Plenary

The next questions are those to the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice, and the first question is from Hefin David.

Welsh Government funding for the arts is channelled through the Arts Council of Wales. Under the arm's-length principle, the Welsh Government does not intervene in ACW’s funding decisions. I met with the WNO on 21 May and assured them I will do all I can to help them navigate this very difficult period.

And I appreciate everything that you're doing, Cabinet Secretary. It was my constituent who is a singer with the Welsh National Opera, Angharad Morgan, who raised this with me, but I know my colleague Rhianon Passmore in Islwyn has also had constituents that have been campaigning on this issue.

I was really pleased to attend the wonderful—one of the best protests you've probably ever seen—on the steps of the Senedd a few weeks ago. Budget cuts, as you say, by the Arts Council England and subsequently by the Arts Council of Wales, have put the WNO in this difficult position. There is little or no ecosystem in Wales for freelance musicians whose jobs are potentially under threat to supplement their reduced hours with additional work in a similar sector. So this means they face having to move away, and all the attendant impacts that that has. So, my question to you, Cabinet Secretary, is what can you do to help that and work with partners to safeguard those particular jobs, but also perhaps to meet with myself and with Rhianon Passmore to talk about some of our concerns around that specific issue?

Thank you. Well, I'll certainly be very happy to meet with you. I think I've met with Rhianon on about three occasions now, who keeps me very updated because of her close links with the WNO. And as I said, I have met with them myself. I absolutely recognise the concerns that if we lose these amazing musicians from Wales, it would be incredibly difficult, then, to get them back. As you know, the budget I inherited when I came into the portfolio had unfortunately had significant cuts, and on top of the funding the WNO received from the Arts Council England. It's very unusual for an organisation in Wales to be funded by both of the arts councils.

I'm just about to write, actually, to the chief executives of both of them to see if there's anything further we can do to support the WNO, but I think the important bit was in the last part of your question when you say about working together. I think we all need to recognise the WNO don't just put on amazing productions; they do a lot in the well-being and health sector. They do a lot in the education sector. So, I am having discussions with Cabinet colleagues to see if there's anything we can do to support them in relation to that. And, of course, as Rhianon Passmore often points out to me, it's absolutely the jewel in our crown from a global export point of view.

The arts and culture sector, as we've heard and we know, are very important not just to the Welsh economy but to our health, and you touched on that briefly then. Evidence published by the Social Biobehavioural Research Group at University College London shows that young people who engage regularly in the arts are at a lower risk of depression in adolescence. And they were also found to have higher self-esteem, with organisations such as the WNO running the Wellness with WNO programme that aims to help with that anxiety. The programme is, as you'll probably be aware, a six-week online programme that was developed with NHS medical professionals and that was launched in November 2021 to initially help with feelings of breathlessness and anxiety that have continued after the symptoms of COVID-19. So, we can see that there are very important wider implications of this service, and I wonder, Cabinet Secretary, can you make a pledge to do all you can to make sure that the arts and culture sector will be funded to ensure that these specific schemes, which are health-related, can go ahead?

Yes, absolutely. I've had discussions with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, because the WNO are doing some really valuable work as a trusted partner, and that includes in the health sphere. And I know, since 2021, health boards across Wales have received funding particularly for wellness programmes, and we've got the Wellness with WNO programme, where the WNO go in and work with patients, use their expertise, use their techniques to support people. So, I think it is really important that we do recognise, and I said in my initial answer to Hefin David that the WNO do far more than the amazing productions that we see. So, I do pledge to absolutely continue to work with them. I don't underestimate the difficult challenge this is. Unfortunately, I've got very little flexibility in my funding, but I'm going to start having very early discussions ahead of us looking at the budget next year with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Cabinet Office.

Despite having been mentioned at least five times during the course of this question thus far, I will call Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, the internationally renowned orchestra of the WNO is being balloted for strike action as we speak, with the WNO chorus imminently expected to follow suit, and that is obviously truly unprecedented. It's an urgent situation within Welsh cultural life. What is the Welsh Government doing now to secure the full-time contracts of both orchestra and chorus to retain that talent that you spoke of in Wales as until such time that sustainable long-term funding can be negotiated?

I do recognise those discussions between the WNO and the trade unions—and, obviously, the artists to whom you referred—are ongoing. Obviously, matters relating to employment, and that includes the terms and conditions, and issues around remuneration are an issue for the WNO. But I will continue to work with them to see if there is any further funding that we can access to support them.

Thank you. Through the funding we provide to Sport Wales, national governing bodies and other national partners are creating, promoting and supporting opportunities for people of all ages to be active in community sport all across Wales, including Aberconwy.

Thank you. I'm sorry I've got to raise this here, and I am actually seeking some help through you, whether you might be able to write to the local authority. So, during the warmer months, children, young people and adults in Aberconwy delight in paddling in one of three paddling pools in Aberconwy. One of them is in Craig-y-Don, but it's now been closed over a year and a half, allegedly and supposedly to ensure that the repainting of it would have a non-slip surface. It is 660 days since this pool has been closed. Residents and visitors value this pool. It's renowned when you come to Llandudno. I've written to the leader umpteen times, I've written to the cabinet member as well, and we've not even had an estimated date of completion for these works. I was there on Monday, and they're still rollering some kind of surface on there, and there's a worry now it's not even going to be open for the summer holidays.

Do you have the remit to be able to write to the local authority, to raise the same concerns I'm raising? Because all those little children are losing out on this valuable exercise, and it's just wrong. I think the leader himself is frustrated, but I think it's the contractor that's—I don't know, I'll be asking about the contractual issues. But I just need some help, actually, with just finding out exactly why it's taken 660 days to paint the bottom of a paddling pool. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm not sure if paddling pools are in my portfolio, but I guess, as a sport facility—and I know the paddling pool very well, as a fellow north Walian. But I'll be very happy to write to the leader of the council, because, as you say, particularly ahead of the summer holidays, I think it is a very important facility.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Welsh Conservatives spokesperson first of all—Joel James.

Thank you, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, as you will be aware, International Distribution Services, who owns Royal Mail, has accepted an offer from Daniel Kretinsky's EP Group, to purchase the business. This has led business groups who represent thousands of small companies throughout Wales to call on regulators to safeguard existing service protections over concerns regarding the frequency of second-class deliveries and the continued rise of first-class postage. Recently, the chief executive of the British Independent Retailers Association has said that a reduced service would make it harder for small businesses to compete, and this will of course disproportionately affect Welsh businesses who rely more heavily on Royal Mail than other parts of the UK. With this in mind, Cabinet Secretary, what assessment have you made regarding the impact of the takeover of Royal Mail on Welsh businesses, and what action has the Welsh Government taken to communicate these findings to the UK Government? Thank you.

Thank you. Well, as you know, both Post Office and Royal Mail matters are non-devolved. I am aware of the bid that to you refer to, and I will certainly be endeavouring to have a meeting with the relevant Minister, once the new UK Government has been formed.

Thank you for that response, Cabinet Secretary. I must admit, Llywydd, it's always quite frustrating to come here, when we have matters like the Royal Mail and Post Office, lead responsibility offices, to then have the response, 'It's non-devolved'. I don't necessarily see why there's a need to have those responsibilities within the Cabinet.

But anyway, I continue, if I may. Cabinet Secretary we have all been appalled by the Horizon IT scandal and the subsequent treatment of staff by Post Office. Despite the justice that has now been served to those responsible, there have been serious consequences. The Post Office brand is now toxic to many people, and this has seen post office branch owners struggling to recruit new staff and finding it exceptionally difficult to sell their businesses on to new owners. Unfortunately, sub-postmasters are now trapped with businesses that they can't sell, meaning that when they retire, these businesses are wound up rather than sold on, and this of course means that, across the country, post offices are closing and local communities risk losing their branches. What assessment have you made of the impact of the loss of post offices across Wales, as sub-postmasters retire without being able to sell their businesses? Thank you.

I'm a bit unclear as to whether you were saying that Post Office and Royal Mail should be devolved to Wales or shouldn't be devolved to Wales. But as I say, it is a reserved matter, and I hadn't had the opportunity to speak to the relevant Minister before the UK Government election was called, since I came into portfolio. But, clearly, this is a really important point that you raise about post offices closing in some of our communities where there is a real lack of other facilities for some of our, particularly, rural communities and residents. And certainly, from a social justice point of view, I think the post office provides services that are really valued by people, and you referred to the Horizon scandal, which—. It took a long time, I think, for the UK Government to recognise the scale and the urgency of the scandal, so, we very much welcomed the announcement that did come. But, as you say, I think the brand now is perhaps not something that people want to take up. And, again, it will be a discussion I think that I can have with the Minister about how we overcome that.

But I'm sure that everybody will be very pleased to see that Alan Bates, who had such a pivotal role in ensuring that this scandal was heard, received a knighthood in the recent honours list.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. So, finally, in regard again to the Horizon IT scandal, the Trades Union Congress has recently claimed that the Communication Workers Union has been blocked from effectively organising at the post office, and they've also alleged that the National Federation of SubPostmasters was given funds ranging from £500,000 to a staggering £2.5 million by the Post Office in order to support their services. This has led to accusations that George Thomson, a former head of the NFSP, was too close to the Post Office, lacked sympathy for those wrongly convicted and, ultimately, under his watch, failed in his duty to protect its members. In light of these accusations, are Post Office and Royal Mail workers in Wales being properly represented by their unions? Thank you.

Well, I'm not aware of the issue you raise, but I'd be very happy to look into it. If you have any further information, perhaps you could write to me.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Sioned Williams.

Thank you, Llywydd, and good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary.

You've stated that tackling child poverty is one of your top priorities, and that of course is welcome, given that close to one in three children in Wales are living in poverty. And accordingly, of course, the depth of child poverty in Wales and its harmful effects on our future generations have been discussed in this Siambr many times by Members and Ministers and First Ministers. Your predecessor, Jane Hutt, for instance, said that the UK Government should abolish the

'appalling benefit cap and the two-child limit on child benefit.'

as

'That is actually what’s driving children into poverty.'

And said that if the UK Government actually took some action to help tackle poverty and reduce the need for food banks, they’d abolish the benefit cap and the two-child limit.

The former First Minister, Mark Drakeford, criticised UK Government’s spring budget because there was

'nothing to abolish the benefit cap and the two-child limit, the single greatest driver of child poverty.'

And Vikki Howells accused the UK Government of being in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by implementing the two-child limit. I’d ask you, therefore: should the next UK Government not scrap the two-child benefit limit, do you judge that they would be in breach of the UNCRC?

Well, I certainly haven't done that assessment. You will have heard me say in the Chamber, I think it was last week, that I do think taking away that two-child benefit limit is a powerful lever in the endeavours to reduce child poverty. So, it's certainly a discussion I will be having as a matter of urgency with the new UK Government, but I haven't done the assessment to which you refer, but it's certainly something I could look at.

Diolch, because, shockingly, tackling child poverty is not one of the six steps for change in Wales listed in the recently published Welsh Labour manifesto for this election. Launching a new border security command is there, seemingly deemed a bigger priority. I'm sure the people of places like Monmouthshire and Powys are alarmed and surprised in equal measure.

In its response to the Labour manifesto, the Child Poverty Action Group has stated that

'real change won’t come for the 4 million children in poverty until the two-child limit and benefit cap are scrapped...no route to happy healthy children and a strong economy starts with record child poverty.'

And the chief executive of Action for Children said of the manifesto:

'You can't give our children their future back or kickstart growth without ending child poverty, which is making all of us poorer. Labour’s proposed strategy to reduce child poverty won’t get off the ground until they ditch the cruel two-child limit and benefit cap policies.'

So, could I ask what level of input did you, as the Member of the Welsh Government responsible for the child poverty strategy, have on the commitments in the UK Labour manifesto, bearing in mind that it's such a priority for you and the First Minister?

Thank you. Well, we certainly are seeing far too many of our children living in poverty and I think the First Minister said yesterday in First Minister's questions that we were making progress under the previous UK Labour Government in the early 2000s, but, since 2010, we have seen, I think, 0.5 million more children pushed into poverty. So, it is absolutely right that we look at every lever that we have as a Welsh Government, but, of course, the UK Government do have a lot of levers to help us in relation to that.

I had input into the UK Labour manifesto, in as much as I fed in things that I think are really important. Not everything can be in the top priorities; it doesn't mean it's not in the manifesto. But, obviously, not everything can be in the top six priorities that you referred to. But I think there are a lot of discussions, not just in relation to child benefit limit, but also to other aspects of welfare, that we will need to talk about very quickly, and as a matter of urgency. Obviously, really, since I've been in post, I haven't had the opportunity to have those deep discussions, (1) because it was very difficult to engage—. So, for instance, the inter-ministerial group in relation to welfare hasn't met since I came into portfolio. I'd had one meeting with one of the relevant Ministers, was trying to get another IMG in place, and haven't been able to do that. So, for me, that inter-ministerial engagement I've always found really important with UK Government Ministers. So, I will be pushing that to start having these very important conversations.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. Good to hear you had input, but it's disappointing to hear that UK Labour didn't listen. Welsh Government Ministers have rightly criticised the devastating impact of 14 years of austerity on their budgets, and we remember, of course, that it was the social justice budget in the last round that had the largest cut in terms of its budget. So, what's your reaction, therefore, to today's analysis by the Wales Governance Centre of Labour's tax and spending pledges that the Welsh Government would have to implement further deep cuts to non-protected spending, such as those in your portfolio? It's an analysis that completely undermines the assertion that a UK Labour Government would be good for Wales. Will your current stated priorities, including child poverty, and struggling local authority services that support those families, withstand another round of cuts?

