolution era. The centrepiece of the Bill is, of course, the power to enable long overdue changes to council tax in Wales. Plaid Cymru has been clear for some time that council tax in its current state is regressive and outdated. It's an outdated system that disproportionately affects poorer households. I have long campaigned on this issue in my region for many years, and I'm therefore proud that, thanks to our co-operation agreement with the Welsh Government, we will be delivering this vital reform.
I'm also very pleased that the Institute for Fiscal Studies's independent report has emphatically concluded that this is unambiguously a good idea and shows that Wales is leading the way on council tax reform, compared to the rest of the UK. Good ideas can always be further improved, of course, and one issue cited in the IFS report in this respect was the council tax reduction scheme, the CTRS. As my colleague Sioned Williams raised last week, recent research by Citizens Advice has shown that council tax arrears is the most common debt issue facing Welsh people, as part of the problem is that the current qualification criteria for the CTRS do not always effectively support people on low incomes to meet their council tax liability. Could you, therefore, confirm whether the Bill will be used to explore ways of improving the CTRS to ensure that people who need support do not fall through the net?
We're also of the view that these measures should be considered as a starting point for longer term progress of reform of local government finance, something with which the report wholeheartedly concurs, and the projected state of local government finance over the next few years underlines the clear and urgent case for a radical approach. Even accounting for the predicted uplift of £169 million in local government funding next year, local governments are likely to face a funding gap of £354 million in 2024-25, which could rise to £744 million by 2027-28, a situation that the Wales Governance Centre rightly characterises as unsustainable. We simply cannot afford to stand still and shy away from bringing bold solutions to the table so that local government finances are placed on a sustainable footing.
A long-term ambition, therefore, is for council tax to be eventually replaced by a land value tax, which would go some way towards counteracting the shocking societal unfairness whereby 70 per cent of land in Britain is owned by less than 1 per cent of the population. It would also encourage far more efficient use of land than what happens at present. As part of the evidence-gathering process for this Bill, research was conducted by Bangor University into the feasibility of a land value tax in Wales, and the findings showed that a uniform national LVT rate of 1.41 per cent on residential land would be sufficient to raise the same revenues as are currently raised by council tax. But, as was highlighted in the study, the main impediment to introducing such a tax is the lack of effective data systems at the moment, which is a recurring theme across many aspects of governance in Wales. Can I, therefore, ask the Minister what work has been undertaken by the Welsh Government since the publication of the study to address this issue? And what are the practical steps to provide this foundation for an eventual introduction of a LVT in Wales?
I'll be very quick. Clause 20 talks about using digital only to publicise council tax changes. Could you revisit the wording in that to make sure that publication is done in newspapers as well? Diolch.
I'm grateful to the Member for those questions, and for recognising the important link to the work that we're doing through the co-operation agreement in terms of making council tax fairer. I'm very grateful to the designated Member for all the work that he's been doing to support that, because it has been a genuinely collaborative effort. So, I should put on record my thanks there. And yes, definitely, I'm open to ways in which we can further improve the legislation. Of course, that's why I look forward so much to the scrutiny process beginning, and when we bring this to have a fuller debate within the Senedd, but then also those important committee stages will be really instructive. No, of course we’re genuinely open to suggestions from colleagues as to how we can strengthen the Bill.
In terms of the council tax reduction scheme, what it does is it places a duty on the Welsh Ministers to make a single national council tax reduction scheme through regulations, with the ability to make in-year changes to the scheme. Obviously, the scheme we have at the moment was introduced in 2013, and it does provide local authorities with £244 million of support a year to support people in a whole range of situations—pensioners, working-age households, universal credit recipients, and so on. So, obviously it does make a big contribution to tackling poverty and to safeguarding people who are in financial difficulty, especially as a consequence of changes to the non-devolved welfare system.
The proposals for the scheme have been especially important during the cost-of-living crisis, and the changes that we are suggesting would be to allow us to make in-year changes, and that will help us to respond to those in-year emerging demands, such as the example that I gave previously. We are also doing, separately, a piece of work looking at the council tax reduction scheme in particular, so looking at the impact of universal credit on it, for example, and looking at what more we can do to get people signed up to the council tax reduction scheme. We know so many people who are eligible for it don’t have it, and that’s partly because people aren’t automatically enrolled for it, people aren’t automatically told about it. These simple things that we could do could make a big difference to making sure people get the support that they need. So, we’re looking at all of that as part of our wider work on the council tax reform programme.
And then in terms of the discounts and so on, the Bill will confer a power on Welsh Ministers to make regulations to enable change to be implemented more quickly and more responsibly over time. Again, this is because the current system in terms of both non-domestic rates and council tax predates devolution. So, it is old, it has not kept pace with changes, and obviously we’ve had to go back, I think, 13 times to the UK Government to have them legislate on our behalf to make changes, so we need to be able to make those changes here, and for this Senedd to be able to scrutinise those changes. So, I think that those things will be very important as well.
I very much welcome the statement. Non-domestic rates are disliked by the rich because they're difficult to reduce, as opposed to corporation tax, which is very easy to reduce. For example, Amazon paid £6.3 million in corporation tax in the UK last year, despite an income of £13 billion in sales.
I welcome a fundamental improvement to the system in the form of three-yearly valuations. I agree on the importance of valuations being updated more frequently to reflect changing market conditions. Why cannot we move to annual revaluations? I also welcome that specific avoidance behaviours would be defined in regulations.
Sam Rowlands mentioned the fire service levy, and I agree with him. Should all levies be shown outside the council tax as the police levy is, because the council has no control over the money that has been levied on them?
On land value tax, simple question, really: how would it affect social housing in very high value areas, such as within your own constituency, Minister?
I’m grateful to Mike Hedges for those questions, and just to say that the issue of the levies has been raised with me also by local authority leaders outside of the discussions around council tax reform, and it's something that I'm interested in exploring further with officials following the discussions that I've had. But we have no plans in that regard at the moment and, as colleagues will know, it's not reflected in the Bill.
I think the anti-avoidance work that is in the Bill, though, is really important because the avoidance of non-domestic rates liability isn't illegal, but we obviously want to reduce the opportunities for avoidance because it's a behaviour that does create artificial arrangements to gain tax advantages and that costs between £10 million and £20 million a year of lost revenue. So, that's money that should be going into local services that is being avoided.
One of the things that the Bill looks to do is around a general anti-avoidance rule. There's currently nothing of that sort for non-domestic rates in Wales. So, it's just important that we move forward with that and also to recognise that the efforts of the vast majority of taxpayers are to pay what is due, and it is important that we look to that minority who are intent on exploiting or abusing the system, to help make sure it's fair. We do have a long-standing commitment to tackling the avoidance of NDR and we've made significant progress already in delivering a range of measures over recent years. But what we see in the Bill is the flexibility, really, to respond to tax avoidance because techniques are always evolving and we need to be as fleet of foot as those who are intent on abusing the system. So, I'm really pleased that those measures are within the Bill and I look forward to further scrutiny on them.
And then, on land value tax, the specific point that has been raised will definitely need to be something that we consider as we do the longer term piece of work around land value taxation.
Council tax used to cover the provision of 24 per cent of services, prior to 2010 and the Cameron budget cutting public service funding; now it covers 30 per cent. I know that councillors dread every year the council tax-setting process they go through.
I'm concerned about the misinformation that came out last week regarding council tax. I'd like you to confirm that there will be a proper consultation process. You've said today that the council tax reduction scheme will still be in place—the single-person discount. Can you let me know what the time frame is? It's not about raising more money for the Welsh Government; it's about money for councils and it's about having a fairer system. We all need to make sure that the right information is being provided, rather than the scaremongering.
I'm very interested to hear that the reforms in the future might include land value tax, which was raised by Peredur; I think that would be really good. I know that we need to have a mapping system in place for that to happen. So, just, really, it's about getting the right facts out there and a timeline, please. Thank you.
I'm very, very grateful to Carolyn Thomas for raising that this afternoon. I've been really concerned at the level of misinformation that there's been out there about our proposals for council tax reform. I'm particularly concerned about it because whilst it might give a certain party a particular short-term advantage with the voters, what it really does is make those voters really stressed. I've had correspondence from people who are now really, really worried—people who are really struggling with their bills—that they're going to be losing their single-person discount. There's no truth in that at all, but people have been, unfortunately, misled, and now they're really feeling that they're misled about it.
I hear the Member behind me saying, 'We all know who the winners and losers are, don't we?' Well, we do, because the winners will be your constituents and mine who are most struggling; the people who need the help most will be the people who benefit most from this. I encourage everybody to have their say in the consultation.
We've also, you know, heard scaremongering that this is about raising more council tax overall. Again, it's nothing of the sort. There is no intention here to raise more council tax overall. It's not about raising a penny more; it's about raising what we raise in a fairer way, and I think that that should be something that all colleagues would be able to get behind.
Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you, Minister, for your statement today. I have two questions. Firstly, I'm glad to hear about the proposed changes to the way that ratepayers check and submit information to the Valuation Office Agency. I know from my own casework that some businesses have struggled with having to provide a large volume of evidence in a comparatively short space of time. In terms of managing what will be expected from ratepayers, have you had any discussions around the type of information that will need to be submitted and what kind of assessments will be built into any new system, so that we can be sure it's helping and supporting the small businesses that are at the heart of our high streets?
Secondly, any system of revaluation could, of course, have winners and losers. People who lose out may not have access to the resources, short term, to make up any shortfall, and that's in terms of both business rates and council tax. With flexibility being key to the Welsh Government's proposals, what sort of mechanisms will be put in place so that any change is managed and can be sympathetically dealt with?
I'm very grateful for those questions. It is important that the VOA has the latest and most up-to-date information about properties, because that can, obviously, improve the accuracy of the ratings list. So, improvements to the flow will, obviously, benefit ratepayers and local authorities, as well as the VOA itself, actually, because it will assist their work. So, what we intend is that ratepayers will access an online service, which will be provided by the VOA, and that will lead them through the steps that they need to comply with the requirement in the Bill to report changes to the information about their property. Then, through self-declaration, that will be updated annually, and we really are only talking about a quick visit to the website. But we won't activate any of those requirements until we are absolutely satisfied that ratepayers will have a very smooth and seamless way in which to provide that information, so that they can do what we're expecting of them. That might, actually, take place at the start of the next rating list.
In terms of transitional relief, well, we've just last year, now, undertaken a very successful revaluation of the NDR list, and there was transitional support provided to those businesses that saw an increase in their bills over a certain percentage. In future, when we do move to that more frequent revaluation, we shouldn't see such churn in the list, because it will be based on information that is much more current and up to date. And the same goes for council tax. When there is a revaluation, it is the intention to consider whether transitional support is required for those households that see an increase in their bills, and also to consider what transitional arrangements might be needed for local authorities that might see changes based on their local tax base as well.
Item 4 this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language on reform of the school year. I call on the Minister, Jeremy Miles.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In my first oral statement to this Chamber as Minister for Education and the Welsh Language, I stated clearly that every decision that I made would be guided by the needs and well-being of learners, and a relentless focus on narrowing educational inequalities. In order to do this, we must be open to new ways of working and not be afraid to make changes.
There is one fundamental aspect of our education system that hasn't changed in well over a century, one that has the potential to improve educational standards and to better support staff and learners, particularly the most disadvantaged, namely the way in which we structure school terms and holidays. The current school calendar has been in place for over 150 years. At that time, school was only compulsory up until the age of 12, there were no examinations, and the dates of the school terms were decided by the need for children to contribute to the economy during the summer. We live in very different times today.
Through our programme for government and the co-operation agreement, we want to achieve a more equitable calendar that is designed to support learner progression, to benefit learner and staff well-being, and to better suit modern living and working patterns. In starting on this work, we have considered international and local evidence. We've talked about options and their potential impacts directly with all those involved in the current system—those who design it, work within it, or those who use it.
We know that the current school calendar pattern can have a detrimental impact on student attendance and cause them to experience learning loss. Uneven term lengths can impact on the well-being of learners and staff, and it's unlikely that these will be the best conditions for managing workload or learning effectively. As well as this, fatigue can increase in the longer terms, and it can be challenging to cover curriculum content comprehensively in short half terms.
Dirprwy Lywydd, last month, I published further evidence relating to how learners, staff and families view the school calendar. This shows that the current structure is not as effective as it could be, and more evenly distributed breaks and more equal term lengths could be better at supporting learning, improving well-being and reducing fatigue in both learners and staff.
We must address this, so that high standards and aspirations are achieved for all learners. Our most disadvantaged learners and those with additional learning needs are the learners most adversely affected by the current calendar, where learning loss and disruption to routine present acute challenges. Similarly, a six-week summer isn't seen by everyone as a holiday. Many parents view a six-week summer break as too long, where boredom, less physical activity and risk of isolation can significantly impact the well-being of learners. Working parents can struggle to take the full six weeks off, and finding and financing childcare can be a challenge.
Our dedicated school staff also deserve a structure that allows them to teach and support learners, alongside the opportunity to properly rest and recuperate. Considering all of this, I believe that now is the right time to bring forward a progressive school calendar, deliberately designed to promote a more stable rhythm for continuous learning throughout the year, a school calendar that acknowledges the importance of well-being for learners and the education workforce alike and works to reduce fatigue by offering breaks at the right time, a school calendar that recognises the way we live, the way we work, and the way we learn today, and responds to these developments.
Last year, I issued a written statement announcing the intention to bring forward a consultation on the structure of the school calendar. That consultation exercise begins today. The current school calendar has uneven terms, with a longer autumn and shorter spring and summer terms. This is not intentional. Term length has been determined by the placement of public holidays such as Christmas and Easter. As Easter does not fall on a fixed date each year, this means term lengths change year on year. Terms that vary considerably in length can have negative impacts, as teachers and learners are faced with an uneven playing field from one year to the next, whereas terms of similar length present consistent blocks, facilitating equitable time to explore topics.
Learning loss over the summer break affects many learners, and this could be alleviated somewhat by redistributing part of the summer break to other times. Therefore, our first proposal is to extend the October half-term break to offer increased opportunity for learners and teachers to decompress during the longest term. Doing this would also reduce the length of time spent in school during the autumn term, to bring it more in line with the length of spring and summer terms, while also reducing the summer break by one week, to help alleviate learning loss.
Thank you for your statement, Gweinidog. Minister, are you really so comfortable within your Cardiff Bay bubble that you no longer have any idea about what the education sector's urgent priorities are on the ground in Wales? As you well know, Welsh education is facing a myriad of acute challenges at the moment, yet, astoundingly, this is the focus of your efforts.
