Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon and welcome to today's Plenary meeting. Questions to the First Minister will be our first item this afternoon, and the first question is from Peter Fox. 

When someone is coming to the end of their life, they need to know that services will be there for them at this most sensitive time, and families need to know that support will be available for their loved ones. Hospices are absolutely vital charities, supporting people and families at the end of life. And that's why the Welsh Labour Government, over this Senedd term, has provided over £20 million to support hospices, including increased recurrent funding and targeted grants to help manage rising costs and demand. We are working closely with the sector and NHS partners to develop a more sustainable and equitable commissioning approach, ensuring people across Wales can continue to access high-quality, compassionate end-of-life care.

Thank you, First Minister. I recently had the privilege of visiting St David's Hospice Care in Newport, and their 15-bed respite and end-of-life unit. It left me with a deep sense of gratitude that such facilities exist, as a reminder of how much we owe our hospices. But they are under real strain, as I learnt. Labour's rise in national insurance is costing St David's £310,000—a charity providing complex and end-of-life care, yet completely missing out on the Welsh Government's mitigation measures. To meet these costs, they're being forced to cut back. They're closing charity shops, reconsidering their sites. And this will be replicated across hospices in Wales. Now, this cannot be right, as they are fundamental to our health system. So, First Minister, can you explain why hospices are being forced to pay for Labour's decisions, instead of being protected from them?

Thanks very much, Peter. I would also like to commend the incredible work that's being done by St David's hospice. I was fortunate to visit the incredible facility that they have just outside Newport, and I know the Cabinet Secretary has been there recently also. They're doing magnificent work, and I think what's really impressive is that it's not just in the hospice; it's actually out in the community that the vast majority of their work takes place. 

I recognise what you say about the pressures that they're under, and that is precisely why there has been an extra £5.2 million additional money given to them per annum. They've also been given £9.5 million in one-off grants to manage cost pressures, and there's been an additional £3 million additional recurrent funding, which should help to take the pressure off in relation to those national insurance increases. 

Well, in a recent response to a question that I asked, the Cabinet Secretary confirmed that a national needs assessment for hospices will be the basis for the new commissioning model for hospices that you're developing. How, then, will this assessment tackle the historic variance in funding hospices in Wales in order to ensure that support is based on need rather than postcode?

Well, I think the point of having a new national hospice commissioning approach is to recognise precisely the point that you have emphasised, that, actually, there's inconsistency at the moment, and that's why we want this NHS Wales joint commissioning committee, and the national palliative and end-of-life care programme to engage with the hospice sector and the health boards. We know that if they weren't there, the problem would just back up into our hospitals. That is not an acceptable way for us to continue. I don't think we should assume that those institutions are there unless we give them our support. So, that's precisely what that new commissioning approach will do—bring that level of consistency across the whole of Wales.

I would like to join in the tributes to St David's hospice, First Minister, for the amazing work that they do, which matters so much to so many individuals and families. And, as you say, often that's providing that specialist end-of-life care in people's homes, where most people want to end their life, surrounded by family and familiar surroundings. In paying tribute to them, First Minister, I think it is important to recognise what an amazing job they do in generating their own funds, and, obviously, the Welsh Government needs to work with them to support them, because they can only do so much. But it is an amazing effort. I think they raised something like 70 per cent of their own funds. One example of that is the Newport half marathon, which, just the other week, my colleague Jayne Bryant started, and I ran. [Laughter.] I'm sure Members will have their own views as to who had the better deal. But it's an amazing sight to see so many people running that event, raising so much money for the charity, and I would just like you to be part of recognising that amazing performance, in terms of all those events, the whole year round.

Well, diolch yn fawr, John, and congratulations on finishing that marathon. Jayne, can I just say, 'You've got work to do'. [Laughter.] But it's not just Jayne; there are countless people across Wales who are really going over and above to support these incredible institutions. Everybody's been touched by death in some way or another. End of life is a really, really sensitive time, and when you have the kind of support that hospices give, you recognise that, actually, that does need to be supported and maintained. That's precisely why not only would I commend and thank all those people who are involved in volunteering, in raising funds, but also recognise that more needs to be done to support hospices across Wales.

Question 2 [OQ63960] has been withdrawn. Question 3, Lee Waters.

We recognise this has been a controversial policy, but there's no question that the policy has saved lives and reduced casualties on our roads, saving significant funding for the NHS and suffering for hundreds of families around Wales. There are children walking around Wales today who would not have been if it weren't for this policy. Now, we've not estimated the cost of reversing the 20 mph speed limit, but it's clear that, if other parties had intentions to reverse this decision, it would incur significant costs not just financially, but in terms of lives lost and injuries caused.

The first two years of evidence from the speed limit change shows that there were 1,270 fewer casualties on Welsh roads—1,270 fewer casualties because of the change we brought in. This is the most significant achievement in road safety in decades, and it should be celebrated. The evidence is clear that increasing speed limits will lead to more deaths and more serious injuries every single year, but that's what Reform UK and the Welsh Conservatives want to do. They want to raise speed limits to 30 mph on streets where children play and where people live. That will lead to more deaths. It will lead to more life-changing injuries, and it would cost millions. First Minister, would you confirm that councils already have the power to alter the speed limit, where it makes sense to do so? There's no need to make an expensive change to the default speed limit to do that. And would you agree that not only would Reform and the Conservatives waste millions of pounds needlessly, but that scrapping the most successful road safety change in more than a generation would be a backward step?

I will confirm that councils do already have the power to alter speed limits, where it makes sense. I think it's probably worth noting that there have been 33 per cent fewer collisions in 2025 than there were in 2023—33 per cent. I just think it's probably worth noting that if you compare that to England, the difference is significant. So, in the year following the implementation of the default speed limit, as to the annual reduction, we saw a 22 per cent drop in the number of police-recorded road collisions on 20 mph and 30 mph roads in Wales. On the equivalent roads in England, there was a 4 per cent drop. So, it's this measure that is making a difference.

First Minister, road casualties have gone down right across the United Kingdom because cars are getting safer—cars are getting safer. It's a known fact. It needs to be asked: has this ill-thought-out policy already cost our country a lot of money? Yes. Will it cost an awful lot more to reverse? Yes. But how much has it cost our Welsh economy? By the Government's own calculations, this has cost £9 billion. So, you cannot say it has been a good policy. It's been a disaster from start to finish. The people of Wales have spoken in the biggest Senedd petition ever, with 500,000 people saying that you need to scrap this policy. No-one across this Chamber disagrees that 20 mph should be the case outside schools and hospitals and where it is appropriate. It is disingenuous to say anything else. But, First Minister, do you agree that we need to reverse this ill-thought-out default 20 mph policy, we need to get our economy moving again, and we need a Reform Government here in May?