Well, I think we have to all recognise, unfortunately, that not everything is going to be put right, even if we have a Labour Government, and, of course, that's absolutely what I hope. But we have to recognise that public finances are going to be very, very difficult, and it's about using those public finances in a much better way than we've seen over the past 14 years, and not seeing the lack of compassion, I think, that we've seen in the welfare system from the UK Government.

I've seen the headline of the report that you refer to, but I haven't looked at it in depth. But, clearly, you can see what's in the UK Labour manifesto, and everything's been costed, so, if that amount of funding went into their reforms, obviously, the Barnett consequential we should have will, I think, give us more money to be able to put into our priorities. But the most important thing is that people elect a Labour Government on 4 July.

Cadw has published a significant amount of best-practice guidance for owners of listed buildings, which is available on its website. The advice covers subjects including understanding listing, managing change to listed buildings, converting chapels and historic farm buildings, and adaptation for renewable energy schemes.

Thank you for that response.

I've been working with residents of Rhiwbina Garden Village in my constituency of Cardiff North, which has been listed by Cadw as grade II since 2001. And I've been working with residents who are experiencing a great deal of stress and worry about the necessary replacement of wooden windows with multiple panes of glass, because multiple panes of glass are a trademark of the development in Rhiwbina. Residents now have to seek listed building consent, and, up until last year, they were allowed to have wooden double-glazed units, with external bars to give the look of multipaned windows. However, since last year, that policy has changed, and now windows have to be made to very strict specifications, three times the price of the previous windows, and with very few firms able to build them. So, these buildings are over 100 years old. Many windows have rotted, they have to be replaced, and residents can't afford to do so. The houses were meant to be lived in, and this over-prescriptive policy is causing real problems. Would the Cabinet Secretary discuss this issue with Cadw, and see if a more reasonable decision can be reached to enable local residents to live in warm, well-maintained homes?

Thank you. Deputy Presiding Officer, before I respond to the specific question, I need to note how it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific cases as I must not prejudice the role of Welsh Ministers in the listed building consent process. So, for example, an owner has a right of appeal to Welsh Ministers against the decision of the local planning authority.

If I can just pick up the general point around windows in listed buildings, I think they are one of the most important architectural elements of a building, and the style and proportion vitally affect character and appearance. So, listed building consent has always been required to alter windows in a listed building, and original windows should be retained and repaired wherever possible. It is possible to improve the thermal efficiency of repaired windows with internal secondary glazing, for instance. But, if the Member would like to write to me, I will certainly ask my officials to ensure that the guidance is appropriate and proportionate, and then I'll be able to respond to you.

It is not only residents—I think you know where I'm going with this—but businesses that need support from this Welsh Government on maintaining these historic properties that Cadw have an interest in. Our very own Gwydir Castle in the Conwy valley is a stunning listed Welsh house, one of the finest Tudor houses in Wales, surrounded by a beautiful grade I listed 10-acre garden, which contains, among a variety of flora and fauna, ancient cedars and yew trees dating back 1,000 years. By 1994, the house and gardens had fallen into dereliction, and it's taken the current owners over 20 years to complete. It's still a work in progress. They've actually been able to obtain some of the original furniture that was in there; they found some in America and have brought it over. But they keep explaining to me that they experience very little support from Cadw and the Welsh Government. Preserving and protecting our wonderful Welsh incredible sites is of the utmost importance. So, will the Cabinet Secretary work with Cadw and other authorities to try and see where you could perhaps provide more support to Gwydir Castle? Diolch yn fawr.

As I said at the start of my answer to Julie Morgan, it's inappropriate for me to comment on specific cases. But the local planning authority is responsible for regulating changes to listed buildings, for instance, through the requirement for listed building consent. They can provide advice to owners, and I know the—. I think it's fair to say that just because your building is listed—and I appreciate there's very strict guidance that goes with it—it doesn't mean that things cannot be altered. I think that's a really important point. Certainly, since I've come in portfolio, I think that's something that people don't recognise.

Thank you to Julie Morgan for asking this excellent question. I've raised a similar issue on a number of occasions here in the Senedd already, namely buildings that have been listed and the fact that the people who live in them can't adapt them for the needs of modern times. Julie has mentioned an issue around windows, but the same is true when it comes to solar panels, for example, or wind turbines, or anything else that people who live in these buildings need in order to make the homes better in terms of energy efficiency and so on. They don't have the right to install solar panels, for example. So, what discussions have you had with the Cabinet Secretary for housing in order to ensure that owners of these buildings do have the right to make adaptations in accordance with the needs of modern times, in order to make them appropriate to live in and to keep heat in appropriately?

So, I haven't had any specific discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for housing, but I absolutely agree with you, there are very good reasons for improving energy efficiency of historic buildings. We want them to lower their carbon emissions. They need to reduce their fuel bills. They also need to make the buildings far more comfortable for the occupants. As you say, they're meant to be lived in, aren't they? We need to make sure that they are able to adapt them in the way that they think is suitable. But, of course, care needs to be taken to ensure that any changes align with the very special measures and the interests of the building, and how it performs also. So, I've had discussions with Cadw officials to bring myself up to speed about the regulations and the guidance, to make sure that the guidance is as it should be. And, I think, going back to my answer to Julie Morgan, I'm very happy to see if any guidance needs to be upgraded in order for people to be able to make the best choices for any listed building that they're living in.

Diolch. Through the implementation of the Welsh benefits charter, we are putting in place the infrastructure for a compassionate, person-centred Welsh benefits system. Any future administration of welfare powers would be delivered in line with the charter’s commitments.

It is extremely disappointing that your party has no intention to eradicate the cruel two-child cap, which could raise thousands and thousands of families out of poverty. And it's also disappointing that there is no mention made of the devolution of the administration of welfare to Wales in the current electoral campaign, despite the commitment of the Welsh Labour Government to consider what infrastructure is needed to prepare for that devolution. We, of course, agree that the financial and funding support would need to be transferred in transferring these powers. It appears, therefore, Cabinet Secretary, that we're seeking a personal commitment from you, as the new portfolio holder, this afternoon—a commitment that there will be no rowing back on this field of endeavour, despite the lack of interest of the Labour Party in London. Can you confirm that the work on the infrastructure needs will continue, and will you give a timetable for the different milestones that need to be met?

Thank you. Well, as Siân Gwenllian knows, the Welsh benefits charter was absolutely a central part of our preparations, as it sets out the commitment that we think is necessary for that compassionate and person-centred design and delivery of benefits I referred to. And I know you worked very closely with my predecessor as part of the co-operation agreement. What I can give you is a personal commitment to start having those discussions with the UK Government once it's formed after 4 July, and I will, obviously, update Members as those conversations take place and go through, but I can't give you a timetable of milestones.

I was a member of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee that published the 2016 report, 'Benefits in Wales: options for better delivery', which recommended

'that the Welsh Government seeks the devolution of the assessment process for sickness and disability benefits.'

We found, as Community Housing Cymru stated,

'that the "biggest issue" people have with the system is the "assessment process and the administration",

with people citing the high levels of successful appeals. However, our report acknowledged that, in Scotland, the funding from the UK Government has not covered all the administrative costs. We also recommended

'that the Welsh Government establish a coherent and integrated "Welsh benefits system" for all the means-tested benefits for which it is responsible.'

Nearly five years later, what specific action has the Welsh Government therefore taken to address these matters, which were well evidenced in our report?

Thank you. I think you raised a really important point about funding. For me, it's really important that, when we seek devolution of any further powers, we know why we want those powers. We know they will benefit the people of Wales, but it's really important that the funding comes as well. And I know, when I was in a previous portfolio and we had the council tax reduction scheme powers and we didn't get the funding, the impact that can then have. We certainly believe that devolving powers would ensure more benefits are delivered in alignment with our belief that it should be person centred, it should be compassionate. And that's what we've done with the Welsh benefits charter.

I think it's fair to say that, often, there are unanticipated consequences, so you can get that increased administrative cost. So, that's something we need to look at very carefully. And we are undertaking research to provide an overview of the devolution of the administration to the Welsh Government—you know, what the potential benefits could be, but also what any unintended consequences could be. So, that piece of research is currently being undertaken. I would hope it will finish by the end of this year, but certainly early next year.

Thank you. Our child poverty strategy sets out how the Welsh Government will tackle child poverty in Wales through initiatives to reduce costs, maximise incomes and develop pathways out of poverty so every child can enjoy their rights and have every opportunity to reach their potential.

Diolch. I think it's generally agreed that this Labour Welsh Government's record on tackling child poverty is a poor one. Indeed, my colleague Sioned Williams has reminded us already today of your Government's systematic failure to get to grips with this. Instead of working harder to meet targets, what you've done is scrap them, and I've said before here and elsewhere that a legacy of Labour Governments, aided by the Conservative Government as well in the UK, leaves a third of our children condemned to a life scarred by poverty. So, as highlighted by the Children in Wales Coalition, the two-child benefit cap is amongst the cruelest legacies of the decade and a half of Tory austerity that has been inflicted on Wales, so lifting it would, at a single stroke, help to take 60,000 children in Wales out of poverty. Now, I know that Labour Members of this Senedd know in their hearts that the two-child cap is wrong, so what is the point, therefore, of a Labour Government in Wales if you can't persuade your bosses in London of this injustice?

Well, they're certainly not my bosses. I don't disagree with you about the impact I think the removal of that two-child benefit cap could have. Certainly, everything I have read since I came into portfolio makes me believe that. I mean, one of the reasons we scrapped our targets was because the UK Government scrapped their targets, and we have to recognise that it is the UK Government that holds so many of those levers. So, I think, on that discussion with them, from the outset, if we do have a UK Labour Government—and even if we don't have; if we should, heaven forbid, have a UK Tory Government again—we need to have those conversations, but I'm far more hopeful that we will be able to achieve far more in relation to tackling poverty if we do have a UK Labour Government.

Cabinet Secretary, a recent meeting of the cross-party groups on poverty and child poverty heard work from the Bevan Foundation with regard to research they've undertaken in Wales that showed that 29 per cent of our children live in relative poverty, and one of the real issues is that they're unable to take part in activities inside and outside of school, as their peers do, for example learning skills and socialising in school during school trips. So, given the cross-Government nature of child poverty, I wonder what work you will do with the Cabinet Secretary for Education to try and ensure that our children do not suffer in their school experience in and outside school due to their family's financial circumstances.

Thank you. I think you raise a very important point. I met with the Bevan Foundation very early after coming into this portfolio to talk about a range of issues and, certainly, many of the reports they've brought forward are very helpful in helping us to tackle poverty. And you're right, it's not just about child poverty; it's about tackling poverty, because we know children live in poverty because their parents also live in poverty. I'm due to have a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Education to discuss a wide range of issues around children in school, and the impact in that they see domestic abuse, for instance, and also other things in relation to tackling poverty, so I will certainly discuss that with her as well and report back to you.

The Welsh Government has consistently blamed the UK Government policies for the levels of child poverty here in Wales, which has been criticised by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, who highlighted that many child poverty reduction measures are within the Welsh Government's powers, and, aside from the rhetoric, the action on this has been lacklustre. Twenty-eight per cent of children in Wales are living in relative poverty—higher than Scotland and Northern Ireland—and both Action for Children and Barnado's have criticised the Welsh Government's unambitious targets to get this down, with targets rarely met. In north Wales, the situation is more dire because all north Walian constituencies, with the exception of Alun and Deeside, have higher average rates of child poverty. One of the most effective ways to alleviate child poverty is to ensure that wages are rising, but, in Wales, we have the lowest employment rate and the lowest median wages in the UK. In Denbighshire, in my constituency, the median income is £27,400 compared to the £34,963 median UK income, and we have 3,500 children living in poverty in my constituency. So, can the Cabinet Secretary respond to that criticism the Welsh Government has received regarding the targets for tackling child poverty and outline how they plan to address the disproportionately higher child poverty rates in north Wales? Thank you.

No member of the Welsh Government is happy with the levels of child poverty that we have at the current time, but we do have to face facts that many of the levers do sit with the UK Government and that, up until 2010, when the Tories came in, we did have a significant drop in the number of children who were in poverty.

I absolutely agree with you around the economy and the importance of the economy, and, certainly, I've had early discussions with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language, because he absolutely recognises the levers that he has. So, child poverty sits in my portfolio, but every Cabinet Secretary recognises that they have a contribution to make to reducing that far, far too high number. And you will have heard me say in the Chamber since I came into post that one of the things I'm really keen to do is have bilaterals with every Minister to make sure I know what they're doing to try and alleviate child poverty, and that I'm also able to ask of them and their policies what they can do to consider and reduce those levels.

The Welsh Government promotes access to history and heritage of the south Wales Valleys through its localised and international marketing campaigns and work in educating future generations of the importance of our historic and cultural environment.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. Through the Valleys Re-told project, the Lee Gardens Pool committee in Penrhiwceiber in my constituency worked with Amgueddfa Cymru to bring the rich heritage of the village to life. The museum supported adults and children to collect and curate local stories and artefacts, teaching valuable skills and preserving their heritage, leading to an art trail and displays in multiple locations in the community, with the project culminating in items gathered going on display in Cardiff museum. It really was the most fabulous project. I appreciate the enormous challenges around funding as a result of 14 failed Tory years, but how is the Welsh Government supporting this type of initiative so that communities can explore and promote their history and their identities?