You only have to step through the door of any school in Wales to realise that school budgets are so stretched and that children are not supported in the way that they absolutely need to be. Schools are really struggling, with the rise of children presenting with ALN, to be able to look after them, and with the capabilities of dealing with more severe learning needs, which are presenting themselves in acute ways now in our mainstream education. You have failed to deliver a national plan to help young people with mental health in our schools. The Government has failed to recruit new teachers and retain the ones that we have. You are failing to deal with concerning attainment levels, and, to top it off, the Programme for International Student Assessment results are on a par with those of Baltic states.
The fact that you're choosing now to prioritise changing the school year beggars belief. This shows how out of touch you are with the reality facing teachers and schools on a day-to-day basis. It was just last week we heard from school governors raising grave concerns about the frightening financial situation facing schools across Wales. Now is not the time to worry about your legacy or leadership campaign, when our education sector is crying out for urgent support. Minister, why do you feel that now is the right time to bring about this change, especially when no-one from the sector—nor parents—is calling for this? The First Minister said earlier that it's all a matter of priorities. Well, your priorities are clearly all wrong.
You and the Welsh Government commissioned Beaufort Research to carry out a research and engagement exercise into attitudes towards school year reform in Wales. The majority of respondents said that they were reasonably content with the status quo. However, they were concerned about any changes and the effect they would have, consequences on the exam series and how Wales-based learners may face disadvantage over that, and also not aligning with the majority of England, with whom we share porous borders.
Today, we've seen your own unions, like the National Education Union, come out and express their disappointment in you, Minister, for pressing ahead with this when there are clearly more urgent priorities, along with the Association of School and College Leaders Cymru dismissing the plan for a four-week summer holiday as an act of folly. Following this, Minister, my question to you is: can you reassure us in this Chamber that this Government will actually listen to any responses or act on any responses from a consultation, as that's not what you did with the 20 mph limits?
Well, where to begin? I was at a school in the Member's region yesterday, and I had an opportunity to discuss the proposals with the school council, ranging throughout each year in the school. I actually would like to compliment them for a much more thoughtful, balanced and authentic discussion than the Member was able to manage in her question.
She cites a number of points in her question that have no basis in truth or reality. She mentions the lack of evidence—[Interruption.] She mentions the lack of evidence, and I'm happy to point out to her—[Interruption.] Well, if she would like to listen, I'll point out to her that, in June, we published research on the effects of changes to the school year, a review of evidence. In June, we published a piece of work by Beaufort Research, exploring reform of the school year. In October of this year, we published research exploring perceptions and experiences of the school calendar, as well as a document of qualitative research and an updated review of the evidence. In March 2022, the Child Poverty Action Group published their views on reform of the school day and year in Wales. There is a wealth of evidence drawn both from our experience in the UK and internationally. She will know that Conservative Bromley in London, Conservative Northamptonshire and Cheshire West and Chester on our border with England are all authorities that have taken the approach that we are advocating in the consultation, because I think they share our view—[Interruption.]
She cites the concerns of the tourism sector, and I'm quoting here from one of our leading tourism businesses: 'The more we can spread the balance of holiday bookings throughout the year and away from summer peak, the better. We represent many of the finest holiday cottages in Wales, and we can fill them 10 times over in August, but encouraging bookings in spring and autumn could be a real help'.
But the best quote, I think, which I think encapsulates the balance of the argument here, is as follows, if I may, Dirprwy Lywydd: the current arrangements have
'been around for decades...and was designed at a time to suit the needs of those, like my own family members, who were then working on the farm. But things have changed, changed and changed again since then, and the modern world moves at a fast pace...and I do believe that the way we educate and how it's structured needs to adapt with the changing needs and wants of families, teachers, children and, of course, society at large, because of the wider impact that this change would have on them.'
Llywydd, these are the words of Laura Anne Jones in response to my statement on the school day and school year reform, and I agree with her and I'm now at a loss about whether she agrees with herself.
I'm pleased, Minister, that we're having a statement today and an opportunity to discuss. It is important that oral statements are made on the day of the announcement. As we've seen, there's been great interest in this already and a great response, and I hope that this debate and this interest will continue throughout the consultation period.
As for Plaid Cymru, we welcome the start of a discussion on creating a fairer system and it is important to stress at the outset that there is no reduction in the number of days of holidays, only a proposal to shorten the long period spent away from school over the summer, while adding to holidays at other times of the year to ensure a structure that features more consistent blocks. This is not a new thing in terms of what Plaid Cymru has been calling for. When Nerys Evans was the Plaid Cymru spokesperson for education, she proposed reform in 2011. Leighton Andrews wasn't so open to the options as you are now, Minister, and I think there's never a perfect time to start these discussions, but I think it is important that we do continue to review and that we do take every possible opportunity to progress such discussions.
After all, you could say that it would be conservative to simply refuse to even consider changing a system that dates back to the century before last, as you mentioned. And the commitment to look at radical reforms is part of the co-operation agreement. But do you share some of my frustration, however, Minister, that we are consulting on quite a limited proposal and that a lack of resources, perhaps, certainly in terms of the school day, means that at this point, we cannot raise our sights more broadly? After all, we are already among the countries with the shortest summer holidays in the world, so wouldn't it have been advantageous to be able to look at some truly radical options such as expanding the support available during the school holidays and how school structure works, akin to what happens, of course, in Scandinavian and European countries, rather than limiting the consultation to something that, on paper, doesn't seem to be that radical at all? I note that box 15 of the consultation gives people the opportunity to highlight any related issues. Will you, therefore, welcome and encourage ambitious ideas, in addition to what is in the consultation document, about how this particular proposal could be aligned with other possible progressive changes, such as the four-day working week, which we talk about constantly in this Chamber?
I agree entirely about putting the central focus on learners, and, as you've referred to, there's some evidence to show that this proposal will benefit many children and young people in terms of their well-being, by mitigating the impact of disadvantage and supporting educational progress. The initial response this morning from some of the education unions is that they are not yet persuaded so far by the logic and evidential basis of the case that has been put forward. Could I ask you, therefore, what discussions you will be having with the trade unions during the consultation period to ensure that they have the evidence and that we do share—? Well, you've referred to some documents, but there are some other questions in terms of the different options and why you are consulting on this particular option. Again, as has already been mentioned in terms of the initial response, some voices from our agricultural community have questioned what the impact of starting the summer holidays at the end of July in 2026 would have on the Royal Welsh Show, stating that it's important for children and young people from farming families and otherwise to still be able to take advantage of experiences such as attending the Royal Welsh Show.
Just to clear up any misunderstanding, this is a document that's been jointly agreed with Plaid Cymru, so the questions that the Member asked are issues that have already been considered by her party in agreeing this document line by line with us, including some of the challenges that the Member raised, including the impact on the Royal Welsh Show et cetera. This is a matter of prioritisation. We're starting from the foundation that a child's education is the most important thing, and that's at the heart of these proposed reforms. Other implications arise from that and we need to listen to the consultation response, but as the Member said, the important thing is that we ensure educational opportunities for our young people, and that's why we've structured it the way that we have done. We believe, and your party agrees, that this is the way to tackle this issue.
In terms of further ambition, there are two stages in the consultation as the Member knows. The first, the five-week summer holiday and a fortnight's break in the autumn, and then a further step of four weeks in the summer and an additional week in the spring. So, ambition is an integral part of these proposals, but I don't need encouragement from Plaid Cymru to be radical in what I do in supporting our young people. But I thank you for your support.
We have a broad programme, as you know, in terms of trying to protect the interests of our children and young people at a time that is extremely challenging, and we have a range of things that we are doing, as the First Minister mentioned in his earlier response, to tackle cost-of-living pressures and ensure that there are as few barriers as possible to children attending school. I believe, and I'm sure the Member agrees, that the plans in this proposal and in this consultation document will assist us to ensure that children and young people can come to school ready to learn, have been well rested, having had an opportunity to recharge their batteries, if you like, and that they are ready to learn, because, at the end of the day, that's the most important thing.
Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you, Minister, for your statement today. Our committee has committed to paying particular close attention to the views of children and their families, who aren't always listened to by people in positions of power—children and families who have so much to say, but whose voices, all too often, go unheard. Listening to your statement today and reflecting on the Welsh Government's work on reform of the school year, the findings of the research commissioned by the Welsh Government and our ongoing work looking at whether disabled children have equal access to education and childcare, it appears that some of those groups of learners are more affected by the structure of the school year and the school day than others: learners with additional learning needs and pupils from low-income households, whose knowledge and skills may regress more than their peers' over the course of long summer breaks, neurodiverse learners who may find long autumn or spring terms particularly draining, as you've mentioned in your statement today, or learners who are struggling with their mental health and emotional well-being, who may feel a heightened sense of anxiety about returning to school after a six-week-long school holiday.
We know from our committee's work that these children and their families often feel like they are sidelined and that their experience and views are not given the weight they deserve. So, Minister, I'm very pleased that the research into experiences of the current school calendar commissioned by the Welsh Government involved engagement with learners with ALN and from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Can you assure the Senedd that the Welsh Government will proactively seek the views of those learners who face the most acute barriers in their education as part of its formal consultation process, particularly given that the well-being attendance and attainment of those learners are likely to be disproportionately affected by changes to the school year? And I’m sure you’ll agree, Minister, that it’s our responsibility as people in positions of power to make sure that we’re asking the right questions to the right people and in the right way to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to share their views. And will the Minister also assure us that a primary policy objective of any reforms will be to improve the well-being and attainment of learners? Understandably, many arguments about reform of the school year focus on childcare or other economic issues. These are undoubtedly important matters, but I urge the Minister to ensure that children themselves and their well-being and attainment are at the heart of the Welsh Government’s work in this area. Diolch.
I thank Jayne Bryant for those thoughtful remarks and questions, and I do agree with her: it is important that we hear the voice of those learners and their families who are most likely to be affected. We’ve provided, alongside the consultation document that we are publishing today, an easy-read version of the consultation, if you like, which we hope and we’re confident will enable a wider audience for the proposals and therefore, in the way that she says really importantly, to make sure that all voices are heard in that, and I hope that schools—. At Caerleon comprehensive, which I was at yesterday, in the Member’s constituency, I was struck, as I said earlier, by the nature of the discussion that the school had set up with the school council and I hope that schools will take advantage of that easy-read version of the consultation, to encourage a discussion in school.
We also know that the work that Parentkind has done in surveying parents suggested, on the basis of a survey of just under 7,000 parents, that there was strong support for more equal distribution of school holidays, and that those parents who felt that they struggled the most financially were the most likely to support the reforms, with around 72 per cent of parents in that category supporting a different distribution of school holidays.
So, I think that was a very clear signal of the importance of exploring these reforms, and I have no hesitation whatsoever in giving the Member the commitment that the well-being and attainment of our young people is at the very heart of this. We want to make sure that young people are in school, able to take full advantage of all we are doing to improve literacy, numeracy, to increase standards and to improve attainment, and in order to be in that position, you need to feel rested and recharged and ready to learn. So, I think these reforms will have that effect.
In the discussion we had yesterday, one of the learners said to me that they felt that at the start of the autumn term, it could take a week, two weeks, sometimes three weeks or more, to catch up on learning loss over the summer months, so that is time that isn’t available to advance the learning of young people in that situation. So, I do think that this is a timely set of reforms, and I would encourage people to contribute and respond to the consultation so that we can take all voices and all views into account.
Just as you said just now to Jayne Bryant, I’ve never met a teacher who doesn’t say it isn’t really, really challenging at the beginning of September to get children settled back into the ways of learning, of listening and responding because of that loss of learning, and also, for some young people, it will have been not the most joyous time of their life. So, I’m very interested in this, and thank you very much for having the commitment to do what you said you would do at the very beginning of your term in office.
One of the things you say is that working parents struggle to take six weeks off, and, of course, whether we redistribute these in a different way, that’s still going to be the case, so I wonder why we don’t, for example, encourage schools to take pupils off on school trips during the holidays, rather than during the school term. It’s a very important moment to allow children to bond with each other and to learn a bit more independence, those older primary school kids. But I think there are different ways of looking at this, and, obviously, when we have more money in the system, we ought to be able to enhance the provision that's available for young people in the holidays. In terms of the spring term—
—that you want to disregard when Easter falls in terms of the spring term, and I wondered whether you'd considered allowing other religious holidays to be—. You know, people will still want to take Good Friday and Easter Monday off if they—. And will be able to do so, if they follow that particular religion, but what about Eid, Hanukkah and Diwali? Could there not be some way in which we could allow pupils to book their religious holidays, as relevant, if those are things that they do?
Thank you to Jenny Rathbone for those questions. So, I agree with her, actually, that, you know, we should look creatively at what we can do during school holidays. We already have, of course, food and fun provision and the school holiday enrichment programme and Playworks, and the community focused schools policy, as that develops and matures, I think will provide opportunities in that way, and I think that will become increasingly important in the future—how we can extend some of those arrangements into the holiday so that there is—. You know, even a five-week holiday for some young people causes that learning loss, and having touchpoints with the school or the school community can be really important. And, in her constituency and in mine, we'll have been to schools during the summer holiday and seen the effects of being able to be at school with their peers—playing a little bit of sport, learning a bit about nutrition, is just really important for lots of learners. So, I think there is more, I'm sure, that we would like to do in that area. Our programme has actually extended, as she will know, over the last few years, and, if we had resources to do that, I'm sure we'd want to do more of that in the future.
The point about the Easter changes is this, really: it's to allow the decoupling of Easter from the timing of the half-term and end-of-term breaks. As it happens, over the next few years, that isn't a practical concern, but the issue really is how you can achieve more even terms, and, by linking, as we do now, to the particular point at which Easter happens to fall, that just makes it impossible to deliver that. But, of course, just to reassure people, this isn't to say that the bank holidays around Easter would change; obviously, they would not change. And the point that she makes about other faiths—of course, it is possible for parents to apply for children not to be in school on special occasions such as that, and I do know that many heads do exercise that discretion in a way that supports those choices.
Thank you, Minister, for your statement today. I welcome your announcement of this consultation, given the fact that the current academic calendar has been in place since 1873, when Queen Victoria was on the throne and Gladstone was in his first term as Prime Minister. It is only right and responsible for us to reassess whether it is fit for purpose today. I note that all three teaching unions have called for Welsh Government to provide an evidence base to support any changes to the school year. Minister, learning loss was certainly a concept that formed the basis of my postgraduate certificate in education back in 1999, but it appears to be still a much-debated concept, despite the fact that many of my colleagues who teach children with additional learning needs and children in the most disadvantaged backgrounds would certainly cite it as a truth. So, are you confident that you can provide rigorous evidence to support the existence of learning loss and to show that creating a more even spread of holidays throughout the academic year can improve teaching and learning outcomes?