I do think that it's worth reflecting on the fact that there are 1,270 fewer casualties. Think about the impact of that on the NHS. Think about all of those hospital visits that haven't happened and the costs of those hospital visits. I made it clear to you, because I knew you'd come up with this 'it's happening in England'—it's not. That is precisely the point. It's a 22 per cent reduction in the number of police-recorded collisions in Wales, compared to 4 per cent in England. So, let's deal with facts—I know it's Reform, and I know that's difficult for you—and let's point to the fact that, actually, there are insurance companies now who are actually offering a 20 per cent reduction for insurance in Wales as a result of the reductions in claims that they've seen.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the Conservatives, Darren Millar.

Diolch Llywydd. First Minister, many of us were shocked last week to learn that three men had been arrested on suspicion of assisting Chinese intelligence services. All three of those individuals had previously worked in political roles connected with the Welsh Labour Party and/or the Welsh Government, and all three appear to have been connected to Bute Energy. Last week, I called on you to come to the Chamber to make an emergency statement on this matter. Instead, the following day, you issued a few cursory sentences that told us nothing. Given the seriousness of this situation and the fact that three people—not just one—have been arrested, can you tell us when did you become aware of the national security concerns? And can you also tell us whether you've initiated an urgent review of the vetting and security arrangements for staff employed by your Government and party?

I think it's got to be made absolutely clear that this is a live investigation. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any detail affecting this issue. This is a serious issue. There are serious allegations being laid down. Therefore, I want to respect that legal process, and I will not be commenting on the details of any of this case.

First Minister, with respect, I'm not asking you to compromise the ongoing police investigation; I'm asking you about the vetting procedures for people who have access to privileged information and Welsh Labour Government Ministers. It's a perfectly reasonable set of questions, and it doesn't compromise any ongoing investigations. People have a right to know what action the Welsh Government is taking to ensure that those they employ are loyal to our country and do not pose a security threat.

We know that we have a critically important energy industry here in Wales, a very important semiconductor industry, and that our Welsh ports are critical as well to the whole of the United Kingdom. And it's not just staff based here in Wales that we need to know what's going on about; you have staff as well in mainland China. The Welsh Government has not one but three offices located in China. So, in addition to answering the first set of questions about when you became aware of these national security concerns and what you've done to check the vetting processes and security arrangements, can you also tell us what you are doing to ensure that our national security is not being compromised by the Labour Party or the Welsh Labour Government in either Wales or China, and what meetings have taken place in those overseas offices in China over the past five years?

I don't know what would compromise this investigation. You have made some assumptions there that my answering these questions doesn't make a difference. I just want to be clear: I don't know. I don't know the details of this investigation. This is a live investigation. It's inappropriate for me to comment further on it. National security will always be our priority. Anything that the police need from us in the Welsh Government they will get, and we'll always support the work of the police and the security services to keep people safe.

First Minister, let me get this right: you are telling me that you do not know when you became aware of these national security concerns about these three individuals, and you're telling me that you have no idea whether you, yourself, have initiated an urgent review of the vetting and security procedures since the announcement of this news. That is what you're telling us, that you don't know what you've done, which I find absolutely outrageous, to be honest with you.

You seem to be wanting to continuously evade these questions, and the public will make their own judgment as to why that is the case. Because it's not just China that you've cosied up to in recent years as a Government—you've also cosied up to communist Vietnam, haven't you, First Minister? And we know today from the news that there have been social media content farms in Vietnam that have been exposed for spreading fake news and AI-generated media and content in an attempt to influence our democracy here in Wales and across the United Kingdom. You've cosied up to these two countries, countries that many people regard as enemies of the United Kingdom, through education partnerships, higher education partnerships, cultural exchange visits and all sorts of other engagement at all sorts of different levels, including rolling out the red carpet for Government representatives. So, can I ask you—can I ask you, First Minister, yet again—when did you become aware of these security concerns? What have you done to urgently review the vetting and security arrangements, and will you now go away and review all of your international relationships as a Welsh Government, particularly with China and Vietnam?

I understand that you want to draw me into this issue. I'm telling you very clearly I will not be drawn into a live investigation. What I will say is that I think we should recognise that threats to our way of life are increasing. You just have to look at the world today, international developments over the last two weeks, to understand that we live in an era of unprecedented uncertainty. The range of risks we face are increasing, and we do face threats from foreign Governments, with hostile state activity being undertaken on British soil. It's clear that Wales is not immune from these risks. Let me be clear that there is support that the national security services have offered to Senedd Members if they fear that there is any attempt at infiltration within this place.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Llywydd. The First Minister told me in this Chamber recently that she believes that devolution must be respected, and I agree with her, of course, and I hope she agrees with me that that's a principle that should always be upheld. Does she therefore agree with me that UK Government should not make decisions on direct public spending in Wales if that spending is on something explicitly against the wishes of Welsh Government, or, if you like, if UK Government decides to actively work against devolved Governments here or indeed in Scotland or Northern Ireland?

We've been very clear: we want devolution to be respected. We are aware that—. In particular in relation to the UK internal market situation, we've been clear, consistent: we do not want the UK Government to be treading on our powers in relation to this.

I have here a personal memo from the Prime Minister to his Cabinet colleagues, signed by Keir Starmer himself, in which he actively encourages working against devolved Governments if that furthers his Government's interests. It says,

'an overly deferential or laissez-faire approach to devolved government engagement almost inevitably creates political challenges or misses positive opportunities.

'We should be confident in our ability to deliver directly in those nations, including through direct spending, even when devolved governments may oppose this.'

There we have it in black and white: Keir Starmer's own version of Boris Johnson's muscular unionism, not only dealing with devolution in bad faith, but undertaking a direct assault on the democratic views of devolved Governments. By staying ever loyal to him, the First Minister is aligning herself with efforts to undermine her own Government. Why has the Labour Party turned against devolution to this extent, and why has the First Minister allowed the UK's Labour Prime Minister to treat our Parliament, our Government and the people of Wales with such contempt?

Well, devolution must be respected, and I've always been very clear with the Prime Minister on that issue. It is a respectful relationship, and there are times, of course, when the UK Government should be working directly within Wales. Just take Wylfa as an example, where we want to see that development—[Interruption.] We want to see that development. We want to see that development happening in relation to AI. We want to see that work in relation to support for steel. My loyalty will always be to the Welsh people first and to their concerns, and that is why, when we came out with our key pledges recently, they were responding to the things that people in this country are concerned with on a day-to-day basis. And that's why really addressing issues that matter to them, like the cost-of-living crisis, like making sure there's a cap on bus fares of £2—. And it's great that I can actually stand in front of the Prime Minister and say to him, 'We're doing this. You don't give free bus fares in England. How about following us on that, in the way that you followed us when it comes to shifting resources into pharmacies?', when they followed us on 21 years of delivering breakfasts in schools. All of these things are things where we have led the way, and I do hope that Keir Starmer will look at what we're doing and follow our example, following the red Welsh way.