Thank you. Well, I think you've given us an excellent illustration of how our national heritage bodies can work proactively with communities and local museums so that they can investigate and also tell their stories to the wider community, and what's really important is we don't lose those stories. It's really important that we have them and we keep them and we protect them for future generations. I understand the project did engage with communities of all ages, from primary school upwards, and that's made hundreds of artworks and objects accessible. I know the project contributed to Amgueddfa Cymru's exhibition, which is on at the national museum until, I think, around November, and the Welsh Government did give funding to ensure that exhibition is free to enter. But we are exploring with Amgueddfa Cymru and the Federation of Museums and Art Galleries of Wales how we can expand that partnership work, going forward.

When the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 comes into force later this year, Wales will have the most progressive legislation for the management and protection of the historic environment in the UK. This is supplemented by planning policies that protect the unique characteristics of our historic environment.

Thank you very much for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. As you're well aware, in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire, there are proposals by Bute Energy and Green GEN Cymru to put windfarms and pylons right the way through my constituency. This is going to have a massive effect on the historic environment in my constituency, and I'm very interested to know what the Welsh Government are going to do to ensure that the historic environment of Brecon and Radnorshire is protected from these large-scale developments in my constituency.

Thank you. Well, it would be inappropriate for me, Deputy Presiding Officer, to comment on specific proposals. As you know, Welsh Ministers determine whether applications should be approved or not. But I think what is really important, as I say, is we have the most progressive legislation in this area. It will come into force in the autumn, and I think it will provide us with accessible, bilingual law for our unique historic environment, supported by a range of secondary legislation. 'Planning Policy Wales' also requires the planning system to take account of our objectives to protect conserve, promote and enhance the historic environment.

Question 8 [OQ61309] has been withdrawn so, finally, question 9, Tom Giffard.

The Welsh Government is committed to developing accessible, high-quality, responsive and citizen-centred services that meet the needs of all disabled people in Wales, including those who are blind or visually impaired. The work of the disability rights taskforce is integral to this commitment.

Diolch yn fawr. In a letter to the chief executive of Cardiff Council, the Royal National Institute of Blind People detailed the council's failure to account for the needs of blind and partially sighted people. Whilst the issues raised in that letter pertain to the bus borders in Cardiff specifically, many blind and partially sighted people that I spoke to in my region say it applies elsewhere too. Blind and partially sighted people face the possible risks and unsafe conditions of bus borders when trying to navigate the transport system in Wales, and it's important to note that the then Deputy Minister for Climate Change recognised that the designs didn't always comply with the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 guidance, where local authorities must ensure suitable transport provision and public services access for everyone in a given area. It's obviously upsetting to hear the difficulties that blind and partially sighted people face when trying to go about their daily business, so what work is being done across the Welsh Government, and with local authorities in Wales, to ensure that public transport and other services are made easy and safe for people who are blind or partially sighted?

Thank you. You raise a very important point. It is absolutely vital that people with a vision impairment can travel independently, that they can do so with confidence, and certainly the transport working group that came up with recommendations for Welsh Government, which we're currently working through, from the disability rights taskforce I referred to, are going to help us with that piece of work. I'm actually due to meet the RNIB next week, so I will certainly raise that with them.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Item 3 is questions to the Senedd Commission. The only question today will be asked by Carolyn Thomas.

Last year, we welcomed over 150,000 visitors to the Senedd. There are many ways that we encourage people to visit, including adverts and editorials in specialist publications. We regularly promote the Senedd as a visitor attraction on our social media channels, with larger campaigns running in the summer. Also, in February 2024, the Senedd cafe was the first and only venue in Wales to have achieved accreditation from the Kids in Museums family cafe standard.

Diolch. Thank you. It's great to hear all that. When I walk around the bay and talk to people, they're not always sure if they're allowed to just pop into the Senedd, into the building, and are unsure how to access it as well—where the door is, basically. So, I was wondering if you've got plans to improve signage. And also, if people don't know the area at all, they can look at the three wonderful buildings, the Wales Millennium Centre, the Pierhead, and the Senedd itself, and if they don't have that background knowledge, they say, 'Which building is it?'—if you're talking to foreign visitors. And as you say, we've got the wonderful cafe.

I had a biodiversity event recently as well, and I wanted to open it up to members of the public so it wasn't just a private event, and it was great to see members of the public going and visiting the stands before Members were available to visit. So, I was just wondering about opening some of our events as well to members of the public and promoting them.

Well, certainly, the approach to making the Senedd a place that's welcoming for all is twofold. One is to attract those people who think about coming here, who plan to come here from all over Wales and beyond, but also, as you've said, those people who happen to be in Cardiff Bay and wandering around on a lovely sunny day like today and wondering what's in that building, we need those to be coming in as well. We have made an attempt recently, and we do have banners that are around outside, and also audiovisual displays, to make sure that members of the public are clear that they are able, as members of the public, to walk in. Obviously, we have a security system on the door, which we have to have, for quite obvious reasons, but most people are able to get through that security system without too much problem, hopefully.

Therefore, we want to make sure that people are aware that they can come and find out what we're doing in here, that it is somewhere that belongs to the people of Wales and the people of Wales can come in, not just as visitors and to look around, but also, as you've just mentioned, quite usefully, that they can take part and listen to anything that happens to be going on on our estate at any particular point in time. And I'll take away from this question the need to ensure that there's no disincentive for members of the public to feel that they can sit down and listen to a talk that happens to be happening in our more public places, or to engage with anybody who has a display or an exhibition that's currently ongoing in the Senedd.

And since we're talking about visitors to the Senedd, can I welcome the visitors in the gallery? That highlights the fact that members of the public are able to access our business.

No topical questions were accepted today.

So, we'll move on to item 5, the 90-second statements, and the first statement is from Vikki Howells.

The 23 June marked 130 years since the Albion colliery disaster, the second-worst mining disaster in Wales. Two hundred and ninety men and boys, the youngest just 13, lost their lives. The majority were from Cilfynydd, which reporters said resembled a city of the dead. I spoke about the disaster here three years ago, when I mentioned my hopes that an event that I was holding would become an annual commemoration, so that we remember the tragedy. Today, in addition to recalling the tremendous loss of that awful day, I am able to provide a more positive update on how those plans have developed.

The Albion colliery disaster memorial group, which we established, has worked really hard. Its dedicated volunteers have delivered a range of projects, including a very informative exhibition in St Luke's church hall in the village, all of which culminated in the unveiling of a new permanent memorial to the disaster in the village. A civic dedication ceremony for a monument in the shape of a coal-filled dram was held last Sunday, where participants included members of the community and Abercynon Male Voice Choir. I was privileged to take part in that service, so that we ensure that the memory of those who lost their lives lives on, so that we can make sure that the Albion colliery disaster is no longer the forgotten mining disaster. Diolch.

In his short story, 'Adrodd Cyfrolau', or 'Speaking Volumes', Jon Gower describes the pleasures of wandering the narrow streets of Pontcanna, the part of Cardiff most redolent of Greenwich Village in New York, and then stumbling across Caban bookshop. The shop was originally established to provide employment for people with learning needs. It is people who make a good bookshop, and this is certainly true of Caban—people like Meinir Phillips, who passed away last week. Meinir was there for all of life’s milestones, from buying a book to celebrate the birth of a child to the condolence card. Meinir could recommend good books to read on holidays, and I’m sure that hundreds of people over the years have read one of her must-reads at the seaside or by the pool. Congratulations to Elin and the team at Caban for winning the best bookshop award at this year’s Welsh independent retail awards.

In the short story, it is suggested that the bookshop was named in memory of the caban in the quarry, where workers would share stories and news. And the shop, Jon Gower suggests, is similar in several ways to that caban. That was the fruit of Jon’s imagination, but his description of the shop is very close to the truth. Thank you very much.

Item 6 is a motion to amend Standing Orders: Llywydd's Committee chairing arrangements. I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion formally. Jane Hutt.

Formally.

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

Item 7 is a debate on a Member's legislative proposal: a community energy benefits Bill. I call on Adam Price to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's a great pleasure to present this motion, which calls for legislation on renewable energy, and particularly with a focus on ensuring that local communities derive the greatest benefits—economically, socially and ecologically—from renewable energy investments. Because I think the real danger at the moment is that the past is reproducing itself in the history of Wales. We are well aware, of course, of the effect that the extractive economy had in Wales's past: all the mineral wealth that was produced in Wales, everything that could make a profit, has been dug out of the ground in Wales, apart from diamonds, and I suppose if we wait a few million years, we'll have them as well.

But the point is this: whereas we bore much of the human cost of that extractive economy, we didn't derive the economic benefit to the full extent. The profit was extracted from Wales for others' benefit, and unfortunately, I think we are seeing the same model, the same pattern now reproducing itself in terms of Wales's natural resources for the twenty-first century, in terms of renewable energy. So, we are seeing large companies—often multinational, or certainly externally-owned—leading developments and that profit being lost to Wales. Ironically, of course, in some cases, they are actually state-owned enterprises, aren't they? But of course, nevertheless, the point still remains that that profit is then for the benefit of taxpayers and citizens of another country, rather than those of Wales.

And really, what we're trying to achieve with this motion and the Bill that is suggested is to move us to adopt a different model in Wales, which is locally owned, where the benefit is retained within the community. And also, in terms of the types of development that we see, that they're then not just driven by the profit motive. So, there's a natural tendency at the moment, isn't there, to have exclusively developments that are mega-scale, which are concentrated physically. Why? Because that's the way to ensure the greatest level of profit, and that shouldn't be at the forefront of our decision making. What we're suggesting here is adopting a more distributed, dispersed model: distributed and dispersed, decentralised, in the physical sense of the network of energy generation that we want to see in the twenty-first century here in Wales, but also distributed and dispersed in terms of its ownership and in terms of its benefit as well, and the two really go together.

And just to pick up some of the specific points: making local ownership, an element of local ownership, at least a mandatory element in all developments, that is Government policy, and it has been Welsh Government policy since 2020, but it's not mandatory, and therefore it's ignored, which is why we have so many developments that have no substantive element of local ownership. And of course, in Denmark, which has been so successful in rooting its decarbonisation in local ownership, and therefore has accelerated the process, because people are supportive of it, they have a legal requirement and have had for many, many years, since 2009, for—at least, in their case, I believe—20 per cent to be offered in local ownership, and the Institute of Welsh Affairs has recently produced a report arguing for a similar threshold of around 15 per cent as a minimum.

There are other aspects of the motion that I may touch on in my closing remarks, but let's grasp that opportunity: we have the potential there in Wales, but let's do it in a way that learns from the past, doesn't reproduce its mistakes, and ensures that Wales and the people of Wales get the maximum benefit from this opportunity.

I fundamentally agree with the premise of today's proposal. I do believe that where there is renewable energy development, local people should benefit, and as I've said before in the Chamber, I believe that profits from locally produced renewable energy should go towards lowering energy bills for residents, and we've seen already from investments from renewable energy how it can benefit communities in other ways. So, in north Wales, we've got the wind turbines offshore and they put some money into community funds that are administered through the voluntary councils, for different schemes. But do they actually go to where they're needed? That's the thing as well. If we see that energy being produced, you think we need to have that energy—the discount off our bills, basically.

I also agree that brownfield sites need to be utilised first. We're living in a nature crisis and, often, green sites are developed first because it's cheaper and it's easier. Very often though, energy can only be produced at certain sites, so usually it is up on the hills, but then they are protected landscapes as well, so it's really, really difficult. We should be ensuring that new buildings are fit for the future, using solar panels whenever possible, harvesting rainwater, energy-efficient materials. We need to be asking or forcing developers to do this. Installation of swift boxes, planting for pollinators—there's just so much more that we can be doing there.

I do understand that in undertaking large-scale infrastructure projects a balance needs to be struck. We've got a real issue with energy infrastructure, as well, if we're to achieve our net-zero goals. I know that the Welsh Government must be conscious of the vast investment in large-scale renewable energy projects. I suppose we need to have that balance, but we need to make sure that we have community energy projects that help those local communities. So, I totally get what you're saying here, Adam. The optimal output, I suppose, and outcome is we minimise the immediate environmental impact of necessary new infrastructure, whilst moving towards a sustainable future, taking everything into consideration.

I know we discussed last week about undergrounding cables for pylons, and I know it's really, really sensitive. We should underground wherever possible, absolutely, because of the amenity, the impact it has on people, but also, like I said last week, there are considerations around the natural environment—if it's peatland, if there's ancient grassland and fungi. I stand by that, as well, because we have to respect our natural environment. All those are part of the consideration. Thank you.

Empowering communities is the focus of this legislative proposal, and I welcome the fact that Adam Price has introduced it today. It speaks about a stronger voice to communities when faced with the scale and might of the planning system, and the challenges posed by the climate emergency. Because so many communities end up feeling that energy developments are being imposed on those areas, rather than that developments and decisions are made jointly with them and for their benefit. That’s why this motion mentions the need for developments to offer direct benefits to local communities, and the need to retain financial profits locally.

We've heard this already from Adam. Our history can be seen as scars on the landscapes of Wales. In areas like the Valleys, there's a history of corporations deriving a profit at the expense of local residents. That is the context—a history of exploitation. We must ensure that that history doesn’t repeat itself in future. We have an opportunity here to invest in our communities, to empower local people, to develop alternative methods of generating energy and to ensure that our landscapes are never again sites for the extraction of profit and exploitation.

Our country is our inheritance: the land that bears witness to our will to live, as Gerallt said. Our duty is to ensure that we leave a better legacy for our children, because the nation belongs to them, and to our local communities. We must protect and nurture them now, and for years to come in future. So, for the benefit of our communities today and tomorrow, I truly hope that this motion passes.