And you will know, Minister, that I've been a big supporter of what is now the school holiday enrichment programme, so what thought has been given to the impact of any changes in the school year on this? If the number of weeks the programme is to be delivered over the summer is to be reduced, could it be rolled out during other school holidays to support families during these times?
I thank Vikki Howells for those questions and I defer to her greater expertise about the experience of being a teacher and how it must feel coming up to the end of this autumn term. I can see by the smile on her face that she remembers that fondly. But I think, on the question of learning loss and the impact on teachers and of the workload during this term, I think—. This was very much the conversation I was having in the school I mentioned yesterday, but I don't go into any school at this point in the school calendar without having that sort of conversation with parents, and I'm sure most teachers would recognise and share that experience. There is a body of evidence, which we have already published, which we've made available, which goes to the points that the Member has raised, but it's really important, I think, as part of the consultation, that people, if they're interested, should take a look at that evidence and consider it, and people may disagree, of course—that's the nature of a consultation. But we have experience from other parts of the UK, both local authority areas in England and in Scotland, but also internationally, and it isn't a question of just cut and paste. I don't really believe that you can pick up practices and wholesale bring them over to a system. We all have different education systems. They're different for good reasons. But I do think it's important to look at the evidence and to consider what changes in other parts of the world and other parts of the UK have shown us, and that absolutely does go to support the view that changing the shape of the school year can help with that learning loss, and I think that is a really important objective.
I think it's really important that we listen to the consultation outcomes as well, and I'm looking forward to hearing those responses. Two things I just want clarification on: I've run through the consultation myself, and I don't think the language is entirely clear in the consultation, where it says, 'Our second proposal is a spring break that has the potential to be decoupled from Easter should we need to.' I understand, now, having listened to the Minister, what exactly that means, but it takes a few goes to really understand exactly what those words mean. So, I think we could have more clarity there in the consultation documents themselves. And the other thing is, to get to the consultation online, it took me at least four or five clicks just to get through to it, and that's before even conducting a Google search. It is not an easy consultation to find. Now, I'm going to be posting it to my social media, and I urge other Members to do the same, but can the Government provide a clear link to that, and also address the issue I raised as well?
I thank Hefin David for that, and I absolutely agree. As I mentioned a couple of times in my statement earlier, I think it's really important that we hear the views and perspectives of a range of people, of everyone who is affected—so, learners themselves, most crucially, parents, the education workforce—but, beyond that, it's a set of proposed changes that has implications for society and the economy more broadly, so I'm really keen to hear and to consider the range of perspectives that I very much hope we will learn from. I will follow up on the two points that he made specifically, one around making sure that it's as easy as possible to find the document online. And in relation to the point of clarity on the decoupling of Easter, there's also an easy-read version of the consultation document. I very much hope that is easier to grasp than perhaps some of the text in the consultation document itself on this point.
Yes, thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd just like to make a point of order and just reassure the Chamber that the quote that the Minister kindly read out at the end of his contribution, answering to me, was about the school day, not the school year. So, it's the right quote but the wrong subject, Minister. Thank you.
Item 5, the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 and Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (Wales) Order 2015 (Amendment) Regulations 2023. I call on the Minister for Climate Change to move the motion—Julie James.
To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 27.5, approves that the draft The Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 and Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (Wales) Order 2015 (Amendment) Regulations 2023 is made in accordance with the draft laid in the Table Office on 24 October 2023.
Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Today I've laid the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 and Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (Wales) Order 2015 (Amendment) Regulations 2023. These regulations will ensure bed and breakfast and hotel accommodation that has been arranged by local authorities via a third party provider for the purposes of providing homelessness accommodation will not give rise to an occupation contract under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016.
Dirprwy Lywydd, I am immensely proud of our response here in Wales to the tragedy of homelessness and of the outstanding work being undertaken by our front-line homelessness services, led by local authorities and supported by the third sector. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we haven't just maintained an ambition to make homelessness rare, brief and unrepeated; we have accelerated it. However, we know this approach does not come without challenges. The numbers in temporary accommodation continue to increase as the impact of the pandemic is compounded by the increase in the cost of living. It is for this reason that, today, I have laid the new regulations. This is in response to the demands currently placed on local authorities and the need to be pragmatic in the face of this challenge and support local authorities to maximise and maintain the stock available to them locally in the short term. Diolch.
The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No, there are no objections. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.
We will therefore begin our Stage 3 deliberations on the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Bill. The first group of amendments is group 1, and they relate to the requirement to set air quality targets. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 37, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment. Janet Finch-Saunders.
Diolch, Llywydd. So, I would first like to place on record my thanks to Mostyn Jones, my researcher; Molly Skates, our group researcher; and also Daniel and the Deputy Minister Lee Waters MS for their work on this important legislation and for taking on board and actually supporting some amendments that we have tabled. So, again, diolch, Llywydd.
I will be speaking to all amendments in the group, but I will start by making an important observation first. The manifesto by our First Minister, Mark Drakeford MS, included the proposal to
'Develop a new Clean Air Act to ensure that our children can go to school, be active and play outside safely without fear of respiratory problems, such as asthma, because of pollution levels in some of our towns and cities.'
There is cross-party consensus on the need for legislation on clean air, but it is the largest party in this Senedd that has delayed the development of the Bill, taking some five years from the commitment in 2018 to reach this point.
When considering that the burden of poor air in the UK is estimated to be the equivalent of between 29,000 and 43,000 deaths per year, and that Healthy Air Cymru have found that air pollution is the biggest environmental threat to public health, second only to smoking in Wales, this Senedd and the Welsh Government should have legislated sooner. Despite it being the sixtieth anniversary of Doctor Who, we sadly cannot go back in time, so we must now make the most of the legislative process before us.
My amendment 37 requires Welsh Ministers to set long-term targets in respect of any matter relating to air quality in Wales. Should you not support this amendment, the legislation will include the word 'may', which would give the Welsh Government the option not to set long-term targets. This amendment builds on the evidence from Asthma and Lung UK Cymru, who have also expressed their disappointment at the use of the word 'may' instead of 'must'.
Amendment 38 places significant pollutants on the face of the Bill under a new section. This amendment requires the Welsh Ministers to set at least one target in respect of all the pollutants listed in the provision. The provision also provides Welsh Ministers with the regulation-making powers to add to the list of pollutants, and this amendment is very similar to amendment 3 by our colleague Delyth, but there is an important legal difference. My amendment includes an additional provision: regulation-making power for Welsh Ministers to amend the list of pollutants for which targets must be set. As it stands, I have included PM10, ground-level ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide as significant pollutants. But I believe it is essential to good governance that Welsh Ministers have the ability to add to that list.
The rest of the amendments tabled in my name in this section are technical, so I will not go into any detail on those. However, I do wish to make a few observations in relation to some of the other amendments in the group.
We are very pleased to support amendment 1, by our colleague Rhys ab Owen, as it actually offers to help clarify the law. I will also be supporting amendment 4, by Delyth Jewell, which places nitrogen dioxide on the face of the Bill in a new section. Nitrogen dioxide causes inflammation of the airways, increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and to allergens. At present, the law on nitrogen dioxide pollution in Wales says annual average concentrations cannot exceed 40 µg per cubic metre of air. In 2017, the Welsh Government was taken to court by ClientEarth, due to these limits having been exceeded in Cardiff, Caerphilly, Hafodyrynys and trunk roads. The most recent Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs compliance assessment on air in 2021 shows the south Wales zone still failing to meet the nitrogen dioxide annual limit value. In the face of failure, it is appropriate that nitrogen dioxide be put on the face of the Bill.
Finally, I will comment on amendment 73, which does place Welsh Ministers under a duty to make regulations to set a long-term target for one of the pollutants listed, which includes ammonia. I am opposed to the inclusion of ammonia. The National Farmers Union Cymru have previously made clear their willingness to work with Government, and partners, to reach sustainable ammonia emissions. Should you again vote in favour of the amendment today, you will be doing so without understanding the wider economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts of this law on rural Wales. Diolch, Llywydd.
I will be speaking to amendments 3, 4 and 15 in this group. There is a great deal in the amendments that Janet has laid that we agree with, and the amendment that Rhys has laid, and some of the Government amendments in this group as well. Now, for much of what I'll be speaking on today, I'm indebted to the advice of Healthy Air Cymru, of Joseph Carter, Haf Elgar and others, for their dedicated campaigning on clean air. The fact that this legislation is before us today is due in no small part to their work. And I'd also like to thank Tomos Rowley in the Plaid group for his work on this legislation.
Now, I would say at the outset, Llywydd, how much I have welcomed the approach taken by the Deputy Minister at Stage 2 of this legislation. In his absence today, I would like to put on the record how welcome his willingness was to work with Members of all parties, to find common ground and to listen. I know that the Minister as well cares a great deal about these issues, so I'm sure she will be open and fair in how she responds to these debates. Now, there may be some areas where the Government and we will still disagree, but the general attitude that they've taken is one that is to be welcomed.
This present amendment, so amendment 3, does represent one of the areas where we still have a little distance between us, although I hope it isn't insurmountable. To give some context, at Stage 2 the Deputy Minister restated his hesitancy to support amendments that would require setting additional pollutant-specific targets ahead of consultation and engagement with experts. Now, we in Plaid aren't wholly convinced by this line of argument, which is why we have retabled it. The World Health Organization has already done the work and identified specific pollutants that are harmful to human health.
The purpose of the Bill is, of course, to give Ministers and local authorities the powers to reduce the presence of these harmful substances over time. This is not, after all, a Bill with the sole purpose of tackling PM2.5. The Welsh Government has acknowledged that targets will be need to be introduced for the specific pollutants we've discussed, as they have instructed officials to undertake impact assessments and analysis on a range of pollutants beyond PM2.5, and that work is ongoing. Now, our understanding is that the work on these pollutants is being done concurrently as a wider piece of work, rather than the Welsh Government receiving analysis bit by bit, in the coming months and years, on each pollutant. Now, we believe that that would help our argument that all of the pollutants should have targets included within the Bill, alongside a timeline, as the Welsh Government will be in possession of this detail for all other World Health Organization pollutants reasonably soon.
I'd like to move amendment 1 on indoor air quality. I'm grateful for the assistance from academics at Cardiff and Cambridge universities, and the Westminster all-party parliamentary carbon monoxide group. I'm also grateful for the support of the Asthma and Lung UK charity, and also the expression of support from Janet and Delyth.
We spend between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of our lives indoors, so logic dictates that in order to live healthy lives, the air inside buildings must be of high quality. Unfortunately, the opposite is true according to the latest scientific evidence.
Concentration of pollutants can be up to four times higher inside than outside, and almost all volatile organic compounds exposure happens indoors due to, for example, tobacco smoke and solvents. As we face winter yet again, carbon monoxide will become more of an issue, as people rely on combustion heaters to warm their homes. Crucially, this impacts disproportionately the poorest in our society. Those who rely on heaters rather than central heating are far more at risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. It’s frightening that, in the UK in 2023, 35 per cent of low-income and vulnerable households exceed the World Health Organization threshold for carbon monoxide levels. Thirty-five per cent. Worryingly, logic suggests that this figure is likely to rise as the cost-of-living crisis continues to bite. Even at very low concentrations, exposure to pollutants indoors can create horrible and tragic consequences. In pregnant women, studies have associated indoor air pollution with low birth weight and, tragically, with stillbirth.
I believe this amendment is important. The problems of air pollution should be linked within this legislation. Obviously, improving the quality of the air outside will, with proper ventilation, inevitably improve the air inside. It is all well and good to monitor and improve the air quality outside, but if you spend over 80 per cent of your time in a poorly ventilated office, school, hospital or home, then all that progress is mainly in vain. Of course, it is also likely that some vulnerable individuals in care homes and hospitals will be indoors for nearly 100 per cent of the time.
This amendment adapts the definition of air quality in section 1 to explicitly require that indoor air quality is included. According to the United Nations, only 7 per cent of countries worldwide have adopted explicit legal indoor air quality standards. Therefore, this evening we are presented with a choice. If this amendment is voted down, we will have a Bill that deals with less than half of the issue, whereas if we vote for it tonight, we will be ensuring that Wales truly does lead the way internationally on air quality. This will be a Senedd Act that will be the envy of the world.
Clarity is crucial for good legislation. It is important to ensure that individuals, governments and organisations are held accountable for the standard of air in public buildings, in buildings that include the most vulnerable in our society. It is correct that many local authorities include indoor air quality in their air quality strategies, but this is hindered by their lack of statutory footing.
The Welsh Government has already said it is willing to follow emerging trends in scientific research when it comes to monitoring and mitigating outdoor air pollution. This should also be the case for indoor air pollution. Research shows that 10 per cent to 30 per cent of the health burden from particulates comes from indoor air quality, and there are tens of thousands of cases every year of serious illness from carbon monoxide exposure.
Diolch, Llywydd. Since the introduction of this Bill I have welcomed our shared ambition to go as far as possible to improve air quality for the benefit of public health and for the natural environment. It is essential we take preventative action now to achieve better outcomes for future generations. At Stage 2, we tabled an amendment that requires Welsh Ministers to report annually on consideration they have given to setting a section 1 long-term air quality target for the pollutants named in section 9 of the Bill. It provides a powerful and transparent mechanism for the Senedd to hold Ministers to account on the exercise of their powers under section 1.
We've listened to feedback from Members and stakeholders throughout the scrutiny process, and as a result we are keen to go further. The Deputy Minister for Climate Change tabled amendment 73 and related amendments, which require Welsh Ministers to exercise their powers under section 1 to set long-term air quality targets for one of the following pollutants within six years of Royal Assent: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, PM10, sulphur dioxide, ground-level ozone or ammonia. The list mirrors the list in section 9 relating to the duty to report annually on the consideration of setting long-term targets. The amendment strengthens section 1. It places a duty on Welsh Ministers to make regulations for one pollutant whilst maintaining Ministers’ broad regulation-making power to set a broader range of air quality targets where there is a need to do so. This amendment alongside the new reporting duty agreed at Stage 2 clearly demonstrates our ongoing commitment to further meeting our ambition for cleaner air and holds current and future Ministers to account.
I recognise Senedd Members have received recent correspondence from Healthy Air Cymru calling for further air quality target commitments, particularly in relation to nitrogen dioxide. And I also note Delyth Jewell’s amendment 4 has been framed in a similar context. I acknowledge the ethos behind these calls for amendments to the Bill. However, I wish to reiterate that whilst we have a clear understanding of the health and environmental imperative to set future air quality targets, we do not yet have the full suite of evidence necessary to inform pollutant-specific target options.