Frankly, people will be astounded by that aimless ramble by the First Minister in dodging the fundamental question that I asked. This is the UK Government stating in black and white that it does intend to, and wishes to, and will, disrespect devolution. I've said time and time again that, if I was First Minister, I would seek a constructive relationship with the UK Prime Minister, but making it very, very clear that I will always be guided by and driven by the interests of the people of Wales. But here again today, the Labour First Minister's instinct is to defend her own party. When it comes to standing up for Wales, her 'red Welsh way' has done nothing but lead us up the garden path.

The memo also says, and I quote again:

'The importance of the elections in Scotland and Wales cannot be underestimated.'

Setting aside the fact that this is clearly an overtly party political letter on headed Government paper, it demonstrates beyond doubt that the loyalty of the Labour UK Prime Minister is to his party and his own Government, even if his actions are deemed unacceptable by a democratically elected Government in Wales. And the Secretary of State for Wales is complicit, as the memo states that the Wales Office stands ready to assist. So, you have a Welsh Secretary using her place at the Cabinet table to bypass Wales.

Llywydd, this memo was sent soon after Labour backbenchers here wrote to the Prime Minister to vent their anger at his attitude towards Wales. What a disdainful response to their legitimate concerns. Now the First Minister's run out of road when it comes to apologising for and defending the Prime Minister. Labour is now actively working against the interests of Wales in order to protect its own interests. Surely she must agree with me that the Prime Minister's attitude here is contemptible.

Let's talk about aimless rambling. I think the people of Wales actually are focused on the things that matter to them in their daily lives. That's what they really care about. They care about making sure that, after 14 years of Tory austerity, the NHS now has money so that we've got a £4 billion fund to rebuild hospitals in Wales and address the issues that really matter to the people of Wales. We've had seven months of the longest waiting lists coming down—seven months. And what will you do in the first 100 days? Nothing. Nothing. You're going to write some reports and you've said, 'Don't expect the waiting lists to come down.' The people of Wales are listening. They are hearing. And what they want is to see a UK Labour Government giving money to the Welsh Labour Government, as they have done for two years in succession: the biggest uplift we've seen in a generation. And what you want to do is to focus on issues that actually are not the issues that are at the top of the agenda today for the people in Wales.

I'll tell you what they're worried about today. The people in your communities, in my community, today, are worried about the price of petrol. They're worried about what's going on in the middle east. There are 7 per cent of people in this country who are worried about paying for oil for heating their homes. And do you know what I can do? I can pick up the phone to the First Minister. In fact, even today—[Interruption.] Even today—[Interruption.] Even today, the Cabinet Secretary has been speaking directly to Labour Government Ministers to ask, 'What are you going to do about it?' That is a relationship that you will never have—never have—and you will never be able to deliver for the people living in Wales, as the way we are delivering today.

Health visitors are valuable members of the NHS. They provide trusted care to thousands of people every day, including some of the most vulnerable members of our society. This is a local dispute between the union and the health board, not a national issue. Unite is leading this dispute, and I want to declare that I'm a member of Unite. I want to see both parties finding a resolution to this dispute that is fair to health visitors, to patients and to the NHS.

Well, having met with many of the health visitors today outside of the Senedd, they don't feel valued. Many are here in the gallery watching this exchange right now. It's clear that they never wanted the situation to reach this point, and they tried every possible way to avoid having to take strike action. It's not a decision they reached lightly. The reason for the dispute is that the university health board are refusing to adhere to the national job evaluation system, a system that is used in determining the remuneration for every job in the NHS in the UK. Every step of the process has been followed correctly, and the result was that health visitors in Cwm Taf Morgannwg should be band 7, not band 6. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service process has failed, the health board seem unwilling to compromise, and we are in a position where we are no closer to a resolution, with strike action potentially being extended beyond the initial four weeks. An all-female workforce are being denied the pay they deserve, and new mothers, parents and babies are facing uncertainty over access to vital support. This cannot continue. Will the Welsh Government intervene? They're not adhering to the processes. Surely there's a role for you to step in and not allow this to continue.

I'm very pleased that the Deputy First Minister also had the opportunity to speak with the protesters outside. Can I just say how valued this profession is, and how it's making a huge difference to people's lives in our community? It's got a critical role in terms of prevention and safeguarding, and absolutely they should be respected and they should be given the honour and distinction that they deserve, and recognition, obviously, through pay.

The NHS is committed to social partnership and to resolution on this. I think it's quite notable that the issue has not been brought to the social partnership council because it is still recognised as a local dispute between Unite and Cwm Taf Morgannwg. Other health unions are not pursuing this issue. This is something that needs to be addressed locally. I would encourage them to get around the table and to see a resolution.

First Minister, the dispute between Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board and its health visitors highlights a wider concern across parts of the healthcare workforce. Many professionals feel that the pay they receive does not properly reflect the level of qualification, training and responsibility required to reach and perform in these roles. People invest years of study and can take on significant student loan debt to enter these professions. They do so because they're committed to caring for others. But it is only fair that the pay structure recognises that commitment and the expertise that they bring. If staff feel their skills and qualifications are undervalued, it inevitably affects morale and, over time, it risks discouraging students from choosing these careers in the first place. That in turn can create real challenges for recruitment and retention across the entire health service. So, with that in mind, do you believe that there's a case for reviewing or overhauling the mechanisms used to determine pay bandings for these roles? Or is the Government satisfied that the current system remains fit for purpose and robust enough to ensure healthcare professionals are being fairly recognised and rewarded? Thank you.

We'll, we've implemented the pay review body recommendations immediately this year. That's no thanks to the Conservatives, who didn't support the budget. There was a significant increase in funding for the NHS. If people in Cwm Taf Morganwg and the people who are in our gallery today depended on you, the money wouldn't have been there to pay them—not even what they are getting today. So, let's be absolutely clear about where the Tories are on this, especially when you look at their manifesto, which, frankly, is unbelievable in its irresponsibility when it comes to what it says it's going to cut and what it thinks it can spend on.

[Inaudible.]—180 we have just seen from the First Minister there. In response to Rhun ap Iorwerth, you said it was a matter of focusing on the things people care about, and the minute a question comes up about stuff that people care about on a day-to-day basis, the answer is, 'It's not our problem, guv. Not our problem at all.' That's exactly what you said: it is the responsibility of the health board. This is a real, cut-and-dry, simple issue. If the Cabinet Secretary wanted to step in, he could step in. That's the reality. Don't sit there and say that it's not an issue for Government when you are the ones setting the policy and funding the services. You have every right to step in on this issue. The health board has said there is no issue on finances here. They've previously recognised the health visitors and the skills that they have. If the Government does not step in on this issue, then, quite frankly, you should be utterly ashamed of yourselves. A Welsh Labour Government unwilling to step in to help those health visitors. All they are asking for is recognition of their skills. So, I'll give you another opportunity, First Minister. Commit today to step in at this moment in time, get the negotiations started, because they're not happening right now. Step in and support those health visitors who deserve that recognition and deserve band 7.