Thank you, Adam, for bringing this debate forward today.

This really excites me, because renewable opportunities, especially in my part of the world, our part of the world in west Wales, in my constituency of Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, excite not just myself but the community as a whole, because they see the opportunities that come not just in terms of the employment that these renewable projects bring to these communities, but also the community benefit. I think that definition of 'community benefit' needs to be explored in the first and foremost element of this, because we've seen examples of energy companies across Wales and other areas undertaking their community benefit by donating sponsorship towards a football team having new kit. It's very good in that immediate sense, but what's the long-term benefit for a community? If you're not linked with that football club, you don't see that community benefit—a point that Luke Fletcher made in committee this morning very well.

I think if we explore the wider community benefit that's available to us by delivering on renewable projects, that opens a door into how we as a broader society can capitalise on the opportunities that our natural resources give us here in Wales. I'm thinking, especially in this weather, of the fantastic sun that we've got, the wind that's blowing off the coast of Pembrokeshire and the tidal opportunities, as well, around our coast. This is an exciting opportunity for Wales. How can we make sure that we benefit from that, not just in terms of the employment side, but in terms of the community who aren't directly involved in that?

And it's not just the projects themselves that need to see community benefit. I would say that it's the connecting materials as well, the connecting infrastructure. If we're talking about the floating offshore wind projects in Pembrokeshire, for example, a lot of that cabling that's coming ashore is going through the Castlemartin and Hundleton area, working very closely with Steve Alderman, the local councillor there. The community actively accepts that this infrastructure is necessary, but what's the community benefit for that connecting infrastructure, rather than the project itself, which is located some 40 km off the coast of Wales? How can we tie that together to see that benefit brought forward?

Another point I'd make is that, in defining community benefit, something that I think may be underexplored—and maybe the Cabinet Secretary may wish to touch on this, but I think there's an opportunity there as well—is how the grid, which we know requires vast infrastructure investment and upgrading, can be a sort of closed-circuit grid that is community focused, so that with energy projects delivering electricity generation in a specific area, that electricity isn't necessarily going into the grid, which we know needs that infrastructure upgrade, but is going into a local grid, supporting local homes. If we're talking about the need for more housing in these areas, how can that renewable energy be going towards those houses, taking off that impact that is needed in the investment of the grid by having a more localised grid? And so, with that, I really think this is something that we can be proud of here in Wales and I'll certainly be giving it my support this afternoon. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

This is, of course, a very welcome and important debate, and I fear that there's a bit of a theme appearing on the Plaid Cymru benches in discussing this in the context of history. Because it is the history of Wales, isn't it, profit extraction from our communities, and the same is happening now with renewable energy. I'll speak to this element of the legislative proposal specifically, because the communities I represent still bear the scars of past profit extraction.

What we want is a renewable energy sector, renewable energy projects, that communities can be proud of and benefit from. At the moment, communities get a sum of money in a community pot from a developer—a pot, by the way, that isn't even a drop in the ocean in comparison to the profits being extracted. That money is then put into the immediate needs of groups within the communities: a new play park here, a new rugby kit there. Sam referred to the debates that we have in the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee about how we need to look at this in a more strategic way. How do we look at this in the long term as something that actually impacts the community for the better?

For example, why not firstly retain that profit locally? Why not use that profit, then, to invest in projects like retrofitting housing, like fixing up transport links, even putting in place transport links that didn't exist in the first place? It's there that we see a visible positive effect on the community, and one that goes a long way in supporting our public finances. We could even establish a sovereign wealth fund on the back of it that invests in skills, invests in our assets as a nation, going from strength to strength. There's so much potential being lost here at the moment, and I would hope that Members across the Chamber can see the benefit of this approach. I'll be voting for the legislative proposal and I'd encourage other Members to do so.

I just want to make a brief intervention to underline my support for the principles behind the motion today. Clearly, we want more than chicken feed and we want to learn the lessons of the past where the extractive model does Wales harm. Clearly, our renewable and natural assets are amongst our greatest strengths as we look to regenerate our economy and it's critical that we get our ducks in a row, if I may mix my metaphor from the chicken feed reference earlier, to maximise that.

Of course, the practical reality of that is incredibly complex. I was pleased to kick off a piece of work in the Institute of Welsh Affairs on setting out a route-map for making Wales entirely dependent on renewable energy, and also, some two years ago, to lead the deep-dive exercise within the Welsh Government, looking with industry and other experts, at a granular level, at what the constraints and points of friction were. Those reports are available online and are worth reading.

There was an update earlier this year on the deep-dive, which showed that considerable progress has been made. But we know that we need to have all of the different levers aligned, and currently, they are not. I am very encouraged by the proposal in the Labour manifesto for a sovereign wealth fund, but also for a publicly owned national developer of green energy. I think that that is going to be critical, and it will build on some of the early work that we have done, as a result of the co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru, on creating an energy company in Wales.

We know, and have rehearsed many times in this Chamber, about the role that the Crown Estate needs to play to make sure that Wales benefits from the enormous wealth that lies just off our shores, but it's going to take more than declarations to get that done. The way that foreign-owned investment is swooping in is a real challenge for us, and the ability to respond at scale to that is something that we need to grapple with. So, in a sense, a Bill is not really what's needed in response to this. It's not that we lack the powers. It's that we lack the capacity and the wherewithal and the finance to be able to properly move at the scale needed to capture these opportunities.

I think that it's worth just flagging some tensions that we need to confront. We know that the future generations Act places upon us a responsibility to not trade off the long-term interests of the generation not yet born for the short-term interests of us today. We know that energy projects—not just renewable ones, but any energy projects—face significant local opposition. Carolyn Thomas has rightly highlighted some of the unintended consequences of having a very fixed view on undergrounding cables, for example, which could damage very valuable ecosystems, which goes against what we want to do.

You will need to conclude now, Lee, please.

—ice in Antarctica is progressing at a rate that is far faster than we anticipated. So, yes, there will be a need to bring communities along with us, but by delaying action against climate change we will be putting those communities in a far greater level of peril than we would want to. It is important that we understand those trade-offs and that we confront them in a judicious way. Diolch.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language, Jeremy Miles.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to thank Members for their contributions to this important debate, and to highlight our absolute commitment to put community involvement and ownership at the centre of our energy ambitions. I'd like to make two main points today. The first point is that we are absolutely committed to the sentiment expressed in the motion. Wales must benefit, through greater local and community involvement and ownership, from the essential transition to renewable energy. We have adopted a target for at least 1.5 GW of renewable energy capacity to be locally owned by 2035, scaling up from our previous target for 1 GW by 2030. And 97 per cent of the 1 GW target is already achieved.

The second point is that a mix of interventions are necessary to achieve our aims, in the way that Lee Waters was setting out, and that there are some unintended consequences if primary legislation is the tool that we reach for first. Renewable energy is a fast-growing and changing sector, and our policies need to be adaptable, so that we can respond to make the most of those new circumstances. I understand the desire to see arrangements fixed in primary legislation and can imagine some future point where some element of legislation could be helpful. But our policies must, as well as being ambitious and stretching, be flexible enough that we can quickly and easily respond to external changes.

The Welsh Government has been supporting community and local energy for 15 years and we provide a mix of interventions to help increase community ownership, supporting communities from concept stage through to financial close and completion. We have a £12 million fund to support community enterprises to turn their ideas into reality.

Our guidance on local ownership applies to all new energy developments. This is a framework to ensure projects are designed and delivered in harmony with the people and the places that host them. Ynni Cymru provides a real opportunity to expand local and community-owned renewable energy generation in Wales. This will help to deliver our target of 100 MW of new renewable energy generation by public bodies and community groups by 2026. Grants have already been committed to help community groups to accelerate these projects. What this legislative proposal risks is failing to address that there are some practical barriers to local ownership, including sometimes the capacity and sometimes the inclination, which some local businesses groups and individuals will share with us on their ability to take ownership of these assets and that has to be considered in the overall approach. The danger that we face with legislation as it stands, in that it mandates local ownership, is that we may deter the essential investment that we need and that will benefit all communities.

Deputy Presiding Officer, to summarise, community ownership is at the heart of our renewable energy policy and is a crucial element of our general plan to benefit from green energy investments. I think that legislation such as this can be too heavy a tool and there's a risk in restricting the investment that is required by our communities and our environment. We need the right mix of interventions. Our approach of supporting ownership through ambitious targets, encouraging communities and developers to work together and promoting Welsh ownership through Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru and Ynni Cymru is already delivering outputs. We will keep a close eye on these policies, of course, but this is part of our 'made in Wales' solution to community participation and ownership.

And I call on Adam Price to reply to the debate.

I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate. I would begin by saying this: I think that the Members who have spoken from the back benches have demonstrated the risks if we don't legislate. That is, there will be even more emphasis again just on greenfield sites rather than using the more appropriate sites—there would be a failure ,and that is the point made by Carolyn. And of course, we need, in terms of the grid—we are strongly in favour of undergrounding, but we need to avoid undergrounding in areas where that would be problematic, and nobody is in favour of that nor are we encouraging it. We'll still be in a situation where we have developments locally, but we can't have the access even—not to mention the profit—to the electricity, because we have an old-fashioned grid system, truth be told, that was built for the last century, rather than the kind of local smart grids that enable local developers to use local electricity.

And then, of course, that theme of exploitation—again, I would say to the Cabinet Secretary, unless we legislate, the developers are always going to ignore your encouragement for local ownership. It's fantastic that Ynni Cymru is there to encourage local people to establish community companies, but the large corporations, unless there is a statutory requirement for them to do so, are not going to listen. And I would say, in terms of the risk of legislating to create a minimum level of local ownership—there's a risk that we lose investment. Well, Denmark suggests otherwise. It's a nation that's succeeded in terms of decarbonisation. It has done so in a mixed way. There are large developments there that exist in Denmark too, but they've achieved success in a model that also places an emphasis on local ownership, and they've done that through legislation.

The other part of legislation—and I accept that this is, perhaps, partly to do with subordinate legislation powers that already exist—is to create the requirement to install solar on rooftops, certainly in terms of new buildings. The European Union, over the past year, has legislated to make it a requirement to have solar panels installed on the roof of any new building, any new extension. The same has happened in Scotland and a number of other countries too. Why don't we do that as part of the package in Wales? And that's why legislation is part of the answer. I accept the point that Lee Waters made—it's not the whole solution. I believe, with the national wealth fund and Great British Energy, it can go one of two ways, because when that banner was raised above the coal mines in our areas—

'This mine is now managed on behalf of the people'—.

Unfortunately, in the years following that, we found out that the decisions weren't being made for the benefit of local people. So, public ownership is part of the solution, but that ownership also has to be rooted here in Wales. We have to have our own wealth fund here. It's good that Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru is there, but, certainly, that's the vehicle to ensure the best possible future for Wales, not depending on external organisations, be they in the public sector or private sector.

The proposal is to note the proposal. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. I will therefore defer voting on this item until voting time.

Item 8 is the debate on petition P-06-1437, 'Increase, don’t cut, funding for the National Library, Amgueddfa Cymru and the Royal Commission'. And I call on Rhianon Passmore to move the motion on behalf of the committee.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, thank you for the opportunity to introduce this debate today on a subject that will be no stranger to Members here. This petition was submitted by Susan Jane Jones-Davies, with 12,075 signatures. The petition reads: 'Increase, don’t cut, funding for the National Library, Amgueddfa Cymru and the Royal Commission'.

'We call upon the Welsh Government to increase spending on institutions that safeguard the heritage and history of Wales—the National Library of Wales, Amgueddfa Cymru and the Royal Commission—instead of cutting funding by between 10.5 per cent and 22.3 per cent. These institutions protect the historical and cultural legacy of our nation, by collecting and preserving it, and then showcasing it to everyone who lives in Wales. They also provide the world with a window to our unique history.'

Dirprwy Lywydd, it's important to note that the figures quoted in this petition were based on earlier drafts of the budget, and that the final figures were indeed not so stark. But as the petitioner notes, every £1 invested in the sector leads to £5-worth of economic growth. They argue that holding on to the institutions that sustain and grow our country and our communities, thereby allowing future generations to build on the solid foundations of past successes, is as important as ever.

Funding for the arts and culture in Wales has been a big topic in my work over the last few months. Last week I met senior figures from the Musicians' Union, who have been running a petition calling for action now to save Welsh National Opera, another national institution of world renown who are seeing a very bleak future as funding gets squeezed and talent starts to hemorrhage.

Just this Monday in the Petitions Committee we considered another petition seeking to protect funding for the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama's junior department and their youth music programme. The majority of their talented students are on bursaries and are at the top of Wales's skills progression pyramid. So, we will be seeking to debate that important petition in due course too.

These are challenging economic times, Dirprwy Lywydd, and we are all aware of how challenging. The Welsh Government is facing impossible decisions where the demand for funding is greater than the pot of money available. I'm sure that that's a theme we will hear during this debate today. It is notable that there is very significant support from the people of Wales for our national institutions, iconic arts, music organisations and education programmes of Wales. They are indeed the backbone of our nation and the beating heart of our international reputation as land of song, of poetry and culture—in short, brand Wales.

I am aware of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee's report scrutinising Amgueddfa Cymru's accounts for 2021-22, and I will leave it to others to share their concerns that emerged during that work. I look forward to today's debate and to hearing more about the challenges facing our key national institutions and how the Welsh Government is working to share the pot equally both now and in future years to ensure that our national library and national museums are able to thrive. Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Thank you to the Petitions Committee for holding this debate. As you will know, the culture committee has been monitoring this matter for some time. Unfortunately, this is a matter that has escalated and evolved for a number of years now.