We have openly shared our programme of work with the Senedd, highlighting the complex process that is under way. We have taken the decision not to specify a pollutant in our amendment to enable flexibility to focus action in a way that will achieve the best outcomes. Our amendment states that we must make regulations within six years of Royal Assent. I want to assure you that six years is an absolute deadline, not a target. A period of six years is based on consideration of work required to deliver air quality target policy, alongside parallel duties under the Bill and commitments in our national air quality strategy.
Llywydd, before I move on to consider the other amendments in this group, I would like to highlight that actions taken to reduce PM2.5 will not only be beneficial for public health, but will likely see additional benefits to society. This could include, for example, reductions in other air pollutant emissions such as nitrogen dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.
There are a number of amendments that seek to change the target-setting provisions in the Bill, which emphasise the interest in and the importance of this area. Amendments have been tabled by Delyth Jewell MS for Plaid Cymru and Janet Finch-Saunders MS for the Welsh Conservatives. There are overlapping amendments and amendments that seem to have been tabled as alternatives. Therefore, it's necessary to unpick the amendments in this group to fully assess and comment on what is being proposed.
Janet Finch-Saunders and Delyth Jewell have tabled amendments that are very similar in nature, albeit with subtle nuances. Therefore, I recommend to the Senedd that we consider these carefully to ensure that whatever is agreed provides us collectively with clear and workable legislation. There are clear risks for clarity of legislation if the Senedd were to pass amendments that seek to do very similar things.
Turning first to Welsh Conservatives amendment 37, this seeks to turn Welsh Ministers’ power to make regulations setting long-term air quality targets in section 1 of the Bill into a duty. It seems that amendment 45 must be read with amendment 37 and their joint effect is to require regulations made under section 1 to be made within three years of Royal Assent. Firstly, as previously stated by the Deputy Minister during Stage 2, changing the discretion in section 1 into a duty without naming the pollutants to which the duty applies is too vague. And secondly, for reasons I will go on to explain, such an amendment is not necessary.
I'd like to thank Delyth Jewell and Rhys ab Owen, and I think the three of us have made some really salient points. We want this Bill to go through, but we believe that it has to do exactly what we want it to do. It is so far behind; now is the time to actually make this Bill something that we can all be proud of. Diolch.
The proposal is to agree amendment 37. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 37. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 37 is not agreed.
If amendment 73 is not agreed, amendments 74, 77 and 78 will fall. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 73. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no abstentions and 15 against. Therefore, amendment 73 is agreed.
It is. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 1. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 74. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions and 14 against. Amendment 74 is agreed.
Is there any objection to amendment 75? [Objection.] There is. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 75. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions and 14 against. Therefore, amendment 75 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 76. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions and 14 against. Therefore, amendment 76 is agreed.
It is moved by Delyth Jewell. If amendment 3 is not agreed, amendments 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30, 33 and 35 will fail. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to? Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 3. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions and 40 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.
It is. If amendment 4 is not agreed, amendments 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 34 and 36 will fall. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 4. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is equal, therefore I exercise my casting vote against amendment 4. The result of the vote is that there were 26 in favour, no abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 38. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 38 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 77 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 77. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 14 against. Therefore, amendment 77 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Open the vote on amendment 78. [Inaudible.] In favour 37, no abstentions, 15 against. Therefore, amendment 78 is agreed.
It is. Does any Member object to amendment 45? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 45. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 45 is not agreed.
It is. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore proceed to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 15. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions and 40 against. Therefore, amendment 15 is not agreed.
It is. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 16. Open the vote. [Inaudible.] Therefore, I will exercise my casting vote against amendment 16. The result of the vote is, therefore, there were 26 in favour, no abstentions and 27 against. Amendment 16 is not agreed.
It is moved. Does any Member object to amendment 17? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We'll therefore proceed to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 17. Close the vote. In favour 12, 14 abstentions and 26 against. Therefore, amendment 17 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. [Objection.] There is objection. We will proceed to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 18. The vote is tied. I will exercise my casting vote against amendment 18. So, there were 26 in favour, no abstentions and 27 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed.
The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 46. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. And therefore, amendment 46 is not agreed.
Group 2 relates to reporting, reviewing and monitoring in relation to air quality targets. Amendment 48 is the lead amendment in this group and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to speak to that amendment and other amendments in the group. Janet Finch-Saunders.
Diolch, Llywydd. If this Senedd is to treat air quality seriously, it does need to set challenging targets and ones that force the machinery of Government to move more quickly, and this amendment 48 does exactly that. In Stage 2, I tabled an amendment that requires Welsh Ministers to publish a report on why a target has not been met within six months of the statement being laid. In the Bill’s current form, this is 12 months. I remain unconvinced that the Welsh Government need a year to explain why a particular target that has been set has not been met. If there is such a failure, Wales needs urgent, not sluggish, action. As Healthy Air Cymru have stated:
‘With almost 2,000 lives cut short every year due to air pollution, we worry that 12 months to publish a report setting out what the Welsh Government will do to correct air pollution exceedance is too long. We would like to see this reduced to 6 months, if not further.’
Amendment 50 inserts a provision that, where a review is being carried out in relation to a long-term target, the review must contain at least one interim target that is to be achieved before the next review, which currently stands at five years. I've recommended this as I believe it will be beneficial in monitoring progress. So, to ensure that reviews and monitoring are as effective as possible, we do need to be clear what information we require. Amendment 54 would require that the statements published after a review are to set out the costs that have been incurred in relation to the target and to provide an assessment of the economic effect of the target on the local and national economy. I have been pleased to co-operate with the Deputy Minister and his team on amendment 57, and that seeks to add a sense of urgency to the time frame in which Welsh Ministers must publish data obtained under section 7.
Amendment 59 removes ammonia from the list of pollutants that must be considered within a report made under section 9. I’ve already explained my views on the inclusion of ammonia in the legislation and that we should be co-operating more with the agricultural sector, rather than introducing more legislation that will likely have a negative impact on them. If you don’t trust me me, listen to Gareth Wyn Jones, who has publicly supported our scrutiny of the inclusion of ammonia in this Bill. I urge you all to back our farmers by backing this amendment.
I will also be supporting the amendments in this group by Delyth Jewell, which reduce time frames from five to two years. As I explained at the outset, if this Senedd is really serious about this legislation, if this Senedd wishes to treat air quality seriously, it needs to set those challenging targets that force the machinery of this Government to move more quickly. Amendments 29 and 32 would just do that. Diolch.
Diolch, Llywydd. I'll turn first to amendment 48 tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, which has the effect of reducing Welsh Ministers' time to report on non-compliance with the target from 12 months to six. Where the Welsh Ministers make a statement that a target has not been met, Welsh Ministers must, before the end of the 12 months, explain why the target has not been met and the steps they will take to achieve the standard. Whilst we absolutely appreciate the committee would like to see information on non-compliance as soon as possible, six months would not allow for sufficient time to establish a proper understanding and develop and implement mitigatory steps. A 12-month limit provides appropriate time to get to get this right and avoid adverse consequences. I therefore ask the Senedd to resist this amendment.
Next, amendment 50, tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, adds a requirement to include at least one interim target when conducting a review of a long-term target under section 6(1). Undertaking a review of targets provides us with a check that they remain fit for purpose. When setting and reviewing targets under the framework, the Bill requires Welsh Ministers to seek advice from relevant experts and have regard to scientific knowledge. The need for any interim target, the form it should take and when it should apply would be expected to form part of this initial and ongoing advice. Welsh Ministers already have existing powers to make interim targets where it's appropriate to do so, the same as we do for any short-term air quality target. You will recognise a range of actions will be needed across different sectors to achieve long-term targets, each requiring engagement and consultation. The setting of shorter-term interim concentration targets may not always be an effective indicator of progress towards a long-term target when the policy landscape is undetermined and subject to legislative or technological changes. It is important that progress towards the targets is regularly assessed so policies and actions can be adjusted, taking into account the latest evidence. Reviewing actions being taken will be an important part of ensuring long-term targets are successfully met, which is already being delivered by the national air quality strategy. Further, the amendment as drafted does not work, as the review is not itself a document, so can't contain anything. I therefore ask that the Senedd resist this amendment.
Next, amendment 54, tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, adds a new requirement for the Welsh Ministers to include information about the costs incurred and the economic effect of a target on the local and national economy in the statement they must publish after a review of targets under section 6. Reviews in this section are designed to test whether a target remains fit for purpose and achieving it would result in the net benefits expected when the target was set. A review would be expected to consider that a target remains achievable and that achieving it would be coherent with broader Government policy and avoid adverse consequences or disproportionate costs. If the overall evidence and advice remains largely unchanged from when a target was set, the target would be expected to remain fit for purpose. However, measures to improve air quality will be included within the national air quality strategy and reported on annually. Further, the overall expected costs and benefits of a target will be reflected in mandatory impact assessments, including the regulatory impact assessment, and consulted on prior to a target being introduced. These will be published as required. I therefore ask the Senedd to resist this amendment also.
Sorry. Forgive me interrupting you in the middle of a sentence. Minister, I appreciate what you're saying about that two years may not be an ideal time frame because of that. Could more consideration be given to this problem that, if we move towards four-year Senedd cycles, we might have situations arising where there isn't any point of measuring progress even once in a Senedd term, please?
Yes. So, the five years is an absolute, isn't it? There's nothing to stop you bringing it forward. And because we have an annual review each time, in the annual review, we could consider that. So, there's a mechanism to do that; I think that's a fair point. But I would, actually, myself, in practice, expect that some targets will be easier and quicker to review and others will be much more complex, and so you'll see a varying pattern of reviews, not a standard review once every Senedd term. That's what we're expecting it to come out like.
So, as I was saying, the early focus does need to be on the development and implementation of measures to achieve the targets, rather than reviewing and changing the targets so soon after they've been set. So, I do ask the Senedd to resist this amendment too.
The next amendment is 57, tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, which adds a requirement to publish data obtained to monitor progress towards meeting the targets set under sections 1 or 2 as soon as is reasonably practicable under section 7(2). During Stage 2, I committed to work with the Member to bring forward a workable solution. I've since considered this further and I do not have any objections to the Member's amendment. I therefore ask the Senedd to give their support to this recommendation.
The next amendment, 59, tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, removes the reference to ammonia from section 9(2), so the report on the consideration given to setting long-term targets under section 1 no longer needs to address ammonia. The protection of public and wider environmental health matters are important policy objectives, and the inclusion of ammonia in the list reflects this, due to its impact on both. I therefore ask the Senedd to resist this amendment too. Diolch, Llywydd.
Okay. Diolch. I'm very grateful for little mercies, but I would particularly like to thank the Minister and the Deputy Minister for working with us on some aspects of what we're trying to bring forward tonight. I believe this is a very important piece of legislation. We've waited so long for it, so you can perhaps understand the fact that we want to make it that it is transparent and it is monitored as it should be. I mean, too often, I've seen legislation go through here and the target setting and the monitoring—. The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013—there's more work and monitoring targets on that that need to be done. So, as this was coming forward, I just felt it was very important, so I would ask all Members to support our amendments.
The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore we will proceed to a vote. I open the vote on amendment 48. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore amendment 48 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore we will proceed to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 50. Close the vote. In favour 14, 11 abstentions, 27 against. And therefore amendment 50 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Open the vote on amendment 54. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 54 is not agreed.
It is being moved. Is there objection to amendment 29? [Objection.] Yes, there is. Therefore, we'll proceed to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 29. The vote is tied, therefore I will exercise my casting vote against amendment 29, and therefore the outcome of the vote is that 26 are in favour, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 29 is not agreed.
Yes, it is. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there's objection. Therefore, we'll proceed to vote on amendment 32. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied, therefore I will exercise my casting vote against the amendment. Amendment 32 is not agreed, with 26 in favour, no abstentions, 27 against.
Yes. Is there objection to amendment 79? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we will proceed to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 79. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions and 14 against, therefore amendment 79 is agreed.
We move now to group 3, and these amendments relate to promoting awareness about air pollution. The only amendment in this group is amendment 2, and I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the amendment.
Thank you very much, Llywydd. I'd like to move amendment 2. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the public are aware of the risks of poor indoor air quality and how to deal with that.
While the topic, as alluded to by the Minister, is relatively under-researched compared to the likes of greenhouse gases and, as Delyth Jewell's amendment referred to, nitrogen dioxide, it is clear that there is a benefit to increasing awareness of the methods of measurement and solutions. At the first ever World Health Organization conference on indoor air quality this year, the focus was on the lack of awareness from the general public. The lack of awareness makes sense, doesn't it, as air, after all, is invisible. It is much easier to measure the cost of your energy bills than the health impact due to poor air quality.
Research is currently being produced by Imperial College in London to allow students at over 2,000 schools across the UK to monitor their school's air quality. I'm sure every parent and every Member would want to know if the air quality in schools, especially in a children's school, is of poor quality. The least we can do is to ensure that our children are educated in a safe and healthy environment.
Most exposure to pollutants indoors can be dealt with by individuals. For example, you don't need industrial-grade ventilation to experience the benefits of opening a window. There is plenty of recent research on how best to improve indoor air quality. For example, proper ventilation of rooms, having plants indoors, and switching from a gas oven to an electric oven. We and the public just need to know how.
There is an urge to bury our heads in the sand and do the easy thing, to pretend that the issue is not there or that there's not enough information about the issue. Political leaders in the past have done so for the climate emergency, for unsafe coal tips, and as the inquiry is showing at the moment, for COVID-19. Let us today not bury our heads in the sand. Today, let us act; let us raise awareness of this issue, and help produce a brighter, cleaner and healthier future for the whole of Wales. Diolch yn fawr.
Diolch, Llywydd. The promoting-awareness duty in the Bill is intentionally broad, because it enables us to take action on a range of air quality issues, including new issues that may emerge. Indoor air pollution is indeed an important issue, caused by a wide variety of sources and activities, and is relevant to a wide variety of locations, which means it's complex to monitor and manage. We have committed to discharging the promoting-awareness duty by developing a delivery plan with stakeholders. This will enable us to design and deliver effective action on a range of issues, informed by evidence. I do not support this particular amendment because it narrows what is an intentionally broad duty. However, I am absolutely committed to developing an awareness delivery plan that includes action on indoor air pollution, and I'm very happy to work with the Member when we do so.
Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I am naturally disappointed that the Government will not be supporting this. This is an easy amendment to fulfil, and raising awareness is something that the Welsh Government does all the time, for example, as it does for the rights of the child. COVID-19 has already raised awareness of indoor air quality and disease caused by it in Wales; part of the job is already done. This is a real issue. The World Health Organization, in the conference this year, said that the cost of indoor air pollution in the European Union is similar to that of the gross domestic product of Cyprus. So, this is a real issue, with real costs. So, I urge Members to support this amendment. Diolch yn fawr.