I'll repeat that this is a local employer-led dispute, that it's a unilateral local rebanding, which would have system-wide consequences.

I just want to be clear about what you are saying here, just so that the people of Wales understand, that if Plaid Cymru ever got into power, that if ever there were a local issue, that Plaid Cymru would step in. You would step in for health boards, for education, for all of the issues that they're responsible for. Have we all heard that? Let's just understand what you are saying and what you're committing to, because that is not how Government works.

And I think it is important for us to recognise that work is being undertaken by the NHS Wales employers. It's really important work, and I would encourage trade unions to take part in that. That's been convened by an expert group to inform job descriptions that could lead to a national approach to this kind of issue.

We know that one of the greatest challenges in the NHS today is to improve patient flow and to ensure that there are alternatives to admission, and that we have national discharge standards. Health boards have introduced methods to discharge, to recover and assess, and we've introduced trusted assessor models. We have better clarity when it comes to shared accountability across health and social care. Thirty million pounds has been provided to increase social care capacity and to support discharge. Now, that's on top of the regional integration fund, which also supports this effort and has a budget of £146 million.

Thank you, First Minister. While addressing delayed discharge is vital to patient flow, we must also address delays at the front door. We still see patients waiting in the back of ambulances or receiving treatment in chairs within accident and emergency waiting areas. We have seen the tragic consequences of this. People have died waiting for emergency responses, to say nothing of other significant morbidities. Currently, there's a lack of transparency regarding the medical staffing levels in A&E at any given time. During my residency, we frequently covered shifts in the emergency department, and we had more treatment bays available.

First Minister, it is crucial to recognise that a national service responsible for emergencies requires in-built contingency capacity. Therefore, First Minister, what considerations have been given to returning to a model where medical grade resident doctors provide cover in emergency departments and minor injury units, supported by additional treatment bays and observation wards, to free up ambulances and eliminate—and eliminate—chair and corridor care once and for all?

Thank you, Altaf. I want to start by thanking NHS staff for the enormous efforts that they're making across hospitals in Wales. They are under immense pressure. The demand on the service is significant. We have an ageing population. We have put significant additional resources in. I think I saw that there's a 14 per cent increase in the number of people working in the NHS in the past five years. So, this is a service that we are absolutely supporting. Again, it's probably worth mentioning that your party did not support an increase in that funding to go to the NHS.

But when it comes to what we're trying to achieve when it comes to delayed transfer of care, we've got a very clear programme of work. It's very comprehensive. I'm really pleased that the total number of days delayed has reduced by 9 per cent since March 2025. We know there's a long way to go, but that is absolutely a step in the right direction. I know that, Altaf, you have huge experience in this field, and I'm always happy to listen to your ideas about what more can be done in this space.

Good afternoon, First Minister. I also pay tribute to the professional role that Altaf plays in the Senedd. Diolch yn fawr iawn to you, and also for raising this important point about the role of emergency services. In rural areas, this is really essential. I have heard significant concerns from residents in sir Benfro about the decision to move emergency surgical services from Withybush to Glangwili. Sir Benfro, as we know, and as you would know, First Minister, as well, has dispersed communities, long travel times and limited transport links. Sir Benfro is also home to high-risk industries. We have refineries, gas terminals, busy ports and agriculture as well. Serious incidents do occur, and when they do, every minute matters. Weakening local emergency capacity threatens the safety of workers, families and communities across sir Benfro. Ambulance services, we know, are already stretched. Longer journeys to Glangwili will tie up crews, reduce local cover and compound existing pressures. Therefore, would you consider intervening to prevent the removal of emergency general service from Withybush hospital? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Local health boards are responsible for the planning and delivery of health services for their local population. The role of Government is to be absolutely clear in terms of what they should be delivering. What they must deliver are services that are safe, that are sustainable, and that are responsive to the needs of the populations. And they have to be delivered in line with professional standards and clinical guidance. That includes robust planning around demand, capacity, workforce and financial resources to make sure that services are both effective and resilient. I've been in contact regularly, in my capacity as a local Member, with the chair, very frequently, on this issue. I think there are questions that need to be answered. And I know that there are issues around recruitment. That is the real challenge around hospitals that are outside the big cities. So, that is a constant challenge. It's worth reflecting on the fact that 48 per cent of the doctors and dentists in Hywel Dda health board were trained outside of the United Kingdom. So, I hope Reform is listening to that, because the kind of mood music to attract people to those areas, I think, will have an impact on recruitment in those areas.

I think it's probably also worth nothing that, in Pembrokeshire, there's going to be an increase in support for cancer services, an increase in same-day emergency care services, and an increase in the number of orthopaedic operations. So, it is important to look at the picture as a whole, in the round, and to make sure that whatever is put there is sustainable. That's why if the Labour Party returns to Government, there will be a new hospital in west Wales, which will be sustainable for the long term.

One of the biggest issues that we have in hospitals regarding patient flow is getting people into social care or step-down care, which is one of the biggest ways we can reduce pressure on hospitals. However, what we have seen successive Welsh Labour Governments do is have a policy of closing cottage and community hospitals across Wales and reducing bed capacity. So, First Minister, will you take this opportunity now to regret what previous Welsh Labour Governments have done in closing cottage and community hospitals? I know there are lots that have gone in my constituency, which could ease pressure on parts of secondary care, but policies pursued by your Government have closed those. So, do you regret that and that this is a problem of your own making by having short-sighted policy visions? 

Well, talking about short-sighted policy visions, we've looked at your manifesto, and there is not much in it. In fact, we looked at the Tories', and it looked almost identical as far as I could tell.

Look, we are a party that established the NHS in Wales, and we are committed to the NHS in Wales. We are the party that has put more investment into the Welsh NHS in the past year than ever before. We are the party that has increased the numbers of people who work in the NHS. Let me be clear, I don't think the people of Wales understand how unsafe the NHS would be in the hands of Reform. People must be really careful, I think, when it comes to this next election, in terms of the risks that they may be taking with the services that they rely on.

We all hate seeing our communities sullied by fly-tipping. It's irresponsible, it's anti-social and it's a crime. The Welsh Labour Government has provided funding to crack down on fly-tippers and given money to local authorities to use cameras to try and catch the culprits. Enforcement has already improved, but we recognise that we need to go further.

First Minister, littering is certainly anti-social and fly-tipping is, at best, criminal. I'm very grateful for the steps that have been taken by the Government so far to work for increasing fines, but also to work for providing technology to local councils, to enable them to actually tackle this. It breaks my heart when I walk around areas of my constituency and I see areas that have been tipped and been cleaned by the council, and then a few days later are the same again. Can I also thank you for taking up the issue of training with the Lady Chief Justice to ensure that fines imposed really begin to reflect the true environmental cost—that is, the polluter must pay? Clearly, there's a need within the justice system to actually ensure that that takes place.