In the autumn of 2022 my committee looked at the impact of increasing costs on culture and sport. These sectors were still recovering from the pandemic when the extent of the spiralling cost of living became apparent. As a result of that inquiry, we called on the Welsh Government to enter into urgent negotiations to protect the national collections at the national library. We also called on the Welsh Government to work with Whitehall to initiate a UK-wide support package to support the culture and sport sectors in response to cost-of-living pressures. The latter suggestion was rejected by the Welsh Government at the time.

In the months since, my committee has consistently called for sufficient levels of funding for our national cultural bodies as a result of concerns that have been raised with us. Amgueddfa Cymru has told us that it needs twice the capital allocation it has just to get through the critical works it needs to undertake. Likewise, the library noted that trebling their grant would not be enough to maintain their building. Dirprwy Lywydd, these are not exaggerations. These are the realities facing our national cultural bodies. As we've heard from Rhianon, there are other concerns wider than this as well.

Throughout our work addressing these concerns and raising them, the Welsh Government has provided assurance to us that they will provide help where they can. It is clear, however, that placing the burden of protecting our national collections on one Government department is not workable. That is why we've called for protecting our national collections to be made a cross-Government mission. Ensuring that there is a collective Government effort in protecting these treasures would and must mean that they are safeguarded now and for future generations. Because every Government department benefits from those cultural bodies—be it education with schools visiting our national museum sites, or the health service using art as therapy to heal those who are sick—every Government department has a role to play in this.

It is most welcome that the new Cabinet Secretary has agreed with the committee that—and I quote—this issue now needs to be addressed through co-operation across Government, rather than by a single department.

There is too much at stake that could be lost, should this not be treated with urgency. As the friend of our committee, the Irish musician Philip King has said:

'culture and the arts are essential to our wellbeing and valuable in their own right as uniquely irreplaceable human activities.'

That is why protecting access to our cultural national bodies is so important. The value of what they provide to us, in terms of well-being, it cannot be measured in balance sheets: they are unique, irreplaceable riches that catalogue and complement our experience of being Welsh and of being human. Once that cultural heritage is lost, it will be lost to us and to the ages.

We very much hope that the Government will work with us and with the national cultural bodies, and respond with the urgency required.

In January of this year, I had the opportunity to visit Philadelphia. Whilst there, I went to visit Delta in Pennsylvania. There they respected the Welsh heritage: the quarry workers' cottages, a Welsh chapel and cemetery full of gravestones engraved with Welsh poetry. This weekend, I met visitors from California. They were delighted to visit the castles of Wales. Our history and our culture are vital to Welsh life. As the petition demonstrates, the benefits are clear: for every £1 invested, we receive £5-worth of economic benefit. But it is not an exaggeration to say that all of this is now in the balance.

Amgueddfa Cymru is facing a 10.5 per cent cut, with Cadw and the Royal Commission’s budget falling by 22 per cent. The Wales Heritage Group has said that it would be

'impossible to see an operational future for the RCAHMW following such a severe cut.'

The genial former chief librarian at the National Library of Wales has said quite firmly and strongly:

'Why is the Welsh Government at war with culture?'

The Scottish Government is already well aware of this fact, and have tailored their policy to reflect this reality. The Deputy First Minister last year announced that Scotland would be increasing its culture budget by £15.8 million to support the sector. While they support their culture and heritage, we gut our own. It's simply not sustainable.

I understand that the Welsh Government is in a difficult position. We’ve experienced the impact of Tory economic policy. Our settlement is £700 million less in real terms, and £3 billion lower than if it had grown in line with GDP since 2010. I get all that. I get that difficult decisions have to be made. I accept that, but we need this sector. As a nation, we need the sector. We need it economically, but, more importantly, we need to be able to show our children and their children what Wales was like, what we can learn from the past, to allow them to learn about our rich history and then to share that with the rest of the world. Diolch yn fawr.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate, and state my unequivocal support for the petition, with thanks to those who submitted, promoted and have signed it as well.

The UK Government’s austerity policies and the cuts that have been made by the Welsh Government as a result have been disastrous for our cultural institutions, and have left a sector that is so important not just for our economy, but our identity as a nation, in crisis.

We are all, of course, aware of the warnings about the state of the buildings and the ensuing risk to the national collections. But there is also a very real risk to the collections as a result of the jobs and expertise that have been lost. And I don’t think that enough attention has been paid to this, as well as to the detrimental impact that this is already having on the work of Amgueddfa Cymru, the National Library of Wales and the royal commission. It stands to reason there is some nervousness within these institutions when it comes to speaking openly about the situation that they face. But it is clear to me, from speaking to so many members of staff, how extreme the cuts have been and how far-reaching the effects are.

As has been said by other Senedd Members today, our national museums, our national library and the royal commission are the gatekeepers of our national collections and our national memory. They not only safeguard the collections for future generations, but also bring the collections to life in the here and now, and, crucially, they make them relevant and relatable to more people than ever before through fantastic outreach and education work.

As many Senedd Members will know, I worked for Amgueddfa Cymru before being elected, and I've been personally left shocked and devastated by the scale and depth of the cuts yielded in the past few months as the current management try to balance the books. Unions state that 144 roles have been lost, and there is currently a restructure of the front-of-house roles under way that will severely impact staff on the lower grades and worsen their terms and conditions—this within an institution that, in 2018, at St Fagans, won Art Fund Museum of the Year, the world's most prestigious prize for any museum.

We're also aware of the impact on our national library, with prominent members of staff having left and services already restricted. Losing these positions has an impact not only on the library's work, but on the local economy in Ceredigion. Therefore, I urge the Cabinet Secretary not only to note this petition, but to respond to it by commissioning independent research on the effect of cuts on these organisations, and the effect not just on the national collections in terms of their safety, but also in terms of the engagement work. I also ask her to ensure that this work is undertaken independently.

If we are to truly value culture, then we must take action and ensure the cuts are reversed. The amount needed is minimal in terms of the Welsh Government's overall budget, but the impact is far reaching. Let's make today's debate a kick start to further discussions, not the beginning and the end. I think it's clear to all of us that doing nothing is not an option, and increasing funding is essential if we are to safeguard our national collections, but also the national institutions, for the future. Siloed budgeting has to come to an end. We know that these national institutions contribute so effectively towards education, towards health and well-being. We need to look differently at budgets.

Raymond Williams stated that culture is ordinary, so let's normalise investing in culture and ensure national cultural institutions are for the many, not the few. I worry that our arts and culture are becoming more elitist by the day at a time when they could be transformational—transformational in terms of tackling child poverty, transformational for our economy. You have our support, Cabinet Secretary, in fighting for that funding that's necessary, but we do need to have a serious conversation and stop pitching arts and culture against NHS. They are all essential to the future of Wales.

Thank you to the petitioner for highlighting the important issue and the committee for allowing us to debate it today. Museums, libraries and heritage sites have been shown to support education, social inclusion, as well as to improve health and well-being. They also help to boost local pride and community cohesion, with four in five people saying that heritage sites make their town a better place to live. There are, of course, many economic benefits as well. A Cadw report found domestic and international visitors to Wales's heritage attractions were estimated to have contributed £1.7 billion to the Welsh economy.

When free entry was introduced across our museums in 2001, visitor numbers doubled, and, between April 2023 and March 2024, Amgueddfa Cymru received an impressive 1.4 million visitors through the doors across all sites. Research undertaken by the Association of Independent Museums, in co-operation with Welsh Government, suggests that introducing charging for admission at UK institutions would result in visitor numbers halving, and I do not believe that charging for entry is the way forward. But I know, on a recent visit with our culture committee to the national museum, that they are looking at other ways and incentives for bringing in income. And I know that Amgueddfa Cymru have also looked at that at St Fagans as well—so, we've got the fantastic Vulcan Hotel that's just moved there serving locally brewed beer—but the vast majority of funding, however, is needed from Welsh Government.

I know, unfortunately, that the reality is that we are facing the full force of Tory economic mismanagement. I do not envy Welsh Government Ministers who've had to try and find savings thanks to the black hole of inflationary pressures. It's very difficult to decide how to slice the funding pie when the pie is too small in the first place. Austerity has been short-sighted, regressive and devastating for publicly funded heritage and cultural sites across the UK. I don't believe the UK Government has ever made it a priority, and so I do hope we have a change of Government and policy in Westminster. Thank you.

Can I thank the petitioners for launching the petition to protect our cultural sector and the work that they do every day by those who work in it to make our Welsh culture and our history and our Welsh offer what it is today? It's my belief and, I know, the belief of so many others in this Chamber, and probably the whole of Wales, that we need to work hard to protect our Welsh culture and ensure our heritage is preserved, protected and developed to the best possible standard. And we're all too aware, as has been outlined today in this debate, of the difficulties faced by the sector in recent times.

It has become clear that the Welsh Labour Government hasn't prioritised it well enough in the last few years during that budget settlement. We know, for example, in the last budget that the cultural sector had the biggest cut in terms of contributions to its budget, and institutions were too often left to their own devices. We've heard warnings, haven't we, from the amgueddfa, the national library, the royal commission and so many others that were warning about the damage that the lack of support would have. They warned of leaking ceilings, broken roofs, collections at risk, and expensive but necessary maintenance work contributing to the pressures facing our national institutions. And it's a shame, then, that those warnings weren't listened to, nor supported in a way that would have secured the future of our Welsh history and our culture.

Those in the sector who represent the Welsh language, Welsh art and culture and Welsh history have all described their anger and upset at decisions made by the Welsh Labour Government. Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, for example, stated that the cuts will have a disastrous impact on Wales's language and Wales's culture. And Amgueddfa Cymru spoke of the, quote,

‘largest funding cut in the museum's history’,

end quote, and urged us not to underestimate the long-term, lasting effect these cuts would have, because, as we know, culture, once it disappears—our heritage, our history—we never get it back.

And considering the idea that every £1 in the sector leads to £5-worth of economic growth, it seems a wholly irrational decision, in my view, to pursue this by the Welsh Government. And when you consider that the cuts—I think Heledd Fychan made this point—amounted to a 0.02 per cent saving on the Welsh Government's budget, it's even more difficult to understand the rationale behind the decisions.

I've been lucky enough during my period as the shadow Minister for culture to meet people who work in the sector, and I've experienced the work going on behind the scenes by people who genuinely care, and people who are genuinely passionate about the preservation of our culture and our heritage. That really shines through, and those institutions have been forced during the last few years to adapt really quickly to guidance, tackling issues from tough COVID restrictions, for example, and dealing with bigger issues, being closed for longer, perhaps, than other sectors would have been. And it seems therefore unfair, the exact period when they're looking to recover from that, that they are being punished post pandemic.

Thank you to the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate forward today, and thank you to the petitioners for their determination in bringing these issues to the fore today. I was a member of the committee when we first discussed this, and I'm delighted that this debate has been staged today, and I'd like to echo what Heledd, Delyth and others have said on the issue. But I'd also like to highlight the local in my comments today, to provide an example of what's happening on the ground in Wales.

When it comes to heritage in my region, a vital connection to our past is Big Pit. It's one of the jewels in the crown. Between April 2023 and March 2024, it had a total of 107,995 visitors through its doors. This means over 100,000 people getting to experience the history of Wales, and specifically our coal-mining heritage in Blaenavon. However, with Amgueddfa Cymru being faced with a cut of 10.5 per cent, we will see museums across Wales, including Big Pit, no longer able to cater to the same number of visitors and provide the same service that they are known for.

And, as we've heard already from the museum's Public and Commercial Services Union branch, Big Pit has had to reduce its front-of-house staff; miner guides are having to cover museum areas and train other staff, rather than being able to take tours underground; underground tour tickets are ceasing to be sold after 1 p.m., and the pithead canteen has lost the majority of its staff and no longer serves food to visitors.

Of course, this will not only have a detrimental impact on our economy, on people's jobs and the financial contribution that this museum makes to Torfaen and to Wales, but it would also make us poorer culturally. These places are a gateway to our past, to our heritage, with many of our grandparents and great-grandparents having been miners in these pits. But without proper investment in this essential access to our proud and unique heritage, it will only continue to dwindle.

That's why this petition is so important today. This is something that we in Plaid Cymru strongly support. Unless Welsh Government properly takes notice of these cuts to our culture and arts, and also recognise the impact that it will have, then we will continue to see the demise of this sector before our very eyes. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'm very pleased to be responding on behalf of the Welsh Government. I think this petition really reflects how important these institutions are to our nation. However, we are facing the most significant financial challenges since the start of devolution, with no easy solutions. So, we must work together to safeguard our national institutions, and I'm grateful to all Members for their support in doing so.

I'm fully aware of the impact that budget reductions have had on Amgueddfa Cymru, the national library and the royal commission. In preparing this year's budget, Ministers had to make some tough decisions to radically reshape our spending plans. Unfortunately, the budget I inherited when I came into post had no flexibility to prevent cuts to those budgets. Since coming into post, I've met with the chairs, the chief executives, staff members, trade union members of all of the institutions, and I've given my commitment to support them to thrive and not merely survive.

We know their highly skilled staff are instrumental in caring for our national collections, and retaining jobs must be a priority. We have reprioritised funding allocated to delivering the culture strategy to mitigate against job losses at all our cultural arm's-length bodies.