The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 2. Open the vote. The vote is tied. I will therefore exercise my casting vote against amendment 2. Therefore, the outcome is that there were 26 in favour, no abstentions, and 27 against. Amendment 2 is therefore not agreed.
Group 4 is the next group of amendments, and this group relates to promoting active travel as a way of reducing or limiting air pollution. The lead amendment is amendment 86, and I call on Huw Irranca-Davies to move and speak to the lead amendment.
Diolch, Llywydd. If it's okay, I'll seek to move amendment 86, and speak to 86 and 87, which are related.
Active travel has a clear role to play in improving air quality as well as being a good in and of itself in many ways. Just over 10 years ago, this Parliament unanimously passed the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. It was a landmark moment in legislation. Members did so believing that the Act would have as one of its key achievements the systematic promotion of active travel as the natural and normal way of making shorter journeys, yet this hasn't happened. Had this happened, we would now see a healthier population, lower carbon emissions, and indeed cleaner air.
Unfortunately, as the cross-party group on active travel, which I'm privileged to chair, showed in their recent review of the Act, the Act's duty to promote active travel is far, far too constrained. Rather than a general duty, the Welsh Government and local authorities only have to promote active travel when the active travel maps are being drawn up, once every three years, and when the network is being improved. Crucially, in neither of those cases is the duty backed up by statutory guidance. So, that is why we've brought forward this amendment, 86, and the related amendment, 87, to finally put in place provisions that Members believed they were getting 10 years ago.
And, Llywydd, I use the term 'we' advisedly in bringing forward this amendment—these amendments—because it is the product of collective effort. It was an initiative of the cross-party group, that has Members from every party in this Chamber, and has also been developed in collaboration with members of the committee on climate change, environment and infrastructure, and also Welsh Government, and has the support of Healthy Air Wales. It has genuinely been a collective effort. And I also flag in dispatches, by the way, the one-man mountain mover and solutions guru, who is our grandly named secretariat, Chris Roberts. I would also particularly like to pay tribute to my colleagues on the committee—Jenny Rathbone, Janet Finch-Saunders, Delyth Jewell and Joyce Watson—who supported the offer from Minister Lee Waters, in a very constructive debate at Stage 2, to work together on amendments, and that is what we've done in bringing these forward.
What we all want the amendments to do is to normalise active travel by making it an easier and more accessible choice. As a country, we have, to a great extent, lost the habit of walking to places. This is particularly true of our children, who increasingly do not get the chance to walk the daily journey to school. Many people's mental map of their community is now a road map, not a walking map. To make more people aware that walking or cycling is often easier and quicker, as well as the healthier and greener option for short journeys around town, we need to dramatically increase the information available to people, when they're choosing how to travel.
Now, this requires, I have to say, fairly cheap and simple measures, such as signage specific to walkers and cyclists, telling them the best route to key destinations and how long it will take them to get there. We need all the material that informs people how to get to public services, to let them know how to travel actively and not just where the nearest car park is. These are simple measures, but measures that are all too rare in our towns and cities.
The Welsh Government has made great strides in increasing investment in active travel infrastructure, there's no doubt about that; we've seen it in recent years. But, unfortunately, there's often so little encouragement given to local people to use those new routes that have been constructed, or even signs telling them where the new paths go. This amendment will pave the way for guidance that will ensure information goes hand in hand with infrastructure.
At a higher level, amendment 86 should help to ensure that the needs of active travellers are properly considered when the public sector in Wales issues guidance that influences how people travel. This is important, because, sadly, despite the active travel Act, there have been serious instances of guidance being produced that makes walking and cycling more difficult. But we believe the biggest impact of the amendment will be: if we can effectively influence how the 300,000 people who work in our public sector travel to work, shifting the travel mode of even a small percentage will result in cleaner air, less congestion, lower carbon and a healthier workforce.
So, turning to the mechanics of the amendment, we would have liked to have changed, Minister, the wording of the original Act's duty to promote, but that has proven technically difficult in our discussions. So, what we've agreed with Welsh Government is that we will include a new duty in the active travel Act that provides for the promotion of active travel as a way of reducing or limiting air pollution, and that seems to work. We've done it in the sure knowledge that we are still providing, in our mind, a general duty to promote, because air quality is an issue that will be with us always and everywhere, to some degree or other. Thus, a duty to promote active travel for the purposes of air quality is, we would say, in effect, a duty to promote active travel whenever possible and whenever necessary. The details of how and when it is promoted will be set out in the statutory guidance that the amendment puts in place. The quality and scope of this guidance will therefore determine the effectiveness of this amendment, and it'll thus be a key determinant in Wales's success in becoming that active travel nation.
We will be supporting the amendments in the name of Huw Irranca-Davies today. It is right that active travel is promoted as a way of reducing or limiting air pollution. Whilst we have the active travel Act, we've seen that the Bill alone sadly has not done enough. Just 6 per cent of people cycle once a week for active travel purposes, and just over half walk. That is despite 10 years of this Act.
The need for momentum is clear when considering the evidence from Cycling UK, who have highlighted, for example, that realising the transformative change promised by the active travel Act in 2013 has suffered from a lack of resources and funding, as evidenced by the cross-party group on the active travel Act's review of the Act in July 2022, as Huw Irranca-Davies has mentioned. Cycling UK has warned that if we continue on the same trajectory, Wales will fall well short of maximising the potential of walking and cycling to tackle air pollution. I hope that these amendments under consideration will be accepted and will go some way in combatting that risk. Diolch, Huw, and diolch, Llywydd.
I'd like to signal our support for this as well. I know that these amendments are the product of a great deal of work behind the scenes. There was a moment at Stage 2 where we were trying to think of what the positive version of a stand-off was in order to describe it. It was almost a 'stand-back', a pause, and I think that was a really positive thing. I also would like to say how welcome it was that some of the Labour Members were laying amendments at Stage 2 and now at Stage 3 as well. I think we have improved legislation as a result. And I would, again, thank Huw for reaching out to Members to check that we were aligned on this.
I think that these amendments are significant. By promoting walking and cycling, this will I hope prompt a change that won't just improve air quality but will help improve our health and will make the population healthier. What's more, we would hope to lower carbon emissions, contributing to efforts to combat climate change, as we've already heard, both at a local level in terms of addressing air quality concerns and addressing the global challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I hope it will foster a culture of physical activity—there are so many different dimensions. I think that the work that's gone into this behind the scenes, as Huw has set out, involving multiple actors in this, is really to be welcomed.
And finally, Llywydd, the amendment I think holds the potential to enhance urban planning and create pedestrian-friendly spaces—so, again, not only improving air quality but helping, I hope, to create spaces that are more livable, that are healthier for communities, that are happier for communities. The emphasis on active travel can also address issues of traffic congestion, reducing the overall environmental footprint of transport systems.
Diolch, Llywydd. I'm also very pleased that we've been able to collaborate with Huw and other Members on these amendments, and I can confirm that the Government will support them. I'm also very grateful for the work done by Huw and the cross-party group, and to the Deputy Minister, who did a lot of the work on these amendments behind the scenes. I'm very happy to place on record further detail about how the Welsh Government intends to implement the new provisions.
First, Llywydd, I want to clarify that as improving air quality is a long-term challenge, these amendments will not limit the broad ways in which the public sector in Wales will be expected to promote active travel. While the duty is to promote active travel as a way of reducing or limiting air pollution, this does not mean it should apply only in the most polluted areas. As Huw said, there are many ways in which promoting active travel will improve air quality in many different situations and areas, and the statutory guidance will make this clear. In addition, both local authorities and the Welsh Ministers will retain their existing powers and duties to promote active travel more broadly.
Secondly, I can report to Members that we have decided to amend the deadline for local authorities to submit the next iterations of their active travel network maps. This will also, by virtue of these amendments, be the deadline for their first reports on the new promotion duty, and that deadline is 1 December 2026. And third, I can confirm that the statement we publish next year will also cover how we intend to ensure that other public bodies promote active travel, in line with the new power in the amendments. And, Llywydd, fourth and lastly, I commit the Welsh Government will undertake a thorough review of the active travel Act within five years, and will use that review to address the shortcomings of that legislation.
Amendment 87 ensures the new sections inserted into the active travel Act come into force on a day specified by the Welsh Ministers in an Order made by statutory instrument. We support this approach because it allows us to make sure that there is a logical sequence of events—for example, that the duty on local authorities does not come into force until there is guidance available to help them discharge that duty. I appreciate, though, that this leaves the timescale for implementing these provisions rather open-ended. Llywydd, I'm therefore happy to place my commitment on record today that by the end of 2024, we will publish our statement of the steps we intend to take to promote active travel, we will publish our guidance to local authorities, and we will bring these new sections of the active travel Act into force. Diolch.
Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, I'm very grateful indeed for the reassurances you've given now on record, not least that the amendment will take effect by the end of 2024. It's really encouraging to hear the Government is also going to be proactive in extending the duties in the amendment across the devolved public sector. So, as a Member of the Senedd and as chair of the cross-party group on active travel, together with members of the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, we look forward to playing a positive role in the promised revision of the Act, and as things flow from this amendment. Diolch yn fawr iawn both to you and also to the Deputy Minister as well.
We move now to group 5. This group of amendments relates to the requirement to consult on national air quality and soundscapes strategies. Amendment 83 is the lead amendment, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move amendment 83 and the other amendments in the group.
Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendments 83 and 84. I am grateful to the Government team for working with me in drafting this amendment and for the Deputy Minister's willingness to work together on this issue. The amendment adds Transport for Wales to the list of statutory consultees for reviews of the national air quality strategy in section 80(10) of the Environment Act 1995. If passed, these amendments would mean that Transport for Wales would need to be consulted alongside Natural Resources Wales, every local authority in Wales, Public Health Wales and every local health board when reviewing the strategy, in recognition of the impact of the transport sector on air pollution and public health, and of course Transport for Wales's central role in reducing air pollution. I hope the amendment will improve accountability, transparency and good decision making. I hope it will be supported. Diolch.
As we've heard, the amendments do add Transport for Wales as a named consultee. I consider the inclusion of the public to be broad enough to allow anyone in Wales to respond, including Transport for Wales. By naming TfW only, though, there is a fundamental flaw. There are other public transport providers in Wales, and I suppose it is reasonable to question why they have not been consulted. We have the taxi and lorry drivers. In fact, the Road Haulage Association, a trade body representing over 8,500 hauliers across the United Kingdom, could and should have been named as a consultee, too. However, the most straightforward way to handle the matter is to keep this particular section broad, and just accept that anyone can respond under the category of 'the public'. On this one, we will be voting against these amendments. Diolch.
Diolch, Llywydd. During Stage 2 proceedings the Deputy Minister, Lee Waters MS, was happy in principle to add Transport for Wales to the list of statutory consultees when reviewing the national air quality strategy. However, he noted we would need to check with them first. Since then, we have worked with Delyth Jewell MS on this matter and confirmed Transport for Wales is content to be a statutory consultee for the national air quality strategy, and likewise for the national strategy on soundscapes, to ensure consistency. Our approach at Stage 2 was to ensure the consultation is consistent between the two strategies, so I'm very pleased that Delyth has proposed similar amendments for both the national air quality strategy and the national strategy on soundscapes to continue this approach, and I'd recommend the Senedd supports the amendments. Diolch.
Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you both for that. To address Janet's points, the principal reason why the amendments name TfW specifically, I think, is because of the extent of the influence that they would have. That isn't meant to be exhaustive, and I think you make a fair point that there could well be other groups who could be named in this as well. I think that there is still a very strong case to be made for Transport for Wales being included, but as I say, that doesn't need to be excluding other groups, and I hope very much that others will support it. Diolch yn fawr.
The question is that amendment 83 be agreed. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes, so we will have a vote on amendment 83. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 14 against. Therefore amendment 83 passes.
Group 6 is next, action plans in relation to air quality management areas. Amendment 60 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move that amendment.
Diolch. My amendment 60 requires local authorities, when in an air quality management area, to publish an action plan within 12 months. Amendment 61 would also require Welsh Ministers to publish their decision in relation to a local authority's action plan within three months of receiving the said plan. In short, what I have done—our group—is add time frames. As I advised in Stage 2, these would help make sure that clean air does remain a priority for both local authorities and Welsh Ministers. Additionally, they would help provide consistency across Wales whilst also increasing the likelihood of all 22 local authorities progressing with management plans in the same timely manner. Diolch.
Diolch, Llywydd. The timescales for action plans are currently set out in statutory guidance. This amendment would reduce the current timescales and move them into legislation. The current timescales require local authorities to submit a draft plan within 18 months of declaring an air quality management area. They must also adopt the final plan within 24 months.
This timescale is already challenging. It requires the authority to develop the plan, commission expert evidence and modelling where required, and undertake public consultation. The plan is submitted for appraisal by independent contractors and Welsh Government, where they make required changes before publication. Squeezing this process into 12 months may place a significant burden on local authorities and risks impacting the quality and effectiveness of the plans. As the Bill introduces a new requirement to include projected compliance dates, it is important these action plans are high quality and outline clear effective pathways to cleaner air. I do not support this amendment because we can review the timescales as we update and consult on new local air quality management guidance, which we've already committed to do. This will ensure local authorities can be fully involved.
And on amendment 61, while we already work to the timescales proposed, I do not support this amendment either. As I have mentioned, the Bill introduces a new requirement for local authorities to include projected compliance dates for the air quality management area in action plans, and agree this date with Welsh Ministers. Our intention for this process is to ensure actions selected are effective and enable Welsh Ministers to identify any levers held that could support the authority to improve air quality. We do not expect this to be a lengthy process, however there could be particularly tricky issues that require more time.
I do not support the amendment but I do appreciate the intention behind it. I know that the Deputy Minister offered to work with Janet Finch-Saunders MS at Stage 2, as we developed the local air quality management statutory guidance, to ensure the issues raised are considered.
I know that Janet wanted to raise it again here today. But I am happy to consider working with you, Janet, to include the change to this effect in the updated statutory guidance. Diolch.
The question is that amendment 60 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 60. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, 11 abstentions and 26 against. Therefore, amendment 60 is not agreed.
Does any Member object to amendment 61? [Objection.] Yes. We'll proceed to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 61. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 61 is not agreed.
Group 7 is next and this group relates to regulation of smoke and fuel in smoke control areas. Amendment 62 is the lead amendment and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to speak to that amendment. Janet Finch-Saunders.
Diolch, Llywydd. Amendment 62 would require Welsh Ministers through regulations to provide a list of exempt fireplaces. Having a list brought forward through regulations and discussed here in the Senedd does help us to scrutinise the Welsh Government decisions. It gives us a chance to represent the industry and discuss with them their views. For example, the Stove Industry Alliance are very willing to work closely on this. Evidence shows that dry wood-burning and ecodesign-compliant stoves—and I must declare an interest because I do have log burners—emit less PM2.5 emissions than cigarette smoking does. So, I hope that we're not going down a route of simply banning things without truly understanding their impact on emissions. That is why we brought forward this amendment to ensure that we are not just seen to be, but we are listening to the experts and we can allow their voices to be heard.