Can I also say that what is also very clear is that fly-tipping is now becoming a serious criminal activity in many of our constituencies? What I am concerned about is ensuring that there is consistency across Wales in local authorities on the investigation and prosecution, and I wonder what consideration might be given to future legislation to impose a statutory duty on local government not only to investigate, but also in terms of the obligation to prosecute where the evidence exists.

Thank you very much, Mick, and thanks for your leadership on this issue, in particular as chair of the cross-party group on reducing waste. I think this is an issue that really upsets a lot of people in our communities. It's shameful. It doesn't matter where it happens, it doesn't matter in what community it happens; we all have a responsibility to make sure that we do not see not just littering—it goes much further than that these days—but we all have a responsibility to step up, to intervene, and to make sure that we play our part. That's why we are increasing fines for fly-tipping, and supporting local authorities with stronger enforcement. That's why we've been clear, if we're re-elected to lead in May, we will increase fines. We will take enforcement much further and, of course, we will consider the implementation of new legislation.

The Welsh Labour Government is following a clear plan, 'A Healthier Wales', to move more care and develop new services closer to people's home, with a greater focus on prevention, backed by new digital technology. Since 2021, 13 per cent more people are employed in the NHS. Can I correct the record right now? I think I said 14 per cent before. It's 13 per cent. But at least I get a chance to repeat it—a 13 per cent increase in the number of people employed in the NHS to help meet demand from an ageing population. We're going to continue to cut waiting lists and waiting times to ensure people have timely access to the treatment that they need.

Thank you for that update, First Minister. I'm under no illusions that our NHS faces challenges, not least recovering from over a decade of austerity and the pressures of a pandemic, as well as the longer term transformational change needed, which you referred to in your answer there. But to have an NHS fit for the future, we need to invest in the infrastructure, in the interests of the people that use those services, but also the dedicated workforce that provide those services. With that in mind, I welcome the pipeline of investments, such as the Llandudno orthopaedic hub and the £33 million for the first phase of the Royal Alexandra Hospital development, and now our £4 billion hospital pledge, which includes redevelopment of the Wrexham Maelor Hospital, which I know will mean a lot to the people in my community. Prif Weinidog, are you able to set out further how you believe this will bring benefits to the people that I am so proud to serve?

Thanks, Hannah. Thanks for your support, but also for your campaigning to make sure that we really focus on the needs of the people in north Wales, along with other colleagues from north Wales. Thank you for everything you've done to make sure that those developments, such as the Royal Alex, actually come a step further closer to reality, something that is needed to take the pressure off Glan Clwyd Hospital.

Next week, I think, I'll be going up to Llandudno to open a new orthopaedic hub, a new surgical centre, and that is great news—another surgical hub. I think we have seven, this will be the eighth, and I think there may be another one. So, that's nine surgical hubs we're talking about in Wales. I think Plaid want to open 10 new surgical hubs. It would be very interesting to know where they're going to get the money from, and the staff from, for that. Ours is a realistic offer to the people of Wales.

Can I also say how important it is for the people of north Wales to hear that offer that a new Welsh Labour Government would make, if we're returned in May, of modernising that hospital in Wrexham? That will transform the care of the people in that part of Wales.

Standing charges should be fair, transparent and they shouldn't disproportionately impact low-income households. I'm aware that people in north Wales face some of the highest standing charges in the country. This is unfair, particularly as they live close to large affordable renewable energy sources.

The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip regularly raises the issue of standing charges with Ofgem and the UK Government. Following her recent meeting with Ofgem, the Cabinet Secretary issued a written statement on 26 February, welcoming Ofgem’s plans to introduce a pilot to lower standing charges.

Thank you for that response. Of course, the truth is that they are still paying £87 more than those paying those fees in London, and that isn't fair. As you say, historically they told us, ‘Because you're rural and because you're at the end of the line, it costs more’, but what that ignores, of course, is that Wales is a net exporter of electricity for the rest of the UK. Wales powers other parts of the UK, but it appears that we are paying an unfair price for that. So can you tell us, if that special relationship at both ends of the M4 is delivering, when can we expect to see that change?

As I say, this is a matter that the social justice Minister raises very consistently. I’m very pleased that now we are seeing that pilot for lower standing charges, and that's in April. Ofgem have engaged with major energy suppliers to test reducing standing charges by at least £150 annually for 150,000 customers. I raised the issue also of the need to improve social tariffs with the Prime Minister at a recent meeting with him, because I think that's another issue that is relevant for all the people who are on low incomes in Wales.

Finally, question 9, Carolyn Thomas. 

The people of Wales told me on my listening tour, particularly in your part of the world, that I need to make improving roads a priority. I know how annoying and how costly it can be to have your car damaged and safety compromised by holes in the road. This financial year we provided local authorities with £10 million, unlocking over £70 million for additional maintenance improvements. We've invested an additional £25 million on the strategic road network. 

Thank you for that answer. Our highways are one of our biggest assets, and as a previous councillor I could see how cuts in public funding under years of Tory austerity impacted on the highway asset management programme. More and more reactionary work took place filling in potholes just to make them safe. Since becoming a Senedd Member, I've been lobbying for funding for our highways as a priority. Roads and pavements need significant ongoing investment so councils can plan improvement schemes going forward, not just for motor vehicles but also for cyclists and pedestrians.

I also welcome the devolving of local transport grants to each region, including north Wales. First Minister, as you’ll recall, when we went to Connah’s Quay, the residents actually backed me up, saying the No. 1 issue was potholes. I felt vindicated for keeping going on about it. Do you agree that, by making fixing roads a priority, it's making a difference now, and we need a continued long-term funding plan, not a return to austerity? Thank you.

I remember that visit to Connah’s Quay very clearly. In fact, one of the people who brought up the issue was Jack Sargeant's mum. There were lots of people who were very keen to tell me what they thought needed to be fixed in that area. I am really proud that this additional funding has already helped to prevent or repair around 200,000 potholes across Wales. And let's remember these are additional to the ones that we were going to do anyway. What I get is that we've had really bad weather, and that has created more of a problem. So just imagine what it would have been like if we hadn't put that money in.

I know in England they are under very different circumstances because they didn't do the kind of investment in the timely way that we have. They're in a much worse situation than that. But I am very pleased that those developments are happening. I think I've filled a few of the potholes personally myself in north Wales with the local council, and it's really great to see it making a difference. I know there's a long way to go. I know people are frustrated, but thank goodness we put that money in when we did.

Thank you, First Minister. 

The business statement and announcement is next. I call on the Trefnydd to make that statement—Jane Hutt.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. There are no changes to this week's business. Business for the next two weeks is shown on the business statement, which is available to Members electronically.