Amgueddfa Cymru and the library face significant challenges in maintaining their historic and iconic buildings. I've been assured that the collections are currently safe, but that additional support is needed. The priority for Amgueddfa Cymru is the National Museum Cardiff. An estimated £30 million over six years is required to address significant issues, including its roof. The library also needs £3 million for its roof and wider issues. I and my officials are currently working with both institutions to develop appropriate plans and identify potential funding options.

Currently, we have no certainty on future funding, but we are expecting another multi-year funding settlement. There is uncertainty on its timing, and we won't know more until after the UK general election. So, any decisions on future funding will form part of the discussions relating to the next annual budget and spending review.

We all know the outlook for the public finances remains challenging and so we have to be pragmatic. We are reviewing our current commitments to explore what we can do differently to release funding this financial year, with our national institutions, their venues and the collections in their care an absolute priority. It is also important for our national organisations to work more collaboratively, to maximise their potential, as well as continue to explore all fundraising and income-generation opportunities available to them. Welsh Government, like the institutions, have to balance the books, but I am keen to work with everyone in this Chamber to see what we can do.

Minister, will you take an intervention? Sorry, Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you very much for taking an intervention. Would you accept, though, that their ability to income-generate is being limited? We've heard examples of staff being lost if the canteen is closed or if you're not able to welcome as many visitors. Is there not a difficulty then, if you're limiting their ability to income-generate, with fewer staff available, how do you expect them to become more profitable with fewer staff and fewer opportunities, then, to income-generate?

I have to say, the meetings I had, particularly at the National Museum Cardiff, they've got some incredible ideas around fundraising and ensuring that they make the most of all opportunities, and I don't think they do see that as a barrier; I think they've got over that and they do recognise that we have to do things differently, and there are ways they can work differently to ensure that happens.

Our draft priorities for culture set out our priorities and ambitions for culture for the next five years. We haven't held back in our ambitions for the sector, and I hope this is an indication of my commitment to continue to explore all opportunities to support our treasured national institutions. Diolch.

I call on Rhianon Passmore to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to thank Members across the Chamber for their contributions, the Chair of the culture committee, Delyth Jewell; Rhun ap Iowerth; Heledd Fychan and Peredur Owen Griffiths for their passionate pleas to protect and grow our national institutions, assets and the culture budget, and to Tom Giffard for his commentary. I think, as Carolyn Thomas has said, austerity is shortsighted.

So, thank you, Minister, for your response and your commitment to work together in this very difficult landscape and ahead of the general election. I also want to thank the Business Committee for granting time for this important petitions debate this afternoon, and I want to thank very much the petitioner, Susan Jones-Davies, and other passionate campaigners, for their heroic efforts to raise awareness of this issue.

So, having only recently joined the Petitions Committee, this is a first opportunity to lead a debate of this sort here in this Chamber, and to hear the range of views and opinions across the Chamber. But the consensus is clear: we must do all we can to ensure our cultural institutions have the tools and levers they need, not just to survive, but to thrive in times of uncertainty, as they are rightly renowned for the work that they do, both here in Wales and around the world. Long may that work continue and long may this place support them to do so. Diolch.

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

Item 9 is next, a Plaid Cymru debate on Wales and the next UK Government. I call on Heledd Fychan to move the motion.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Given that this year marks 25 years of devolution, it provides an opportunity to look back at the past quarter of a century but also to look ahead. In looking back, it’s impossible not to think about the impact of the Conservatives’ austerity policies over the past 14 years on our nation, not to mention Brexit, of course. It’s also impossible to forget how many times we have heard, since then, 'Things would be different if the Labour Party were still in Government in Westminster', or, as in recent days, 'When they will be in power.'

However, as became apparent in a recent S4C interview with the widely expected next Secretary of State for Wales, this is not a guarantee, in any shape or form. And as her words clearly demonstrated, the glaring and entrenched imbalances of power continue to define the relationship between Wales and Westminster.

Take, for example, the devolution of justice and policing, an established policy position of the Welsh Government for some time, whose clear benefits are corroborated by a sizable corpus of reputable academic research, including the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, flippantly dismissed by Jo Stevens as 'fiddling around with structures'; the full repatriation of post-EU funding decision-making powers—rightly described by the First Minister himself a little over two months ago as 'reversing a theft from the UK Government'—halted, with representatives of Wales, rather than explicitly the Welsh Government, in control of how it will be spent; the devolution of the Crown Estate and the delivery of £4 billion-worth of high speed 2 line funding unjustly withheld from Wales, brushed aside as if inconsequential; and yet again, the democratic expression of the Senedd, a decision that no-one takes lightly in voting in support of a no-confidence vote in a First Minister, belittled as a mere 'political stunt'. If you did not know that she was a Labour Member, you'd be forgiven for assuming that this was a Tory Secretary of State in waiting, honouring their party's tradition of undermining the course of devolution, something they've pursued with particular vigour in recent years.

But the very fact that this was Jo Stevens speaking, who will apparently be the main voice for Wales within the Labour UK Government that is due to take office next week, underlines that regardless of who will be in No. 10 Downing Street, Westminster's contempt and complacency towards Wales is constant. It is for this reason that we have no confidence in the role of the Secretary of State for Wales, and are calling for the abolishment of the post and the transfer of its functions to the Welsh Government. In truth, this is a measure that is long overdue, as the evolution of Welsh devolution has exposed the inherently archaic nature of the post. To quote John Morris, the holder of the office during the Wilson and Callaghan administrations:

'The fifth wheel on the parliamentary coach is the existence of the Secretary of State in Scotland and Wales...They have few duties following the advent of devolution, and even fewer after the transfer of legislative powers to the Assembly. From my experience as the holder of the office for over five years, it is impossible to justify these posts today.'

Well, this was a quote from a speech he made back in 2013, and since then, of course, the sophistication of the Senedd's devolved competencies has continued to mature in line with the democratic will of the Welsh people, and yet both major parties still can't seem to kick their habitual Westminster-knows-best attitude, and they insist on peering over the shoulder of Welsh legislatures at every opportunity. Furthermore, John Morris's words also hint at an underlying paradox in the role's scope, namely that while its day-to-day responsibilities have indeed contracted considerably over the past 25 years, the office retains powerful and disproportionate executive privilege over Welsh affairs.

Will you take an intervention? Thank you for taking the intervention. I'm very interested in your motion today, because I've seen outrage from Plaid Cymru calling the loss of eight MPs from Wales in the boundary redistribution as somehow meaning Wales's voice is smaller at a UK Government level, but by the same measure, what your motion calls for today is to remove Wales's voice around the UK Government Cabinet table. Isn't it completely contradictory, manufactured outrage from Plaid Cymru ahead of a general election?

Not at all. If you look at the motion in detail, we talk about transferring the power to the Welsh Government, so there would be more than one person making that decision, and we here in the Senedd, including yourself, would have a voice in terms of that decision. Is it right that one person says that they speak for Wales? I don't think the Secretary of State for Wales has shown that he is a voice for this Senedd, and I don't think that Jo Stevens seems to be a voice for this Senedd. Surely the Welsh Government will be better placed for those decisions. And also, all of the UK Cabinet Ministers should be taking an interest in Wales and looking at the whole of the United Kingdom. They don't. Why dismiss it to one role that doesn’t actually control or express our views? So, no, I don't accept that this is linked to the election in any way.

We've seen, through the tenure of the soon-to-be-outgoing Secretary of State, whether in terms of his indulgence of mistruths on default speed limits, his complete failure to advocate for Wales to receive its fair share of HS2 funding, and his casting aspersions on the impartiality of the authors of the report of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, that that seat around the table means nothing if Wales's distinctive voice and this Senedd's voice is not able to influence the decisions made. And based on the aforementioned interview, it appears his successor, Jo Stevens, has absolutely no intention of changing course and trusting Wales to manage policy areas where the case for further devolution is resounding.

Welsh democracy doesn’t need second-guessing. It deserves the respect and dignity it is entitled to after the mandate delivered by two referenda and six consecutive national elections, which have always returned clear pro-devolution majorities. It is for this reason I urge members here to support our motion and ensure that decisions taken by us here in this Chamber are respected and upheld.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I now call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 1 and also refer you to documentary evidence in my previous speeches showing that the architects of austerity were Blair, Brown and Balls.

Like all parties here, the Welsh Conservatives support the provision of consequential funding from HS2 to be provided to Wales. The estimated £4 billion would be a boost for the economy and could be used for upgrading infrastructure in Wales. My colleagues and I have been consistent in making this argument to the UK Government. We also welcome, however, the UK Government's commitment to invest £1 billion in electrification of the north Wales railway line. However, after a quarter of a century of Welsh Labour failing to effectively use the powers they already possess, the Welsh Conservatives stand firmly against the creeping of greater devolution now. Devolving responsibility is by no means a sure-fire mechanism to improve them. Just look at the Welsh NHS, with over 21,000 waiting over two years for treatment, compared with around 200 in England, with twenty times the population. And our education sector has sadly become characterised by constant and severe underperformance compared to the rest of the UK, despite the dedication of staff.

The UK Labour Party have themselves not committed to devolving police and adult justice, with the shadow Welsh Secretary, Jo Stevens, stating that current problems with crime are too urgent to begin fiddling with the responsibilities of police, courts and prisons in Wales, and with the UK Labour manifesto only stating, 'We will work with the Welsh Labour Government to consider the devolution of youth justice.' In this context, it should be noted that when the last UK Labour Government left office, crime was rampant, but crime has been cut by over half under UK Conservative Governments since 2010.

As I pointed out repeatedly to the Counsel General, there are numerous factors that are too often overlooked in discussions on devolving justice, particularly the very real issue of cross-border crime. Unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, Wales has a heavily populated cross-border area with England, which is why approximately 95 per cent of the crime in north Wales, for example, operates cross-border, whilst almost none operates on a Wales-only basis. I again criticised the Thomas commission yesterday for making only one reference to cross-border criminality, with the north-west regional organised crime unit telling me that their evidence to the commission regarding this was largely ignored.

As the former Secretary of State for Wales, Simon Hart, stated, there is no public appetite to devolve the Crown Estate in Wales, and to do so would fragment the market and delay the further development of key projects in the floating offshore wind sector. As he added,

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Cabinet Office to move formally amendment 2.

Sorry, I was down to speak on this.

Formally.

Don't worry, Jenny Rathbone. She is only moving the amendment.

I beg your pardon.

That's okay. I haven't forgotten. I'll call Adam Price now and then I will be calling you, Jenny. How could I forget you?

Diolch, Llywydd. The Secretary of State for Wales—it reminds me of one of those sort of vestigial offices of the bygone past that we sometimes gawk at during great state events. It's so redundant that they might as well wear plumed hats or epaulettes. It's a bit like the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom. Historically, that was the highest ranking officer of the Royal Navy, but since 1964 it's generally been held by a member of the royal family. It's currently the King. It's described as a titular position without direct operational command, and I think that pretty much defines the Secretary of State for Wales, which was of course created in 1964, 60 years ago. It's about as useful to Wales as the office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is to the good people of Lancaster. It's not Wales's representative in the Cabinet; it's the Cabinet's representative in Wales. That's the truth. It was created and sustained in order to create an alternative narrative as to where the democratic mandate lies, so it's there as a competitor to the democratic legitimacy of this institution and the Government upon whose confidence, of course, it relies.

If anyone really believed that it was effective, would we have had the scandal of HS2 and the money that was stolen from Wales? Would the steel industry in Port Talbot be teetering on the brink as we stand if it was an effective method, a real shield on behalf of the people of Wales? It's not. Look at the history since 1964. There have been 22 Secretaries of State for Wales. Only five of them, you could say really, were convinced devolutionists. If you were being particularly generous, you might add Alun Michael as a sixth. The rest of them were all devosceptic, Labour and Conservative, and of course what we have in the shadow Secretary of State for Wales now is somebody from that devosceptic tradition. That's without a doubt. How could you go from the Thomas commission clearly recommending the wholesale devolution of criminal justice to Wales—all of it for very good, progressive reasons—to the Brown commission, which was a bit of a damp squib, saying, 'You can have probation and youth justice', to the Welsh Labour manifesto, which then said this:

'The UK Labour government will work with the Welsh Labour Government to consider devolution of youth justice'?

That well-worn kind of language means nothing at all, really. And

'the next UK Labour government will explore the devolution of services'.

I think we see the direction of travel clearly, and, yet again, under a devosceptic shadow Secretary of State.

I'm not a nihilist. I may be a nationalist, but I'm not a nihilist. While we're in this United Kingdom, I want the institutions of Government at all levels to work for the people of Wales. So, the reason that I'm against the Secretary of State for Wales is that it's not working for Wales. Their voice just doesn't carry weight or power. Gwydyr House is an empty vessel, in all senses, literally and metaphorically. If you, instead of having a Secretary of State for Wales, created something along Canadian lines, for example, federal or semi-federal institutions that have different levels of government, created a Secretary of State for inter-governmental relations and you created statutory structures and agreements, instead of the convention of the Barnett formula you had something written into rules that could be enforced, and you had structures then alongside it of inter-governmental relations that could be upheld by a powerful department of inter-governmental relations, that would be a political structure that would show respect for the multinational nature of this United Kingdom. Isn't that, even from a unionist perspective, better than what we currently have, which is a fig leaf, which is a gesture? It's not real and it's not delivering, and that's why we need to get rid of it.

Jenny Rathbone.

I apologise, Presiding Officer.

You were too keen, and that's not a problem.

Well, something like that. Anyway, I apologise for interrupting you.