I have been pleased to co-operate with the Welsh Government on amendment 81. Schedule 5 to the Clean Air Act 1993 makes transitional and savings provision when revoking or varying a smoke control order made before 13 November 1980. The purpose of the amendment is to add a new duty on local authorities in Wales to mirror this amendment made to Schedule 1, paragraph 12 of Schedule 5 to the Clean Air Act 1993, which requires a local authority to publish a notice after making an order revoking or varying a smoke control order made before 13 November 1980. The effect of this amendment would be to place a duty on a local authority in Wales to publish this notice on their website.
I'm also grateful to the Deputy Minister and his team for their co-operation on amendment 82—Schedule 1 to the Clean Air Act 1993—providing the notice requirements before a local authority can invoke a smoke control order. The purpose of this amendment is to add a new paragraph to Schedule 1 to the 1993 Act to create a new duty that will apply to local authorities in Wales before making a smoke control order. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Clean Air Act 1993 creates a requirement for that local authority to publish a notice before making a smoke control order, specifying the information that that notice must contain. The effect of the amendment is to place this additional duty on a local authority in Wales to publish that notice on their website, if they have one. I thank the Welsh Government for their positive co-operation and hope that the Senedd will vote in favour of the amendments in this group. Diolch, Llywydd.
I'd like to put on record all of my thanks to those who've brought this before our Senedd today, particularly to Joe Carter and those at Healthy Air Cymru, who've worked so hard to get this to where it is today. This is the only time I'm going to speak, because I felt it was really important to put on record the Welsh Liberal Democrats' support for this Act.
We know that air pollution poses an invisible threat to the community spaces we cherish and the people that are most dear to us. Long-term exposure to emissions can cause cardiovascular and respiratory issues, and increase cancer risks. We cannot remain passive while people's lives are shortened by contaminated air. That's why I stand behind this Bill, which will finally propel solutions to the crisis before us.
At the same time, we must also be mindful that the impact of this legislation is felt fairly across all of Wales, rural and urban areas alike. I represent communities in Mid and West Wales where clean air is just as important locally as it is in the big cities. It is for this reason that I'm speaking on amendments 81 and 82, regarding the importance of ensuring that those who have a fireplace are notified about what they need to do to achieve compliance with the new smoke control orders.
Within my region of Mid and West Wales, there is a high percentage of households that are not connected to the gas grid. While the average figure in Wales is around 19 per cent of homes, within Carmarthenshire that number is 39 per cent, Powys is 55 per cent and in Ceredigion a staggering 74 per cent of domestic properties are off grid. While many rural households rely upon fuels such as oil or liquefied petroleum gas as a main fuel for heating, these sources are very much more expensive than networked energy sources. Prices have ballooned in recent years, with the average price of heating oil more than doubling since October 2020.
We are all conscious of the grave threat posed by domestic burning of solid fuels. Wood-burning stoves release toxic fine particulate matter that can penetrate deep into the lungs, heightening risks of cardiovascular and respiratory illness as well. According to the European Environment Agency, in 2019, exposure to these miniscule toxic particles in the UK was tied to over 33,000 early deaths. The figures really are alarming. According to UK Government data last year, wood burning at home now generates more fine particulate pollution than total road traffic across the UK. Data from the Stove Industry Alliance showed that UK stove sales have risen by 40 per cent between 2021 and 2022.
However, for those living in our rural areas off-grid, solid-fuel wood burners represent a significantly cheaper form of energy. The provisions needs to be very specific and sensitive to the local area, being aware of the fact that many people cannot afford to heat themselves any other way. So, we need realistic time frames and substantial support to help people transition their off-grid homes to approved appliances and fuels. Amendments 81 and 82 will allow local residents to have more time and greater clarity in order to properly adjust to the new smoke control orders. This needs thoughtful communication and a compassionate assisting hand. If not, we risk further isolating struggling households. Legislation is only effective if people can feasibly comply. Therefore, I would like to seek assurances from the Minister, on behalf of the people in Mid and West Wales who are reliant upon wood burners out of necessity, that there will be ample clarity, time and support for people to be made aware by their local councils of any requirements and changes. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Diolch, Llywydd. I've considered the first two amendments proposed by Janet Finch-Saunders MS. These are amendment 62 and consequential amendment 71. Amendment 62 would result in a return to approval of exempt fireplaces via regulations rather than an online approval process. The Bill maintains the approach established by the Deregulation Act 2015 and the Environment Act 2021. These Acts both made amendments to the Clean Air Act 1993 to move away from requiring statutory instruments to prescribe exempt fireplaces. The Bill will allow the Welsh Ministers to approve these products via an online system, as is currently the case for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The burdensome process of approvals via statutory instrument for each product brought into market is outdated and unnecessary and we're in the process of setting up this online system. Based on that, I resist this amendment.
I will now move on to amendments 81 and 82. Llywydd, I'm very happy that we've been able to work with Janet Finch-Saunders MS on amendment 81, enhancing an earlier version tabled at Stage 2. This amendment adds to the existing notice requirements in the Clean Air Act 1993. I understand that it is likely that a local authority would publish smoke control orders on its website without this provision needing to be on the face of the legislation, but having said that, I'm more than happy to support the amendment as it's a sensible approach to improving public awareness. I very much hope that Jane Dodds's constituents will be able to take advantage of that and the online approval system.
Moving on to amendment 82, many of the smoke control orders in Wales predate 13 November 1980, and are still in force, though not actively enforced. This additional amendment is necessary in case local authorities in Wales wish to revoke or vary any of the smoke control orders made before this date. Amendment 82 is necessary, alongside amendment 81, in order to give it effect and also has my support. Diolch.
Diolch, Llywydd, and diolch to the Minister. As Huw Irranca-Davies has said, I believe that legislation is better for the inclusion of work that we've put together in terms of amendments, and some legislation is made better with a cross-party approach. I'd like to thank you for your very eloquent and excellent contribution, Jane Dodds. My group and I thank you most sincerely for supporting those amendments. Diolch, Minister. Diolch, everyone.
If amendment 62 is not agreed, amendment 71 will fall. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore we will proceed to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 62. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions and 38 against. Therefore, amendment 62 is not agreed and amendment 71 falls.
Diolch, Llywydd. We were doing so well there. [Laughter.] All of the amendments in my name under this section relate to the same point of principle: I, we as the Welsh Conservative group, do not believe that Welsh Ministers' road-charging powers should be expanded. A Senedd petition calling on the Welsh Government to cease all further planning for road charging in Wales has already attracted nearly 7,000 signatures. The Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee's public survey found that 92 per cent of respondents disagreed with Welsh Ministers having wider powers to introduce trunk road charging schemes. We believe that there has been recently a war on motorists, many of whom have little choice but to use their car and to drive. We're the first to admit we do need to cut down our reliance on cars and we need to walk more, we need to cycle more, and we need to be able to use public transport where we can. But, in some instances, that is not an option, and cars are the only option. So many people commute from areas where public transport is poor, and that is because of your Government's failure to adequately support public transport. In fact, at a time when bus services are being cut, isolating communities, with these extra powers to potentially charge people going to work, people going to care for people, and lots of other people using their cars—it may be taking children to school where they have to—there is then the potential negative impact on our local roads. The introduction of trunk road charging schemes could actually result in more people using local authority managed roads, compounding congestion in sometimes difficult-to-navigate communities. Giving people a penalty for driving when there is no feasible alternative option is unreasonable and unjust. That's why I hope Members will agree with us today and, as such, support these amendments. Diolch.
Diolch, Llywydd. Members are being asked to vote on amendments that will remove trunk road charging scheme provisions from the Bill. The Deputy Minister for Climate Change did not support similar amendments at Stage 2, and the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee voted to reject them.
Turning first to amendment 63, this amendment seeks to remove in totality section 21 of the Bill, which expands the circumstances under which a trunk road charging scheme may be made. The amendments to the Transport Act 2000, created by section 21, provide that a charging scheme may be made for the purposes of reducing or limiting air pollution in the vicinity of the road. I do understand concerns about schemes that will impose additional charges on motorists. Members of the Senedd will, I'm sure, be familiar with the kind of public objections expressed about clean air zones in some English cities and, of course, in London's expanded ultra low emissions zone. These schemes are not punitive measures introduced to make the lives of motorists more difficult, and I have to say, Janet, I do regret your language. We have the horror of war playing out in front of us on our tv screens every night. Using that language for something that's meant to improve air quality, I really think you should reconsider that.
These schemes have been introduced as a necessity to make a step-change improvement in air quality and to comply with statutory nitrogen dioxide levels. In Wales, we have also experienced difficulties in complying with statutory limits alongside some of our roads. However, we have made good progress in tackling this by introducing non-charging mitigations. We must accept that persistent air pollution problems may require more substantial interventions. There are no current plans to introduce trunk road charges. The Deputy Minister for Climate Change has already been clear on this. But, as he has pointed out previously, clean air zones are listed in our air quality plan as precautionary retained measures that could be introduced on certain roads if other measures prove insufficient to meet our obligations. It remains the case that we are taking relevant and appropriate actions to reduce air pollution to comply with our obligations, but, without the powers in section 21 of the Bill, we would be unable to give full effect to our air quality plan commitments should a compelling case be made in the future for trunk road charging schemes to tackle excessive vehicle emissions. For these reasons, I do not support amendment 63, tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders.
Amendment 80 is a minor technical amendment that clarifies that trunk road charging schemes may be introduced for either of the three purposes described in section 21. I do ask the Senedd to vote for this essential amendment.
Diolch, Llywydd. I'm always the first to listen and acknowledge if I've said or done anything I shouldn't have done, and I have to say, in looking back on my contribution, 'a war on motorists', at this particular time, are probably not the best words. So, I'd like to say that there has been a campaign of targeting our motorists across Wales. Diolch.
If amendment 63 is agreed to, amendment 80 will fall. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we will proceed to a vote on amendment 63. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 63 is not agreed.
Is there objection to amendment 80? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 80. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 14 against. Therefore, amendment 80 is agreed.
It is being moved. Is there objection? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Open the vote on amendment 64. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 64 is not agreed.
Yes. Is there objection? [Objection.] Yes, there is a objection. Therefore, we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 72. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 72 is not agreed.
Diolch, Llywydd. So, As the Llywydd has mentioned, amendments 65 and 69 reverse the changes made by the Bill to fixed-penalty notices issued in respect of stationary idling offences. I do not doubt that fines for idling can scare people to stop undertaking such activities, but there is a major problem. As the British Medical Association have highlighted, there are challenges in terms of enforcement and implementation. Resources may be needed for local authorities to build up the capacity to enforce widespread compliance. However, ultimately, rather than anti-idling measures, what we need are moves to reduce dependence on personal vehicles and promotion of active travel. With the amendments in the name of Huw Irranca-Davies, we are now on track with the latter, but this Bill does very little to tackle air pollution by requiring the Welsh Government to take positive steps in relation to personal vehicles. Anti-idling measures will be very hard to implement. It should only be a matter of last resort after every other option for improving air quality has been pursued. So, I encourage you to back the amendments in my name. And we just need to make it very clear on these benches that we do not support any further charges to our motorists, who, themselves, are facing a very tough time at the moment. Thank you. Diolch.
Diolch, Llywydd. Amendment 65, tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, would undermine our approach to strengthening action on unnecessary engine idling by removing the power to specify a penalty range in regulations. The case for taking firmer action on this offence is clear: idling engines are harmful to our health and are quite simply an unnecessary source of air pollution. The Deputy Minister for Climate Change and I are both determined to take stronger action to combat this practice. Unnecessary engine idling is a particular problem at certain locations, such as schools and hospitals, both in terms of frequency of idling incidents and in terms of disproportionate exposure to groups who are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollution. I must say, I was at a very effective campaign on this at a school in my colleague Rebecca Evans's constituency, Oystermouth Primary School, where the children stood with banners by the lights there and asked motorists to turn their engine off just while they waited by the lights. The effect on the air pollution there was quite extraordinary, and anyone who doesn't think that that really matters should really just have a look at those statistics.
Respondents to our White Paper consultation, undertaken between January and April 2021, recognised this. Of those who answered whether they agreed with our proposals to tackle instances of sustained, concentrated idling, nearly 80 per cent were supportive. Respondents also recognised that tougher action is key to protecting the most vulnerable in society. I cannot support amendment 65 as it would leave unchanged the current penalty framework, which we know is failing to provide sufficient deterrents. Our White Paper consultation revealed strong support for improving the capability of enforcement and for increasing the level of fixed penalty. I know, Delyth, that you worked with us on this and that your work has resulted in revisions being proposed to the explanatory memorandum, which include clarification that although local authorities would retain flexibilities to set penalty amounts to address particular circumstances, the Welsh Government guidance will ensure the consistency across Wales that you are seeking.
Thank you. I welcome the fact that the Government has been willing to work cross-party on this issue, and I think that what you were just saying about where schoolchildren have been holding up banners asking drivers to turn their car engines off when they're waiting at the lights, that's really powerful, because I think, so often, people who are going to be most affected by issues like this are those who don't have voices in our decision making. So, if we could keep that in mind, I think that that is a really powerful thing. Diolch.
I appreciate the point that you make about a smoky old diesel that's pulled up outside the school's front door and the impact that that has on people's health, but, obviously, with the transition to electric vehicles, can you assure us that anybody in an electric vehicle is not going to be penalised for idling in an electric vehicle, are they, because they don't have any emissions in the same way that a smoky old diesel or a poor petrol engine might?
No, and, indeed, electric engines don't idle, in fact, so it doesn't come up. I just want to reassure the benches opposite here that we're not looking to penalise people for doing this; we're looking to change behaviour. So, the guidance will make it very plain that only egregious breaches, of people who have been warned and who are still just sitting with their fossil-fuel car idling in a place where they've been repeatedly warned that this is causing air pollution problems—. I'm afraid, often, the parents dropping children off at the very school in question—[Interruption.] Well, I'm just answering the last intervention, so if you'll let me get to the end of that answer, maybe I can do another.
So, we'll be making very clear in guidance that this is not about raising money or penalising people; it's about behaviour change, and so we would think this would be very sparingly used, and the guidance that we were working on, which Delyth just referenced, will make that very plain.
Thank you, Minister. Would you accept the reality, though, that most cars made after about 2005 have a stop-start engine on them? So, you stick it in neutral, let the clutch go, and the car will cut out anyway without having to actively turn the engine off, as you're purporting to be the case.