Trefnydd, I'd be grateful if we could have a statement from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs regarding waste operations across Wales. As you know, I've repeatedly raised issues around the Withyhedge landfill site in my constituency, and local residents are now quite rightly very upset and angry at the news that Natural Resources Wales is considering approving a request from the site operator to make changes to its permit that would result in the site accepting even more waste in Pembrokeshire. As you're aware, the operator has a history of non-compliance and the local community has had to live with potentially toxic emissions coming from the site in recent years that have caused some very serious side effects, like coughing and headaches.

In my view, the site should have been closed down permanently and a public inquiry should have been held in relation to the management of the site, given the impact that the emissions were having on people's health and well-being. Trefnydd, in light of the news that Natural Resources Wales is minded to approve the site operator's request, I'd be grateful if we could have a statement from the Welsh Government outlining its approach to landfill operations here in Wales so that we can understand whether the Welsh Government supports the operator's permit variation request being approved, despite its past poor performance.

Thank you very much for that question, Paul Davies. Clearly, over the last few years you have raised—and across the Chamber, and by the communities—concerns about Withyhedge particularly. I can only assure you that Natural Resources Wales is bound by very strict regulations in terms of any decision making. You have drawn attention to a possible change. I have no information on that, but it's clear that that’s something that would have to be looked at very carefully in terms of not only the impact of that particular site in terms of waste operations, but also the management of it.

I'd like to ask for a statement from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for climate change providing us with an update on the work that's being done in terms of the changes outlined in the Elwen Evans KC report into flooding in 2020. This was specifically around the section 19 reports that are supposed to be reviewed. It's now six years since the destructive flooding of storm Dennis and all of the obvious problems in terms of the section 19 problems. This is a very long time, so I do think it would be very good to get an update before the dissolution of this Senedd in order to understand what the next steps will be and when we will see change in this deficient process.

Thank you very much, Heledd Fychan, for your very important question.

It is important to ensure that there are updates in terms of section 19 reports. I'm sure that the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs will be able to return to that to see whether and when an update is due. Clearly, the investment that has taken place in measures to prevent flooding and also to support communities affected by flooding is considerable in terms of Welsh Government investment. We have to also, as you say, from storm to storm, update on the impacts of further flooding damage to communities, particularly relating to the one that you refer to in your communities.

I am a member of the Co-operative Party. I'm asking for a Welsh Government statement on the health of the co-operative and mutual sectors in Wales. This should include what has worked well in supporting it, what has not worked well in supporting it, and what are the lessons that have been learned over the last five years.

I would also like a statement on the protection of badgers. Badger culling will end in England as part of the shift in the fight against bovine tuberculosis announced last August. As part of the new TB eradication strategy, badgers will be vaccinated instead of killed, and work to develop a separate vaccine for livestock will also be stepped up. The Badger Trust is calling on Members to support a science-led, humane approach to managing bovine TB, without resorting to badger culling. And don't you think 'culling' is a very nice way of saying 'killing', but it means exactly the same thing?

Thank you very much, Mike Hedges, and also for your long-standing commitment to co-operatives, not just being a member of the Co-operative Party, but recognising what the principles and the objectives of being a co-operator are, Mike, as I know you are. And, of course, the co-operative sector in Wales has its roots in the nineteenth century, emerging from the need for communities to address economic and social challenges together. 

Welsh co-operatives have played a vital role in fostering local economies and social inclusion. There are 533 co-operatives in Wales, and it's good to put that on the record today, Mike Hedges. Recent decades have seen increased support from Welsh Government, promoting sustainable business models for co-operatives, and the sector is continuing to evolve. And, of course, now it can focus on digital transformation, community well-being and environmental sustainability. 

Just in terms of your question about badgers, bovine TB can affect all mammals, including humans, farm animals, pets and wild animals, and badgers and wild deer are the main wild animal species considered to present a TB risk to cattle herds in Wales. But the Welsh Government's programme for government confirms that they will not implement badger culling in Wales. Studies have shown that cattle-to-cattle transmission rates are greater than badger to cattle, and it's correct that the focus will be on other methods for managing bovine TB in cattle, such as biosecurity measures and improved cattle testing. In fact, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs is publishing a written statement on the TB eradication programme tomorrow.

And it's the technical advisory group, I think, that we need to turn to as well, which has had some discussions on the role of wildlife, including badgers, in bovine TB transmission. The TAG has yet to provide its advice. But the focus now correctly remains on managing bovine TB transmission in cattle through concentrating on raising awareness and the risks of uninformed purchasing, and the potential benefits of using other biosecurity measures—which I know and understand is something that farmers can be involved in, in terms of biosecurity measures—to limit the introduction of TB into their herds through good biosecurity. 

Trefnydd, can I call for two statements, please? The first is on cancer performance in north Wales, in terms of access to treatment. I've got a young constituent, a young woman in Abergele, who is a mum of two. She's previously suffered from thyroid cancer, and I'm thankful to say is a thyroid cancer survivor. But before Christmas, they identified that there were two nodules in her neck and she was put onto the urgent suspected cancer pathway. She is still waiting for a biopsy on those nodules and the nodules have increased to nine. This is a young woman who could be put at harm as a result of the unacceptable delays in accessing this necessary biopsy so that she can get the treatment that she may need. We need to know what the Welsh Government is doing to turn this situation around. Special measures is supposed to make things better; they only seem to be getting worse. 

Can I have a second statement from the health Minister, also, on the performance of Glan Clwyd Hospital? Over the weekend, it was reported that people were being asked to raise money and collect donations of pillows in my constituency because there were unacceptable levels of pillows in the hospital—a massive shortage. The health board has refuted this claim, yet, online, feedback suggests that it is actually the case that there is a massive shortage of pillows in the hospital, and not just pillows, but blankets too, and comfortable chairs in the emergency department. 

We're supposed to be a developed nation, but these are third-world services. It's not acceptable. Things need to change, and they need to change rapidly. I want two urgent statements, please. 

Well, thank you for those questions, and, obviously, questions in terms of an individual case—. I'm sure you're taking up that individual case, Darren Millar, in terms of your constituent, to ensure that that cancer treatment and diagnosis is undertaken as soon as possible, and, indeed, in line with expectations for cancer services—cancer services in north Wales and across Wales. Clearly, you will see the improvements that have been taking place in terms of reducing waiting times and the increasing investment in our health service.

Of course, you refer to something that seems to me is very important for local interest and concern, in terms of the—. Again, it's a matter for Betsi Cadwaladr and that particular hospital, but it's also to understand what the actual facts are. I think that's what we'd want to know, in terms of the provision in that particular hospital, because, clearly, the funding is available for the absolutely basic provision. And, of course, it's not always referring to what is in social media, I think, but, actually, where we have got absolute evidence to respond. But it is for Betsi Cadwaladr, of course, as you well know.