I think that whilst it's convenient for Plaid Cymru to be personalising the resistance to devolution on the remarks made by one individual, namely the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, I think we need to move beyond that, because we need to start creating alliances. We all agree in this Chamber that designating HS2 as an England-and-Wales project is an outrageous distortion and misuse of the English language and an affront to the structures we need to create to have a more coherent and agreed set of rules, not just for Wales but for the whole of Britain. The regions of England are just as badly served by the current arrangements as Wales is.

Earlier this year, Andy Burnham called for a new codified constitution for the UK to wrench power out of Westminster, as he hit out at a tiny clique running British politics. And a new book by Professor Paul Collier of the University of Oxford blames the widening inequality across the UK on stale economic orthodoxies that prioritise market forces to revive left-behind regions of our country and beyond. Above all, he denounces the arrogant hands-off, one-size-fits-all approach of a centralised bureaucracy like the UK Treasury, where most of the 50 most powerful people in the UK are to be found. We cannot go on like that. It simply isn't the way forward and it doesn't reflect the depth of the political crisis in our country.

I'm sure we've all met levels of apathy and indifference on the doorstep amongst people who feel they are never listened to, so why bother voting when they foresee no change in their lives and their struggle to survive. We all need to take seriously the numbers of people who won't bother to vote or who have encountered deliberate barriers to voting, which discriminate against those who don't drive, never travel abroad and are yet to be eligible for a bus pass. This, in itself, is an absolute disgrace and an affront to democracy.

We also need to pay heed to the numbers falling for the populism project headed by Nigel Farage. Farage is absolutely adept at drilling down into the distress and despair of left-behind communities. That is why he is standing in Clacton; that’s why he launched his—I think it was called a ‘project’; it certainly wasn’t a manifesto—in Merthyr Tydfil, although that didn’t work too well, because the people of Merthyr Tydfil were just as affronted by him as he is by us. And Clacton itself is a good example of a left-behind community, despite being in the generally wealthy south-east of England. It shares many of the common features with shrinking seaside communities across Britain.

No change is not an option and the constitutional changes that we require are what we need to reach out to other people across Britain to try and endeavour to get some consensus. I was particularly keen on the report of the commission on the UK’s future headed by Gordon Brown, and I think he is an ally in trying to resolve a constitutional settlement that will give Wales the powers it needs to have a more coherent approach to all the issues that we face. As Andy Burnham says, a written constitution would codify relationships between national, local and regional government so that democracy functions properly. It’s not functioning properly at the moment, and decisions have to be made with due consideration of different perspectives from wherever you happen to be living and representing. So, we must join in common cause with the Greater Manchester mayor and all the other regional English leaders, whether they are mayors or whether they are heads of local authorities.

I agreed with much of what Jenny said and the spirit in which you said it, and I know you’ve asked us not to personalise this debate, but for me, Jo Stevens’s arrogant dismissal of the case for the full devolution of justice and policing powers as ‘fiddling around’ I think is really significant, because I think it really put on display for all to see that fig leaf that Adam Price described. It betrayed this ignorance, or perhaps arrogance, often displayed by politicians—from both unionist parties—that devolution is somehow only of interest and of consequence to constitutional anoraks. Anyone truly invested in the well-being of Welsh society would know that nothing could be further from the truth, as you’ve outlined, Jenny, and in the case of justice and policing powers specifically, there is so much ample, practical evidence beyond the realm of constitutional discourse that shows the status quo profoundly disadvantages Wales.

Let’s hone in on the criminal justice system. Only last week we heard dire warnings from HM Prison and Probation Service officials saying that prisons across England and Wales will be overcrowded in a matter of days after the general election, and as the president of the Prison Governors’ Association pointed out rightly, this is a situation that was anticipated for some time due to the mismanagement of the outgoing UK Government, which is in itself a reflection of how Westminster’s approach to criminal justice is so fundamentally broken. Both England and Wales we know, of course, have the highest incarceration rates in the whole of Europe, with the number of prisoners per 100,000 in the population double the level that stood a century ago, and yet, such a heavy-handed approach to crime has proved spectacularly ineffective as a deterrent. Reoffending rates remain high; crime levels in Wales—with the exception of the COVID-affected year of 2020—have risen year on year over the past decade, and societal prejudices and inequalities are also never far from the surface in our criminal justice system, such as the fact—the shameful fact—that people from black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds are over-represented at all levels of the criminal justice system in Wales. From the most recent statistics we have, there were 51 out of every 10,000 black Welsh people in prison compared with 14 white people, and more black people also under the care of the probation services. The length of their sentences is also longer, the average sentence between 2010 and 2020 was eight and a half months longer for black people than white defendants. These are clear signs of systemic inequality based on race, which are wholly undermining our social justice policy aims.

Meanwhile, of course, the disturbing and, indeed, terrible recent events at Parc prison in Bridgend are emblematic of the utter failure of the privatised model imposed on Wales and of broader trends of increases in instances of prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-staff assaults. This simply can't be allowed to continue.

Keir Starmer’s manifesto, and the comments made by members of his shadow Cabinet, strongly suggest that the Welsh Government will again have to dredge the channel for that clear red water. I was initially a little unsure of the call made in the motion to abolish the post of Secretary of State. Like Tom Giffard, I wondered for a moment whether it would be better to ensure some voice for Wales around the table at 10 Downing Street. However, as Adam Price said very robustly, the truth is, if we look at the history of the role, we have had far too much of George Thomas and John Redwood, and not enough at all of Cledwyn Hughes and Ron Davies.

For too long at Whitehall, Wales has been an afterthought at best. At worst, we have seen utter contempt towards the needs of the people of Wales. George Thomas masterminded that £0.25 million was stolen from the families of Aberfan victims in order to save the Treasury some money, whilst John Redwood sent £100 million back of the Welsh block grant to the Treasury after vilifying one-parent families in St Mellons.

More recently, courts were closed and prisons were built with no consideration at all given to the real needs of the people of Wales. Welsh women were sent to prisons hundreds of miles away from their homes. And now we are seeing the role’s total failure to deliver fair funding for Wales.

The needs of the people of Wales should be considered by all Whitehall departments whilst making policy decisions. It shouldn’t be an afterthought and it shouldn’t be for one individual to try and remind them. Currently, we are seeing time and time again the Welsh Government being disregarded and excluded from the decision-making table. And I agree with Jenny, we need to be co-operating; I'm not a nihilist, like Adam too. We need to be co-operating with each other for the benefit of the people of Wales.

But the role of the Secretary of State for Wales is outdated. It needs to be consigned to the history books. It needs to join the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. We now, in 2024, we have a Government, we have a Senedd. We have the democratic voice of the people of Wales that needs to be acknowledged and respected in Whitehall. As far as I can see, the current position produces no benefit for the people of Wales. It is seen by the UK establishment as a minor Cabinet position with little, if no, influence. But at least the role gave John Redwood an opportunity to practice his miming skills. Diolch yn fawr.

How many times have we in this Chamber agreed that the Crown Estate should be devolved to Wales? It's the settled will of this Senedd. We shouldn't have to keep making the point. The Welsh Government claims to agree with us. The only discussion we should be having is when and how—and that with more urgency—and not 'if'. And yet, in the context of this general election, here we are yet again. Would you like to know what Labour's manifesto for Wales says about devolving the Crown Estate? Nothing. The words 'Crown Estate' are not mentioned. Did Welsh Labour even try to get them in there? Once again, Plaid Cymru are the only ones making the case that we can and should have control of our natural resources in Wales and that these can and should be put to work for the benefit of the people and communities of Wales.

So, let's rehearse the arguments again. Control over the Crown Estate's assets in Scotland is already devolved, and in 2021-22, these directly generated over £15.7 million for the Scottish exchequer, and that's not to mention the investment and growth opportunities, around £25.5 billion in total, represented by Scotland's blue economy programme, which the control over Crown Estate assets makes possible. There is no reason nor defensible case as to why Scotland should have control over these assets and revenues, where Wales doesn't. The Crown Estate assets in Wales are worth £853 million. Control over them would give us the revenues that we need to create a Welsh sovereign wealth fund—something, again, that the Welsh Government claims to support in principle, but has done less than nothing to deliver.

We know that the Crown Estate has a central role to play in Wales's transition to net zero. Wales's seas are prime real estate when it comes to offshore renewables—again, we have heard all of this so many times, haven't we? The economic potential of the renewables in the Irish and Celtic seas offer opportunities for new green jobs and training, as well as sustainable energy production. But for any of these promises on community benefits, green and inclusive growth and job opportunities to come good, we need control of the Crown Estate; we need to be the ones setting the terms for awarding leases and development deals, baking in requirements on community benefits, skills and developing local supply chains. As it stands, I seriously worry that these opportunities will slip—perhaps already are slipping—through our fingers.

On Friday, during the BBC Wales leaders' debate, Vaughan Gething asserted that he had got everything he had asked for on further devolution for Wales. From this, I take it, therefore, that he didn't ask for devolution of the Crown Estate, never mind fair funding or HS2 consequentials. The UK Labour manifesto commitments on GB energy come straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook on levelling up. An ambiguous entity, it is an energy company or an investment vehicle, with a headquarters in Scotland and maybe a branch office in Wales. It will be providing finance for offshore wind developments, whose profits will ultimately flow back to the south-east of England. It promises nothing more than the continuation of an age-old trend of our natural resources being used to fill the coffers in London.

The Cabinet Secretary for finance and constitution now—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch. Twenty-five years ago next Monday, most of the functions exercised by the Secretary of State of Wales transferred to the first ever National Assembly for Wales. Decisions on health, education, housing, transport, economic development and many other areas were, for the first time, made by Assembly Members elected here by the people of Wales.

This quarter of a century has given life to countless policies, responding to the specific needs and aspirations of our country. Importantly, the governance arrangements that enable the delivery of these policies have become a permanent feature of the constitutional landscape of the United Kingdom.

It has not been without its challenges. The tensions following the decision to leave the European Union and the strains inflicted by the muscular unionism of the last UK Government have exposed the weaknesses of our constitutional settlement. The Conservatives in Westminster have repeatedly pushed ahead with legislation in devolved areas without the Senedd’s consent. We know that they would go further if given the chance, having committed to reapplying the Trade Union Act 2016, and promising to extend the backing drivers Bill to cover Wales, even though speed limits are a devolved matter. This would be an affront to our democracy.

We established the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales to help explore how we safeguard our devolution settlement and consider new solutions for strengthening and protecting our democratically elected institutions. Earlier this year, we published our response to the commission’s final report. We accepted the commission’s conclusions and its 10 recommendations, and we remain committed to pursuing the implementation of those recommendations. The actions that we have already taken demonstrate clearly that commitment. We have allocated an additional £1 million to support this ambitious agenda through our budget discussions as part of the co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru, and we have commenced work on the establishment of an expert advisory panel to assist with the recommendation on democratic innovation.

Of course, some of the commission’s recommendations cannot be delivered without the co-operation and the agreement of the UK Government. To that end, it’s worth reflecting on our past successes in working with successive UK Governments to secure the delivery of proposals made by previous commissions. Many of the recommendations of the Richard commission became a reality following the passage of the Government of Wales Act 2006, giving us the separation between the Government and Legislature and primary law-making powers for the Senedd. And the delivery of the Silk commission’s recommendations, through two further Wales Acts, resulted in fiscal devolution and the ability to reform our Senedd and shape it to better reflect and serve the people whom we represent.

Good. I'm just trying to figure out your maths there around HS2. You said that you believe it's £350 million. I'd appreciate if you could elaborate on that—where do you get the £350 million from? That suggests that, to you, the real cost of HS2 is around £7 billion, but we know that the Euston part of it is about £5 billion. The first leg of HS2 is £44 billion, and the whole of HS2 would mean that we do get a consequential of around £4 billion. So, can you explain where you get your £350 million from?

Yes, so I'd be more than happy to do that. I actually wrote to all colleagues this week, and sent everybody an explainer, including how much we'd received from the UK Government in each of the financial years through our mechanisms—or we would have received from the UK Government in each of the financial years—when HS2 has been under construction. So, I'd be happy to recirculate that after the meeting today. I have provided the leader of Plaid Cymru with a technical briefing from officials on this matter, and also a two-page explainer, but I'd be happy to circulate that to all colleagues as well to ensure that we're all on the same page.

Llywydd, we're all absolutely on the same page, I think, all of us, across all parties, in the sense that Wales must have its fair share of funding. But, equally, it's important that we do use the correct figures, because they're being used in this Chamber, but now also in the media, and I just think that that clarity is important. But I'm happy to circulate to all colleagues all the information that they will need.

I just would close then, Llywydd, by saying that we need a UK Government that respects devolution and is prepared to work with us too, and I ask Members to support the amendment.

Heledd Fychan now to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to everyone who has contributed to this debate.

Mark Isherwood made the point that we've had cross-party support for HS2, but I fail to understand why, then, that links to the defence of the Secretary of State. After all, they’ve failed to deliver that consequential for Wales, so surely your point illustrates that, even when there is a Conservative UK Government, even when there is a Secretary of State for Wales that represents a Welsh constituency, they fail to deliver for Wales. So, they can ignore the will of the Senedd, the united will of the Senedd, and yet not deliver for Wales. So, I really don't understand how those points are connected.

You also mentioned Simon Hart, who said that there's no public appetite for the devolution of the Crown Estate. Again, a Secretary of State for Wales—or former one—that claims to speak for the people of Wales and shows no understanding of, actually, the will of this Senedd either. So, I think you've illustrated with both those points why the post of Secretary of State has become so defunct.