Indeed. You make the point for me; that person is not idling and, therefore, they obviously won't be fined. This is aimed at people who either shut that feature off in their car, which you can do, or are driving a vehicle where that isn't involved. Almost certainly, these provisions won't be necessary in a decade's time, but they are necessary now, and if you go and stand at some of these vulnerable venues you can see that they're necessary.
Llywydd, I don't support amendment 69, tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, which seeks to remove reference to the commencement sections that would implement this regime, and is consequential to amendment 65. The Government will therefore oppose these amendments. Diolch.
The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We'll move to a vote on amendment 65. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, and 38 against. Therefore the amendment is not agreed.
Diolch, Llywydd. This amendment calls for Welsh Ministers to bring forward an office for air quality protection, as well as a statutory instrument that brings forward further provisions on the body within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. As we did in Stage 2, I wanted to highlight how disappointing it is that this Welsh Government has promised for ages to bring forward an environmental protection body and governance, and yet you have yet to do so. I acknowledge that the Welsh Government has recently written to our climate change committee, highlighting that the legislative programme on 27 June reaffirmed the Government's intention to bring forward legislation during this Senedd term to establish an environmental governance body for Wales and to introduce a statutory duty and targets to protect and restore biodiversity. However, as we have proven with this amendment, there's absolutely no reason why we couldn't legislate now. In fact, as it stands, this Bill will add to the legislative framework impacting the environment, but yet we don't have the formal environmental governance body in place that would oversee all this legislation. I encourage all Members to support this amendment, and, by doing so, you'll be wanting stronger environmental governance today, as we do. Diolch.
Diolch, Llywydd. As noted at Stage 2, it is important to ensure there are proper governance arrangements in place in relation to environmental issues. Those arrangements are of course necessary because we left the European Union, which previously provided those arrangements—a fact that the Member opposite conveniently forgets on a number of occasions.
The effect of this amendment is to add a new section establishing a new body corporate known as the office for air quality protection. Subsection 2 of the amendment would place a duty on Welsh Ministers to make regulations within 12 months of Royal Assent, setting out further provisions about the body. As Members of the Senedd will be aware, the environmental governance and biodiversity targets Bill was announced in the First Minister's legislative statement in June 2023. It is scheduled for introduction this Senedd term. We expect this Bill to formally establish a new environmental governance body for Wales, although no formal decisions will obviously be made at this point, Llywydd, and won't be until this Senedd has a chance to look at that Bill. We are currently in the process of scoping responsibilities for the proposed environmental governance body for Wales. A key aim of this organisation will be to identify where action can be taken to improve the functioning of environmental law to improve environmental outcomes. In line with our position taken at Stage 2, I recommend the Senedd does not support this amendment. However, Llywydd, I just want to emphasise that we welcome views from Members on how they would like air quality protection to be considered as part of this new body. Diolch.
The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will proceed to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 66. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore amendment 66 is not agreed.
Diolch, Llywydd. Amendment 67 inserts a definition of soundscapes on the face of the Bill. The definition has been used by the Welsh Government previously, and is the official definition used by the International Organization for Standardization. Should you not support this amendment, there will be no actual definition of soundscapes on the Bill, and this could cause considerable ambiguity. Amendment 70 is technical. Diolch.
Diolch, Llywydd. Turning to amendments 67 and 70 proposed by Janet Finch-Saunders, these amendments insert a new section that defines soundscapes and allows the Welsh Ministers to amend this definition via regulations. They would also bring the new section into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The definition being proposed does not align with the definition in current international and British standards and Welsh Government policy documents. It omits the word 'context', which is a crucial component of any soundscape assessment. Furthermore, we are opposed in principle to putting on the face of the Bill a definition taken from technical standards that are subject to periodic review and iterative update in a still-evolving subject area. In addition, the amendment would require definitions of other terms defined in standards that may also change over time. We have put the current standard definition of soundscape in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill, as recommended by the Institute of Acoustics in their evidence to the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee in May 2023. For these reasons, we do not support these two amendments. Diolch.
If amendment 67 is not agreed, amendment 70 will fall. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote and open the vote on amendment 67. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore amendment 67 is not agreed.
The next group is on the national strategy on soundscapes; it's group 12. Amendment 85 is the only amendment in the group. And I call on Jenny Rathbone to move amendment 85. Jenny Rathbone.
Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. We've just debated the importance of having a measured approach to wood-burning stoves, even though that we know that they contain significant particulates. So, I want to ensure that, during the passage of this Bill, we are addressing some of the perverse consequences of what I regard as out-of-date regulations, which is why I've tabled this amendment, that the strategy must make provision for the management of noise from air-source heat pumps, which are indeed a useful alternative to other technologies, particularly in an urban environment.
The Welsh Government noise and soundscape action plan 2018 to 2023 regards noise as pollution that impacts on human health, with social and economic costs, to be controlled, and good sound to be enhanced. All of that is all excellent. However, Cardiff Council planning authority is using this five-year-old noise and soundscape action plan in its approach to applications for air-source heat pumps as if they were a noise-generating development. Having analysed a recent professional noise assessment survey to support a planning application from somebody in my constituency for an air-source heat pump to the back of a terraced property, I'm convinced that the way in which a proposed installation of an air-source heat pump is being treated has not kept pace with the improvements in the design and quiet running of modern air-source heat pumps. This is particularly relevant for people living in urban environments where they may not have the alternatives of renewable energy options such as a ground-source heat pump, because they simply don't have the land available, or they have a north-facing roof, so they can't therefore install solar, or the economics of it don't add up. This is particularly relevant for my constituents. Large parts of Cardiff Central are made up of terraced housing. People living in this terraced housing are, in nearly all cases, less than 3m away from the neighbouring dwellings, and therefore their installation of an air-source heat pump is deemed to be in breach of the noise and soundscape action plan. In England, it should be noted that installation of an air-source heat pump is a permitted development within 1m of another dwelling, and I think that is more in keeping with the way in which air-source heat pumps have considerably upped their game.
Having read the outcome of the survey, which cost the applicant £1,000, I think there are strong reasons for revising the regulations in line with our climate change and net-zero ambitions. The expert noise and vibration consultant deemed that the decibel levels of a modern air-source heat pump were less than the background noise from traffic, music, barking dogs, and all the other noises that anyone living in the middle of a city regards as unremarkable. I want to emphasise that this was the case also during the night, as well as during the day, by setting the appliance to its 40 per cent noise reduction mode from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., which is when most people wouldn't be using their energy—they wouldn't be generating the need for energy during those times in any case.
I do not propose to press this amendment to the vote, because I've not had the opportunity to speak to the Deputy Minister about it, but I would like to hear from the Minister how the regulations in the explanatory memorandum or elsewhere can be amended to reflect the improvements in air-source heat pump technology, and make it less onerous for those who want to adopt this cheaper, cleaner and quieter technology to heat their home.
At the moment, I absolutely understand it's a minority activity, but, as the cost of gas continues to rise, more people will want to consider this proposed technology in line with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and we should not be penalising them unnecessarily for doing the right thing, as long as the applicant can demonstrate that the device they plan to install does not add to normal background noise, which was the case of my constituent.
Just some clarification, I think, really, because we were going to be supporting your amendment, but I don't know—is it an amendment, when you said, 'I don't want to press it to go to the vote'? A new report by Apex Acoustics and Sustainable Acoustics and ANV Measurement Systems has found that most air-source heat pumps are too loud for properties in built-up areas, as the constant hum of the outdoor units would violate noise limits set for those who wish to install one without planning permission and with a Government grant. The findings form part of an official Government review by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA, into the potential noise problem presented by the humming of multiple air-source heat pumps in residential areas, and the sort you mentioned, Jenny—those terraced houses, of which there are many in your constituency and in other areas across Wales. Given the above, I believe it reasonable to include your amendment, which does make provision for managing noise from air-source heat pumps. So, yes, we will be supporting that, if it goes through.
Diolch, Llywydd. Turning to amendment 85, proposed by Jenny Rathbone MS, this amends section 24 of the Bill, which requires the Welsh Ministers to prepare and publish a national strategy on soundscapes. The amendment would require that any such strategy made under section 24 must make provision for the management of noise from air-source heat pumps.
Heat pump noise has been debated a lot in the media recently, and we are determined to get our policy right on this subject. We've commissioned a review of the latest evidence in relation to air-source heat pumps, and we'll publish the outcome of this research in due course. The management of noise from air-source heat pumps is covered in our draft noise and soundscape plan, which we intend to be our national strategy on soundscapes for the next five years. However, the Bill is setting requirements for the national soundscapes strategies of all future Welsh Governments, and those future Governments will need to focus their attention on the noise issues that are the highest priorities in five, 10 and 15 years from now. As technology improves, heat pump noise may not be such a concern in the future, and other noise issues we cannot predict may well come to the fore. We do not consider it appropriate to single out any particular type of noise on the face of the Bill just because it's a matter of current interest to us, and therefore we would resist the amendment, were it moved.
I just want to say, though, Jenny, as I know you and I've discussed the issue with the planning consent for this: at the moment, we have a situation where we have permitted development rights for air-source heat pumps within 3m of the house next door, but not closer than that. The point you made about the mode that the air-source heat pumps runs on can be conditioned, if planning consent is granted. If you give it in permitted development rights, there's nothing you can do if the person chooses not to do that, and therefore the noise is significantly greater. Also, you're absolutely right, very quiet models are available, but there are plenty of second-hand models around that are not very quiet. So, we just need to make sure that we have all of the aspects of this right before we change the permitted development rights, which would then remove some of the issues that you're talking about.
In the meantime, we think it is right that planning consent should be asked for. We will look at our soundscape plan to make sure that, when a council looking at a planning consent is considering an air-source heat pump, the soundscape plan that they refer to has all of the most modern information on it about air-source heat pumps and how to condition them, so that they can be assisted. And I agree with you that, as it becomes much more common, the likelihood of the older models being in use will decrease, and we'll be able to react accordingly. But I don't think this is the right way to achieve what you're trying to do, which is very laudable and with which I agree; I just don't think this is the right methodology for it. Diolch.
Thank you, Minister, for your response, and I'm very glad that you have commissioned additional research on this matter, because I think that we need to update it, as it's now five years since the last plan. I agree with you that consent needs to be required for the time being, so we don't have dodgy and second-hand noisy machines being installed. But where the applicant can show that they are installing a new machine, in accordance with the much lower decibel levels, then it shouldn't be necessary to ask them to also have a noise survey, which, as I said, costs £1,000, which is a lot of money, just to simply go through what is already routine for those who've already installed these, because others might have been deterred from doing the right thing. So, I won't be pushing this amendment.
So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 85. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, one abstention, 26 against, therefore amendment 85 is not agreed.
There is objection to amendment 84. Open the vote on amendment 84. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 14 against. Therefore, amendment 84 is agreed.
It is. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore move to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 68. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 68 is not agreed.
It is. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Open the vote on amendment 69. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 69 is not agreed.
That was the last of the votes. That concludes our Stage 3 consideration of the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Bill, and I declare that all sections and Schedules to the Bill are deemed agreed. And that concludes Stage 3 proceedings for this Bill. Thank you.
In terms of revaluations on non-domestic rates, which you outlined in your statement—a move to every three years from the current ambition of five—we do know also that businesses like certainty and stability when it comes to investment and planning for them, so I wonder how much of that perhaps faster change, in terms of revaluation, will impact them, from a certainty point of view. It's also interesting, isn't it, that, for council tax, you seem to be comfortable for revaluation to take place every five years, but, for the non-domestic rates, you're looking for every three years. I wonder if you'll be able to outline why you think there should be a difference from two sets of considerations, considering they are probably quite similar, as a property tax, essentially. So, that change and uncertainty, in my view, does pose a risk to businesses, and, on page 10 of the explanatory memorandum, it quotes the many benefits of the existing non-domestic rates system, including its demonstrated longevity, its proportionality, its ability to flex in order to provide support for those less able to meet their liability obligations. So, I think my general message there, Minister, is that you've outlined a number of positives about the current system, so I just urge some caution in terms of dramatic change, because we want businesses to be certain of the future that's ahead of them.
In terms of a missed potential opportunity, I'd like to hear, perhaps, if you've had any discussions or thoughts as to the role of the levy within the fire and rescue service. So, currently, as you'll know, councils are levied by the fire and rescue service, whereas the police do a precept directly to people. So, I wonder whether that's perhaps a missed opportunity of, perhaps, fire and rescue services precepting for their funding, rather than a levy to councils. And I would like to hear perhaps whether that's something you considered being included within the Bill, and, if it was, why it was dismissed as an idea, perhaps for greater transparency as to the way in which the fire and rescue services are funded. I'm conscious of time, Deputy Presiding Officer, so I'll pause my questions. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you.
In terms of the discounts and so on, the Bill will confer a power on Welsh Ministers to make regulations to enable change to be implemented more quickly and more responsively over time, and Welsh Ministers could set different conditions for statutory discounts or add new categories of discounts, including new rates, for example, in the future. Again, that would allow us to respond to different situations. We've acted to support people coming from Ukraine, for example, but that required us to undertake quite a lot of work, which could be done much more quickly and in a more agile way in future. So, those are just some examples.
I'm really pleased that the Member has noted in the legislation that there are no plans to reduce the single person's discount. I was disappointed by the Welsh Conservatives' response to the legislation suggesting that we were doing away with a 'widower's tax'. Well, we're not doing away with a widower's tax, because there's no such tax in the first place. The Welsh Conservatives are literally making it up as they go along. So, either whoever is behind this hasn't read the Bill, they haven't understood the Bill, or they are deliberately misleading people, because those are the only possible ways in which you can explain that. So, it is the case that the single person's discount remains. Of course, it's not just for people who are widows or widowers, it's for single parents and other people who live on their own as well. So, that's not going anywhere, and the rate at which it's set isn't going anywhere either. So, all I ask for a bit of fair play. This is complex stuff. It really matters to people; it really matters to businesses. So, let's just be honest with them when we're talking to them about it.
Another benefit of LVT is that it would bring in revenue straight to the Welsh Treasury from the vast amount of land owned by the Crown Estate, in contrast to the current situation, where any profits from these assets are siphoned away to the UK Treasury. Does the Minister agree with me that introducing land value tax on Crown Estate property would deliver a much needed boost to the Welsh Treasury, allowing for far greater headroom for public spending in Wales?