On 18 February, I received a response to a question to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning. I had asked for an update on scrapping the 3m rule in relation to heat pumps. This rule is holding things back in Wales, with residents who are very eager to move towards clean heating methods unable to make those improvements in their homes because of the rule. The response I received from Rebecca Evans was this:

'As I advised in my response on the 24th November to your previous written question on this topic, any legislative changes to abolish the 3 metre rule would be laid in the Senedd before the end of the Senedd term. This is still the intention.'

So, there was some suggestion in that response that I was being something of a nuisance even asking the question, but I will ask it again, because I have looked at the Senedd business until the end of the current term, and, as far as I can see, it is not the Government's intention to change this rule. Am I wrong in that?

Diolch yn fawr, Siân Gwenllian. I can give you my clear guarantee that I will look into this and report back to you, because this is an important point in terms of the 3m rule and access to heat pumps, which we know are so important in terms of energy conservation, tackling fuel poverty. So, I will look into that, and look into it as Trefnydd, but also with the Cabinet Secretary.

I'd like to ask for two statements from you, Trefnydd. First of all, I'd like to ask for a statement from you in your role as Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice on the contribution of Sikhs in Wales. I'm sure you will have seen the wonderful exhibition in the Pierhead building, titled 'Sikhs in Wales: Exploring Heritage, Migration, and the Making of a Community'. I believe that you would have seen very familiar faces, and many people from Riverside, and the activities in Riverside, which was very, very moving. So, it would be great if we were able to have a statement to look at the contributions made by the Sikh community in Wales.

And then the second statement: I'd like to seek a statement about the financial circumstances for third sector organisations in Wales, like those facing Voices from Care. I think we all know Voices from Care has been such a fantastic partner to the Welsh Government and to the Senedd right through the whole of the devolution period, providing an outstanding service, particularly to children in Wales. We've all worked with them very closely, and I worked with them when I was an MP in Westminster, many years ago. I know that they are facing financial issues. What assurances can be provided that this can be resolved as soon as possible, with minimum harm to the services that are provided to vulnerable children?

Diolch yn fawr, Julie Morgan, for those really important questions. Can I thank you for raising awareness of the wonderful exhibition that is over in the Pierhead building? In fact, can I encourage Members across the Chamber to go and visit this exhibition, sponsored by Mark Drakeford, of course, in his constituency, 'Sikhs in Wales: Exploring Heritage, Migration, and the Making of a Community'? Indeed, if you were to go over there, you might see a picture of me, taken many, many years ago, which was in the local newspaper, welcoming the fact that we'd got funding from what was then the Welsh Office to build the first Sikh Gurdwara in Wales, in Riverside. I do look rather much younger, I have to say, than today. But seriously, it shines an important light on the history and contributions of the Sikh community to the social fabric of Wales. What's so great is seeing the Sikh community, the culture, heritage, and also the lived experience in public services—serving in the police forces, serving in our armed services, serving in our businesses—and also politically, as we know, as councillors, particularly Councillor Jaswant Singh, who was a colleague of mine in Riverside. It does deepen the public understanding, and I am grateful for the chance to actually say, 'Please go and see it.' The other thing about Sikh Gurdwaras is they have a tradition of langar, free vegetarian meals, offered to anyone who walks through the door on a Sunday, regardless of background. It's a powerful expression of equality and service delivered entirely by volunteers.

You do raise a question in terms of support for Voices from Care, another long-standing organisation I've been proud and privileged to know, way back from the time when we actually worked with Voices from Care to work towards establishing the first ever independent children's commissioner in the UK here in Wales. My understanding is that Welsh Government officials are continuing to support the organisation at this time, and are committed to resolving all financial matters as soon as possible.

I call for a statement from the health Secretary or the mental health Minister, as appropriate, on access to mental health services for people with neurological conditions such as Huntington's disease. This progressive condition affects movement, thinking and behaviour, and each child of an affected parent has a 50 per cent chance of inheriting it. The Huntington's Disease Association have found that community mental health services can be difficult for people with the condition to access, with teams often lacking an awareness of Huntington's and its impact on mental health. Last year, NHS England published guidance making clear that people should not be excluded from mental health services because they have a neurological condition. The Huntington's Disease Association have confirmed that this guidance has been used to help patients get support, and they're having meaningful conversations with NHS Wales Performance and Improvement to ensure Huntington's disease patients in Wales are also able to access the mental health support they require. I therefore call for a statement outlining what actions the Welsh Government will take to ensure that people with neurological conditions such as Huntington's disease are able to access the mental health support they need and deserve.

Diolch yn fawr, Mark Isherwood. Thank you for drawing attention to people who suffer from Huntington's disease, that neurological condition. Obviously, we will look into this in terms of that question, but I would say that it would be good to be able to raise that question with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, who has his one last oral Senedd questions, I believe, in the next fortnight.

Could I request two statements, please? One from the Cabinet Secretary for Education in relation to the Urdd and funding for the Urdd, particularly around their focused community schools programme, where they actually use community schools in order to expand their Welsh language provision. So, for example, if the school is used during the day, then funding is needed for that school to be able to operate in the evening and offer Welsh classes further into the community.

The second statement is from you with regard to the announcement from Shabana Mahmood last week, which is that anyone given refugee status in the United Kingdom will only be offered temporary protection. This has once again sent significant ripples throughout the refugee community, particularly here in Wales, with regard to those refugees who are particularly feeling, once again, unstable in terms of their community focus. Integration starts from day one, and actually this announcement was made without any scrutiny from Parliament. I wondered if you would make a statement to the Senedd with regards to the number of people in Wales affected by this announcement and what you will be doing in order to contest it. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you very much, Jane Dodds, for your very important questions. 

Just on your first question about the Urdd—and, of course, the Urdd has such an unique and important role to play in supporting us to deliver 'Cymraeg 2050'—we've increased the Urdd's revenue funding significantly in recent years, and additionally capital investment to develop the Urdd's facilities across their residential centres has greatly expanded the experiences and enjoyment of visitors. I think that's where the cross-Government commitment to this is very clear: for example, in terms of additional funding, in 2025-26, an allocation of £2.713 million for the Urdd, an increase of £303,000 from the previous year, also includes £200,000 for free entry to low-income families to the Urdd Eisteddfod; and, recently, the sports division seeking support for Llangrannog, for example, and a decision communicated to the Urdd.

On your second question, while immigration policy is reserved, UK Government decisions have a direct and material impact on devolved services in Wales. Proper engagement with the Welsh Government is essential to understand and mitigate Welsh-specific impacts. Reducing refugee and humanitarian protection periods can introduce significant instability and undermine long-term integration, housing security and workforce participation in Welsh communities. Changes to appeals, further submissions and family returns processes risk adding complexity and uncertainty for people seeking sanctuary, with knock-on pressures for Welsh public services in the third sector. This is where I would want to say, in response to your question, that Wales remains committed to dignity, fairness and humanity for people seeking sanctuary, and measures that increase insecurity or restrict rights are inconsistent with Wales's nation of sanctuary vision. Of course, these are points that, very clearly, I'm able to discuss and share with UK Government Ministers, but it's important, again, to make those points in terms of the impact of those decisions on people, our devolved services here in Wales.