Adam just hit the nail on the head in terms of being the Cabinet's representative here in Wales. That's exactly the point, isn't it? And what we're trying to say here, and what I'm dismayed about in the Cabinet Secretary's views, is: why doesn't the Welsh Government want to have this responsibility? Why do you want one individual making these calls and pretending to speak for Wales, rather than having the Senedd and our own Welsh Government having that voice? Surely that doesn't—. Well, it doesn't make sense, really.

Jenny Rathbone—I agree. You said about one individual and not personalised, but I think it goes beyond that, as was illustrated when Sioned Williams responded. It's not about one individual, but it is symptomatic of that post that one person can actually disregard, because, when the Cabinet Secretary mentioned all the things that we agree on here, well, surely, then, we want someone having that discussion with the UK Government that represents our views, not actually going against what the collective voice of this Senedd is. We've all referenced here all the things that we agree on, and not just us as politicians. Where there are experts, where there are panels, there's undisputed evidence to show why these changes are needed in so many different areas, and then you can have one individual speaking for Wales in the Cabinet not agree at all with us. So, that's why we don't agree, and that's why we think the Welsh Government should have that say. [Interruption.] I'm happy to take your intervention.

I agree that one individual is not the whole party, but that is why it's important that we make alliances. I completely agree with the case made by Sioned Williams for the devolution of criminal justice. I think the case is well made and overdue, because the Home Secretary in London will never deliver the progressive policies that are needed for criminal justice while they're based in London. It'll always be dominated by the Daily Mail whichever party is in power. That is why we can try out policies that will actually work and show them the way forward, because at the moment the system is absolutely broken.

Thank you, and I think that reflects what Adam Price was saying about redefining that relationship. This isn't just headline grabbing on getting rid of the Secretary of State of Wales's role; it's actually having that grown-up conversation about what does that relationship look like between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, that we update processes, because surely it doesn't work for Wales when there is a united view here, supported by experts, and yet we have to fight, we have to continue to make the case. So, I think that's where the frustration lies. We need to make sure that this union works for Wales, and currently it doesn't.

Rhys ab Owen, thank you for reminding us of John Redwood and that awful rendition of 'Hen Wlad fy Nhadau'. That needs to be consigned to the history books, not just the role. But, certainly, the points you make, I think the fact that you have reflected, because it is something that you need to balance in terms of that role, and that's why we need that grown-up conversation about what that relationship looks like.

Peredur, you were right to point out in terms of the Crown Estate not even being mentioned in the Labour manifesto. So, how are we going to, crucially, deliver for Wales?

You mentioned, Cabinet Secretary, in your response that most functions transferred to Welsh Government 25 years ago, and you mentioned about safeguarding the devolution settlement. Well, it seems to me from the interviews we've seen to date that we'll need to safeguard the devolution settlement from a Labour Secretary of State for Wales, as well as we've seen with a UK Conservative one. A constructive relationship needs to start during an election campaign as well; we can't hope that she will change in terms of tone and attitude following the election. And that's why we are concerned, looking at the UK Labour manifesto, looking at the comments made, that there is a disregard for the views of this Senedd.

So, that's why today we are asking the Senedd to agree to our motion, and that's about getting rid of and abolishing the position of the Secretary of State for Wales. It's high time that the Welsh Government had the final say in terms of the key things that should be devolved here to Wales, and the powers that we need here in Wales. No-one should have a veto over the will of this Senedd. We are ambitious for Wales. We want to see a UK Government delivering for Wales. A Secretary of State for Wales will not deliver for Wales. That's clear, whichever party they are from.

So, let's have that confidence in the Welsh Government, in the decisions taken here in Wales, redefine the relationship, but please, Welsh Labour, have the courage to take the decisions for the people of Wales, not just hope for the best.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore defer voting until voting time.

And that brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will proceed directly to our first vote this afternoon. That vote is on item 7, the debate on a Member's legislative proposal on a community energy benefits Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Adam Price. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, 25 abstentions and none against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

Our next votes will be on item 9, the Plaid Cymru debate on Wales and the next UK Government. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 37 against. The motion is therefore not agreed.

We will next vote on amendment 1, and if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

Amendment 2 is next. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 24 against, and therefore the amendment is agreed.

The final vote, therefore, is on the motion as amended by amendment 2.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, no abstentions, 22 against, and therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

That concludes voting, but we do have one remaining item, namely the short debate.

This afternoon's short debate is to be introduced by Heledd Fychan. I will invite Heledd Fychan to begin her short debate once some Members have left the Chamber, and done so quietly. Heledd Fychan.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to present this short debate today, and I will be giving Vikki Howells and Joel James a minute of my time.

Chwarel Craig yr Hesg is a quarry on the outskirts of Pontypridd and directly next to the community of Glyncoch. Operating since 1885, it provides blue pennant sandstone, one of the highest quality skid-resistant surfacing aggregates in the UK, and is used on motorways and airport runways. The extraction and working of minerals or depositing mineral waste at the site was due to come to an end on 31 December 2022, followed by a restoration and aftercare programme. This was a promise made to the local community when that planning application was made. However, that proved to be a broken promise. The company in charge of the quarry subsequently put forward two planning applications to extend both the area quarried as well as the life of the quarry. Over 400 objections were received from local residents, Pontypridd Town Council, and many elected representatives, including myself and Vikki Howells. Indeed, so compelling were the arguments put forward that the local planning authority, Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, rejected both applications on the basis of the impact of blasting on people's health and well-being. The community breathed a sigh of relief. But this proved to be short-lived, as a planning appeal was submitted to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales.

In October 2022, the Minister for Climate Change at the time, Julie James, upheld the appeal by Hanson Aggregates. The Minister cited the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 in her ruling, on the grounds that potential harms had been weighted against the likely need for the minerals in construction, road building and maintenance and the plan's wider economic benefits. The description of development states the extension would facilitate the extraction of 10 million tonnes of sandstone and allow the extraction of the remaining reserves of 5.7 million tonnes. So, we now have a quarry, opposed by the local community, not only still in operation until 2047, but also expanding. To say that residents are furious is an understatement; they are devastated by the decision and desperate for the Welsh Government to listen to their concerns and take action to bring the life of the quarry to an end.

So, why is there opposition? The quarry dominates the landscape next to the community of Glyncoch and is in close proximity to a number of homes, a school and playing fields. In fact, a nearby estate is less than the permitted 200m away from the boundary of the proposed extension area. Once a week, the community suffers the impact of blasting on the site. For years they have reported distress caused by the loud explosions. They've also shown evidence that suggests that, on blast day, homes shake, leading to cracks in the walls of properties, both internal and external, that they allege have appeared on walls following blasting. One resident speaking at the appeal hearing stated the following, 'My family has lived in the area for over 50 years. We have spent time and money on our home for it now to be damaged by blasting activities from the quarry. This includes damage to our boundary wall, the external walls of our house and internal walls. The floor in the lounge has also dropped, leaving a large hole.' Many other residents provided similar testimony, accompanied by images, yet this was dismissed by PEDW as it had not been verified by experts.

Dust is a major concern. Following blasting, huge clouds of dust can be seen travelling over the nearby community. This leaves a residue on homes and cars, and residents are concerned that the particles within the dust pose a risk to their health. After all, aggregate quarrying, particularly when involving pennant stone, can produce silica dust. Silica is naturally present in rock, sands and clays, and when these materials are drilled, cut or chipped during quarrying operations, fine dust containing respirable crystalline silica is generated. Inhalation of RCS can lead to silicosis, a serious and irreversible occupational lung disease. This was also raised during the appeal hearing, with a local resident stating, 'The biggest problem we suffer is the dust on all the surfaces of our home. This dust is obviously coming from the quarry, and will cause long-term health impacts.'

Councillor Doug Williams, the councillor for Glyncoch ward, further stated,

'I have researched air quality and the WHO air quality targets are exceeded across local postcodes. There are higher levels of cancers and poor health in my ward, which is one of the most deprived in Wales. This can only be explained by the dust from the quarry. The dust is seen on windows, solar panels and inside properties across worktops.'

These were concerns both myself and Vikki Howells raised as well, when we gave evidence, and yet all were dismissed by the planning inspectorate, as the evidence was not considered substantiated. In fact, both Vikki and I were criticised for not producing hard evidence, with the inspectorate writing,

'Somewhat late in the day, it is now agreed that there is no risk to physical health. The assertion of mental health effects has not only been unsubstantiated, there has been no effort to substantiate it with evidence.'

In fact, we were criticised and accused of scaremongering because we weren't in a position to commission our own barristers and team of researchers on behalf of the community, in contrast to the appellants.

The publication The Planner covered this as an interesting article following the decision to allow the quarry to expand. They asked a KC, a public law barrister at Cornerstone Chambers, for her view on the issue of communities being priced out of providing evidence, and she stated,

'It is the great difficulty in residents having to bring evidence to planning inquiry that a greater and greater standard is being required.

'Operations like Planning Aid, and the Community Planning Alliance offer support and resources, but evidence that is likely to be considered significant by inspectors, such as surveys, and impact assessments, can remain beyond the reach of many.'

And the article concludes with the following point:

'Planning is all about balance: balancing the negative with the benefits, the risks with the rewards. This means that it can only accept high quality, hard evidence—and this high threshold should remain. But is it fair, if communities are disenfranchised by the cost of generating this evidence?'

I'd be grateful if the Trefnydd can consider this in her response, as I think this is particularly pertinent when you consider the community in question, in Glyncoch. After all, Glyncoch is one of the most deprived areas in the country, and is made up of predominantly social housing. How is a community like Glyncoch able to compete with a multimillion pound company?

Another concern are the lorries that operate in and out of the site. They are huge lorries that travel off the A470 and over the old bridge in Pontypridd and down Berw Road. The impact on traffic is considerable, and the road is unsuitable for such heavy traffic. Residents are fed up of not only the sound and the vibrations from the lorries going past their homes, but also the dust that comes from them, which leaves a residue on doors and windows. A survey conducted by local residents last Wednesday found 70 heavy goods vehicles used the road; 34 of them between 7 a.m and 9 a.m, causing significant pressure on the roads during peak hours, and the quarry itself acknowledged this danger, as outlined in their High Court injunction. The agreed limit is supposed to be five heavy goods vehicles per hour.

Since I was elected in 2016, I've stood shoulder to shoulder with the residents of Glyncoch to formally oppose every planning application to extend Craig-yr-Hesg quarry, and it's great to have been joined by Heledd since she was elected. I believe we've formed an exemplary cross-party working relationship on this issue to support our constituents. All of the concerns that Heledd has outlined are made far, far worse by the proximity of the quarry to the village. Planning regulations identify a buffer of 200m as being a suitable minimum distance between quarries and residential areas, but this latest expansion brings the working area within 142m of many houses, and just 109m from the nearest property. It's no wonder that residents are having problems retaining the value of their homes and selling their homes. And let's not forget the pupils of Cefn Primary School, which is now just 164m from the site. It is impossible for us, for residents, and, indeed, for RCT's planning committee, who opposed this expansion, to fathom how this can be judged to be an appropriate buffer zone. Dirprwy Lywydd, the residents of Glyncoch have my word that I will continue to oppose Craig-yr-Hesg quarry, and I won't rest until it is closed.

Can I start by thanking Heledd for raising such an important short debate and for giving me a minute of her time? Like Heledd, I have spent quite a lot of time speaking with residents and raising this issue with the council and the Cabinet Secretary, and I share everyone’s disappointment that the decision has been made to expand the quarry in Glyncoch.

I really feel for the residents living in the village. They've lost access to much-used and cherished land, their houses are being damaged, and I can't imagine what they must be breathing in. As has already been highlighted, blast times are not being correctly advertised, giving no prior warning to the community, and on top of all this they have to live with the aftershocks of these blasts. Understandably, residents are very concerned that their health is now being impacted, and I truly believe this entire situation could have been prevented if the needs and the voice of the local community had been given greater weight.

Time and time again we stand in this Chamber fighting for residents because their voice is just not being heard by local authorities or by the Welsh Government. And the sad truth is the people of Glyncoch are being failed by this establishment and by devolution. It's not given them the voice that they were promised. Thank you.

I call on the Trefnydd to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The Welsh Ministers allowed two planning appeals on 11 October 2022 relating to planning applications made by Hanson UK Ltd for mining at Craig-yr-Hesg quarry. Due to planning law and established practice, I am unable to comment on those decisions.

A fundamental foundation of the planning system is certainty—certainty for the public so that they know how their areas will develop, and certainty for developers, so that they can proceed with investment decisions. For this reason, beyond a six-week period following the granting of permission, it is no longer possible to challenge a grant of planning permission through the courts. Once the Welsh Ministers issue a decision on a planning application, they have no further jurisdiction in the matter. The combined effect of loss of jurisdiction and need for legal certainty means it's not open to anyone within the Welsh Government to discuss the merits of the decision, the reasoning behind it, or to reconsider the decision. When a recovered planning appeal has been determined by the Welsh Ministers, the decision can only be challenged via judicial review within six weeks of the decision, and only on the grounds that the handling of the matter was legally flawed. The opportunity to do so has long passed in this case, and, as set out in planning law, the decision is final.

I understand residents have raised concerns relating to activities at the quarry, as has been described today. To clarify the position, both appeal decisions are subject to planning conditions that seek to control and mitigate any potential impacts from the development. Local planning authorities have powers to investigate potential breaches of planning control. Responsibility for enforcing planning control, including conditions attached to consent granted following a successful appeal, now lies with the council. The possibility of enforcement action also means the case may again be presented to the Welsh Ministers, this time to determine an enforcement appeal. This possibility means I cannot comment on the planning merits of the site to avoid prejudice to those proceedings. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. That brings today's proceedings to a close.