A further benefit of a local land value tax is that it could also replace non-domestic rates, thereby fulfilling one of the key objectives of the Welsh Government’s tax policy framework to simplify the design of tax. We know that NDR in its current form is something of a blunt policy instrument, and whilst the intention to legislate for more frequent revaluations is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, as well as the continuation of relief schemes for certain sectors, this fundamental premise of taxing primary rentable properties as opposed to the owners of the land is particularly burdensome on SMEs. Plaid Cymru firmly believes that stimulating growth in our domestic SME sector is vital for reinvigorating Wales’s flatlining economy. Does the Minister agree that replacing NDR with LVT would facilitate this?
Finally, the Bill has thrown up one area of concern. Whilst I was reading it early—
And then the point about electronic communications, I know that will be part of the scrutiny of the Senedd. The Bill at the moment replaces the current requirement under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to publish details relating to council tax in newspapers, as the Member has said, with a requirement to place a notice of council tax charges on the local authority's website and to put suitable alternative arrangements in place to ensure that such information is accessible to citizens who do have difficulty accessing online facilities. But I'm sure we'll get into some of the detail of that in due course.
And then to the main substance, really, of the contribution, which was about alternative models to that which we're proposing through the Local Government Finance (Wales) Bill. I know that the Member’s got a particular interest in a land value tax and, for a long time, the existing local taxes have provided that kind of stable basis for tax, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking at other models as well. So, we do continue to explore the potential for a local land value tax and that builds on Bangor University’s detailed technical assessment that it did in the last Senedd term for us, to aid our thinking about the future of local taxation. Over the coming years, we will move forward with the findings of that report, drawing on a wide range of expertise to develop that clear understanding of what such a significant change would look like for Wales and how it could work in practice. And that analysis will then include a potential road map for implementation. And I think, as was recognised in the contribution, perhaps in the first instance it might be more—I'd say 'simple', but that's really not the word—relatively simple to apply it to non-domestic rates rather than council tax. But it is a piece of work that is ongoing alongside the work that we're doing on the immediate reforms.
As the length of half terms in the spring term may vary depending on where Easter falls, our second proposal is a spring break that has the potential to be decoupled from Easter, should we need to, to regulate the length of half terms in the spring. We aim to introduce these proposed changes from the start of the 2025 school year. Following this, and subject to feedback, we will seek initial views on further amendments, including extending the May break, and a four-week summer break, to equalise the length of the spring term. We will look to explore these over the coming years, on the same time frame as the roll-out of our made-for-Wales qualifications. There's more detail set out on this in the consultation document itself.
To be clear, when we consider amendments to the school calendar, there will be no change to the overall number of teaching days or to the overall number of school breaks, and the summer break will not be reduced to fewer than four weeks. We recognise that changes to the school calendar will be wide reaching. It is important therefore that as many individuals, groups and organisations as possible engage with this consultation. We will be talking directly to a wide range of stakeholders through the consultation, including learners, their families and the education sector, as well as tourism, childcare, faith and belief groups, and others who have important views to share. These proposals have been developed with school staff and learners in mind, and present an opportunity, Dirprwy Lywydd, to ensure that our most disadvantaged learners in particular are given the best opportunities in learning and life.
I haven't even mentioned concerns about the tourism sector yet, with fears from the sector that reducing the summer break will have serious consequences for their industry in Wales and a negative knock-on effect on the wider Welsh economy. Minister, in the report compiled by Beaufort Research that you commissioned, one tourism boss said that a four-week summer holiday, and I quote, 'absolutely terrifies me' and would be a 'monumental nightmare'. Another predicted Wales would lose approximately 75 per cent of tourism attractions if the current six-week holiday is cut by two weeks. Minister, the tourism sector isn't happy, your own unions aren't happy, teachers aren't happy, and parents and learners, from your own research, aren't happy. We've seen no actual evidence that changing the school year will have a positive impact whatsoever. So, what, Minister, do you know that the rest of us don't?
But more widely, as was mentioned by Laura Anne Jones, in the education portfolio, there are many challenges, from problems in recruiting new teachers and excessive workloads to high rates of absence among pupils, a large increase in mental health problems and support for learners with additional learning needs. The attainment gap between children from different backgrounds remains stubbornly large and the cost of the school day is creating problems amid the current cost-of-living crisis. So, could you confirm that you will not limit your radicalism to the areas that I've just cited, and that you will bring forward plans that are just as robust and rapid to realise our ambitions for all young people and teachers in Wales? Because how are learners expected to take advantage of changes in terms of the school year if they are not even at school, or receiving the support at school that they need, or accessing food in the school holidays, however long those holidays are?
You heard earlier Sioned Williams asking a question to the First Minister in terms of feeding schoolchildren during the school holidays. My one concern about the autumn fortnight is the lack of support in the holidays in terms of having a hot meal for a fortnight at a period when the weather can be so much colder and there are additional costs in terms of heating homes during that specific fortnight. So, could I ask you what assessment has been made and how do we ensure that these changes are not going to mean that the children we are trying to support with these plans are suffering because of the effects of poverty otherwise?
On the principle of introducing amendments before consultation, the environment Bill already commits the Welsh Government to introduce regulations to tackle PM2.5 at the end of a three-year period after the Bill receives Royal Assent, during which time there will be a public consultation on regulations for reducing PM2.5. Therefore, we don't think it's unreasonable for this approach to be extended to other pollutants that are harmful to human health, as identified by the World Health Organization. We believe that the introduction of timelines for specific pollutants within the Bill is of greater importance than the deadlines themselves. There are concerns in the public health sector that the process of setting targets could drag on, as there have been instances where Ministers or the Welsh Government have opted not to lay certain regulations as envisaged in primary legislation previously.
Finally, for clarity on this amendment, this amendment captures pollutants with regulations being laid by a specified date in the legislation. If the Welsh Government doesn't accept this, we would urge the Senedd to vote in favour of our amendment 4, which focuses on the introduction of a target for nitrogen dioxide, as Janet has already alluded to, by a specified date, using that same approach as already taken for PM2.5.
I'll turn briefly to amendment 4. I believe that this is crucial for safeguarding human health in Wales, because nitrogen dioxide pollutants pose significant risks to us, both respiratory and cardiovascular. Thus, introducing a specific target for nitrogen dioxide would be an urgent way of responding to those risks. This is an amendment that, again—amendment 4—is particularly vital for vulnerable populations like children, the elderly and people with pre-existing health conditions, who are disproportionately affected by air pollution. So, this would promote environmental justice and ensure that equal protection for all communities is promoted, regardless of people's socioeconomic status.
Moreover, the reduction of nitrogen dioxide would align with our broader environmental goals. Nitrogen dioxide isn't only harmful to human health; it contributes to the climate crisis. It is a potent greenhouse gas. So, I would urge Members to support that amendment for the sake of improved air quality, reduced healthcare costs and a healthier future for our planet.
And finally on this group, Llywydd, amendment 15. This was a matter that was discussed at Stage 2, I think, which is that the five-year review process within the Bill as drafted provides, I think, too few opportunities for scrutiny of the Welsh Government's progress. With the Senedd reform Bill very likely to pass, this five-year review process may mean there would be instances where the Welsh Government did not publish air quality data in relation to their targets throughout an entire Senedd term. That isn't definite, of course—I'd welcome the Minister's thoughts on that point—but I'd also appreciate clarity on how the Welsh Government will publish data across pollutants. For example, publication of levels of PM2.5 may come separately to other pollutants, given the timelines specified in the legislation.
I'd be grateful to receive more clarity on the Welsh Government's intentions around reporting, and when it comes to this amendment on the review cycle, our preference would be for the review cycle to be published every four years. And I would say again how vital it would be to have this scrutiny at least once per Senedd term. Diolch, Llywydd.
Therefore, I would invite you all in the Senedd to join me in ensuring that the issue of pollution is dealt with wholly, not as purely an outdoor phenomenon. It’s time we fill this legislation with a breath of fresh air, and account for every part of the pollution problem. Diolch yn fawr.
Welsh Conservatives amendment 38 requires Welsh Ministers to make regulations setting a target for each of the World Health Organization's air quality guideline pollutants. It also gives Welsh Ministers the power by regulations to add to the list of pollutants. Plaid Cymru’s amendment 3 has a very similar effect, other than it doesn't contain the regulation-making power allowing Welsh Ministers to add to the list of pollutants.
I believe the intention of the Welsh Conservatives with their amendment 44 is that such regulations should be made within three years of Royal Assent. Similarly, I believe the intention of Plaid Cymru with their amendment 15 is for the regulations required by amendment 3 to be made within four years of Royal Assent. However, I'm afraid the application of the time frame is unclear in both cases.
Taking Plaid Cymru’s amendment 15 first, on our interpretation the duty to lay regulations within four years would be satisfied as long as the Welsh Ministers laid one set of regulations containing one specific pollutant air quality target within four years of Royal Assent. Welsh Ministers would still be under a duty to make regulations setting targets for remaining pollutants, but the time frame for this is uncertain.
Taking Welsh Conservatives amendment 44, the use of the word 'or' rather than 'and' in this amendment means it can be interpreted that the duty to lay regulations within three years of Royal Assent will be satisfied by either laying regulations setting a PM2.5 target or regulations setting a target for one of the pollutants listed in amendment 38. Again, this leaves the time frame for complying with the duty in amendment 38 uncertain. Llywydd, this is clearly not satisfactory.
Plaid Cymru has also laid an additional amendment—amendment 4—which requires Welsh Ministers to set a target for nitrogen dioxide. Amendment 16 requires such regulations to be laid within four years of Royal Assent. None of these amendments, tabled by Plaid Cymru or the Conservatives, contains provision preventing the revocation of the targets they require the Welsh Ministers to set. This is a significant oversight, which, in my view, undermines the whole purpose of the provisions. In contrast, our Government amendment 77 provides such protection for the Government's proposed new duty. This mirrors existing provision in the Bill preventing the revocation of a PM2.5 air quality target.
In relation to amendments 3 and 38, it is simply not feasible to lay target regulations for each of the World Health Organization's air quality guideline pollutants within three or four years of Royal Assent. In addition, as discussed previously, we do not yet have the evidence to demonstrate which further targets are needed. This is why we have not specified in our amendment which pollutant needs to be the subject of the target's regulations within the six-year period. The Senedd will play a key role in considering appropriate pollutants.
As recognised by the World Health Organization, air quality standard-setting processes need to aim to achieve the lowest concentrations possible in the context of national and local constraints, capabilities and public health priorities. It is important that we collectively make informed decisions on action to improve air quality. While I absolutely respect the ethos of the other amendments in this group, which I have just outlined, I would ask the Senedd to only support amendments 73 to 79 tabled by the Government. They strike the right balance between ambition and achievability.
As well as the amendments to extend the duties placed on Welsh Ministers to make target-setting regulations, there is one other amendment in this group, which I will turn to next. My understanding of the effect of amendment 1 is that it turns section 1 of the Bill into a power for Welsh Ministers to make regulations setting long-term targets for indoor or outdoor air quality. I understand the Member's intention behind bringing indoor air quality into the scope of the Bill. However, Llywydd, we are not at that stage yet. A lot more research needs to be invested into indoor air quality before we can make legislative provision. I therefore do not support this amendment and ask the Senedd not to pass it. Diolch.
Next, amendments 29 and 32, tabled by Delyth Jewell, are to reduce the period within which the first review and subsequent reviews of targets under section 6 must be completed from every five years to every two years from when the first target is set. Reviews in this section are designed to test whether a target remains fit for purpose and achieving it would result in the net benefits expected when the target was set. If the overall evidence and advice remains largely unchanged from when a target was set, the target would be expected to remain fit for purpose. A period of five years provides sufficient time for data to be collected, evidence to be synthesised and independent expert advice to be sought by Ministers in successive Senedd terms. Reducing the time for the first review of targets set from five years to two is unnecessary, as independent expert advice and scientific knowledge about air pollution are very unlikely to have changed within 24 months of setting the target. The early focus needs to be on the development and implementation of measures—. Sorry, Delyth.
I am confident that the Minister will want to continue the really excellent co-productive approach used in crafting this amendment and will ensure that all key stakeholders are involved in drafting the new guidance. Much has happened with the original infrastructure design guidance for the active travel Act. The amendment requires Welsh Government to set out in a statement how it will carry out its new duties and to report every three years on the actions it has taken. There is a similar duty on local authorities and an equivalent requirement to report. Of course, the devolved public sector is larger than the Welsh Government and local authorities, so we are therefore pleased to have been able to agree a provision whereby the duty and the guidance can be extended to other public bodies, following consultation and by Order approved by this Senedd.
The work on this amendment has also vindicated the cross-party group's assertion that the active travel Act itself needs a more general revision. At the time, the 2013 Act was only Wales's seventh law since—checks notes—1450. It was passed at a time when we had limited experience of legislation of this type and significantly fewer powers in the field of transport than we now have. The law was the first of its kind. It was experimental, groundbreaking and, consequently, flawed. This is not hindsight. That this might be the case was, indeed, accepted at the time the Bill went through the Chamber, and a clause was included requiring a review of the operation of the Act. The review conducted by the cross-party group on the active travel Act identified several issues recently, including limited coverage of the design guidance, technical problems with definitions and more, and we are delighted that the Welsh Government has recognised these shortcomings and accepts the need, now, to revisit the legislation.
Amendment 87, Llywydd, is a procedural device that we've agreed with the Welsh Government to allow the optimum phasing of the provisions of the amendment. In order for local authorities to effectively carry out their duties, the guidance has first to be in place, and getting the guidance to the standard required will take some time. However, I'm sure Ministers will give a clear undertaking that the amendment will start having an impact within as short a period of time as possible.
And finally, I would like to express my thanks to committee staff who have assisted in the development of this amendment. For this Parliament to play its full role in the law-making process, it is vital that backbenchers can match the Government in access to expert technical and legal advice. The support we've received in bringing this forward has been second to none. And finally, I can't finish, Llywydd, without also thanking not just the Minister for her support but actually the Deputy Minister at Stage 2. This is a Minister who genuinely engaged constructively with the committee, with the cross-party group and with others. He wanted to take a good Bill and make it better, and that's the way we should definitely do law.
Llywydd, the amendments are the product of a very productive process of cross-party scrutiny and collaborative work and involving Members, the Government and the third sector in an effort to improve the functioning of a flagship law passed by this Parliament. It adds further sails to that flagship to speed us further on the route to active travel and to cleaner air quality. Diolch yn fawr.
Amendments 64 and 72, tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, intend to remove section 22 and Schedule 2, dealing with the application of net proceeds arising from trunk roads charging schemes, made for the purpose of reducing or limiting air pollution. In conjunction with amendment 63, these amendments would remove all trunk road charging provisions from the Bill.
Amendment 68, also tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, would complete the removal of all reference to trunk road charging schemes from the Bill by removing reference to the relevant provisions to the commencement provisions in section 29.
Llywydd, I therefore cannot support amendments 64, 72 and 68, all of which are consequential to amendment 63.