I'd like to raise a statement, please, from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning on the Wales Air Ambulance plans to build a new airbase near Rhuallt in my constituency. Whilst recognising the invaluable service that the Wales Air Ambulance provides, local residents feel that the location selected is not suitable, given its proximity to homes and the St Beuno's Jesuit Spirituality Centre, which offers silent retreats. Many residents have highlighted that the former North Wales Police airbase in Rhuddlan will be an ideal site, given the former airbase has a precedent for the operation of helicopters, which they are not used to in the tranquil hills around Rhuallt. But the main complaint is that residents feel the consultation has been inadequate, and large developments should never ride roughshod over local communities, but seek to engage and bring them along. So, could I hear from the Welsh Government whether, from a planning perspective, the Wales Air Ambulance should undertake a thorough consultation with local residents, and whether options should be explored for alternative sites, such as the disused police airbase, rather than carving up our local countryside?

Well, thank you for asking that question. This is a matter for local consideration, local planning laws and responsibilities.

Can I have a Government statement on the future of small abattoirs in Wales? Last week, I visited a small abattoir in my region, and I was deeply concerned with what I heard. Wales used to have 43 abattoirs; now we just have fifteen. As you know, small abattoirs perform very different functions to the bigger ones, enabling the processing of livestock in smaller batches. These are vital businesses that underpin rural supply chains, and they are being hammered left, right and centre by taxation, by high energy costs, and by this Government's inability to realise their importance, and, of course, the devastating impact that the decrease in livestock has had on the processing sector. Without abattoirs able to do this vital work, animal welfare and stress on animals is, of course, affected and at risk, as well as the enormous extra costs involved of having to travel extra long distances to an abattoir. 

I was also told that locally produced pork is becoming harder to source, with about 90 per cent of pork here in Wales now coming from countries such as Poland—a massive concern in itself. But pressures are coming from all angles for abattoirs. To start with, Reform is committed to cutting regulatory costs on small and mobile abattoirs. But can I have a statement from this Government on what urgent action they will be taking to preserve and support these vital rural businesses? Diolch.

Diolch, Laura Anne Jones. Obviously, abattoirs are very strictly controlled and managed, and supported and closely monitored in terms of welfare and also supported in terms of ensuring that there is a highly skilled and trained workforce. And I think we do have to look to the benefits of immigration, really, in terms of the workforce. And I think this is something where migration is essential to Wales's future. Wales needs the right people and skills to support all of our public services, but also our private services as well—in particular, I know the role that has been played in our abattoirs.

Can I take you back to the question that Darren Millar asked, please, because I'd like to endorse that question in terms of the treatments now and poor care that we're all experiencing as MSs, and indeed our constituents, at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd? I had, on my usual Friday, three really sad cases. One lady herself described the conditions when patients are in A&E lying in corridors, as inhumane, third world, sickening, horrifying conditions—patients waiting lying on the floor. Heartbreaking. I don't think it'd be a bad thing if maybe the First Minister met Darren Millar and me at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, if she's in Llandudno next week to hail the opening of an orthopaedic department, a site that, actually, we, the Welsh Conservatives, have been fighting for for eight years. So, when she comes to hail that, I would like her to come, first hand, and see people waiting lying on the floor in this ward.

I was also told of a lady who was heartbroken last week. For two days, her husband was lying, without a chair, in a ward for two days. When she got the discharge note, it showed him going in the day after—going in the day after and—. A day before. So, the discharge letters are not reflecting the hours that people are spending. [Interruption.] I think I have made my point. So, that's a question for the First Minister to accompany us and also if you could just make a statement regarding this poor quality of care in Ysbyty Glan Clwyd.

It is a matter for Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board. And, of course, let's just look at the key achievements: long waits reduced 63.6 per cent; fewer patients— [Interruption.] Can you—? You'll want to listen to the key achievements of Betsi Cadwaladr, which of course serves your constituency: 63.6 per cent fewer patients waiting over 104 weeks, year on year, and, in terms of emergency care, a 5.1 per cent reduction in ambulance handovers taking over one hour; an 11.5 per cent reduction in four-hour ambulance handover delays as well. And of course, there are significant improvements across key specialties—dermatology, ophthalmology, general surgery. So, you will raise of course, and so you must, issues that relate to your constituents. You will raise them directly. I'm sure you're also engaging with Llais, the new patients' voice, a key route to enable the raising of issues, but also to raise issues that might reflect some wider needs and concerns that may be arising in Betsi Cadwaladr. And I, of course, recognise that this is something where the extra demand has a huge pressure on the hard-working staff who work in our hospitals and communities. I hope you recognise those hard-working staff who are supported by the extra funding that we're now putting into the health service.

Last month, Trefnydd, Dr Robert Jones of Cardiff University published his report, which measures progress or not on the recommendations of the commission on justice. Only three have been achieved; there has been some improvement on 21, but 54 have yet to be implemented at all. That means no solution to the way that police apprenticeships are funded, no women's centre in Swansea, no bilingual service from coroners, no family drug and alcohol courts in Wales, and no strategy on how to rejuvenate the legal sector in Wales. As Dr Jones has recommended, the Welsh Government needs to change its strategy on the way in which it deals with justice. I've said time and again, Trefnydd, that one of the strongest arguments for devolving justice is for the Welsh Government to show that they are serious about what has been devolved already in this area. There are things that this Government could have done, and they haven't done them. Could we have a statement, please, from the Government about the lack of delivery that this Government has been responsible for in terms of the recommendations? Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr, Rhys ab Owen. Of course, this is the jagged edge, isn't it? I very much recognise the work that's been done by Dr Rob Jones in terms of the fact files he's produced and, indeed, the book that was published, The Welsh Criminal Justice System: On the Jagged Edge, where we saw the difficulties in terms of what is devolved, what is reserved, and how we want to, as you know, seek to devolve justice to Wales. You've raised some really important points.

I think you will agree with me that we've made progress together in terms of working with the Ministry of Justice to have better data disaggregation. And, certainly, at the recent meetings I've had with Dr Rob Jones, including a roundtable about women's justice—. Because I think that's the key point where I wanted to make more progress. I did indeed meet with Lord James Timpson two weeks ago to press for progress on the residential women's centre. Tomorrow, I'm hoping to meet the person who runs the Hope residential women's centre—she's coming to visit Wales and meet Safer Wales—to find out more about the progress and the impact of that residential women's centre. I'm glad that the Equality and Social Justice Committee has also pressed for that, not just with myself, but with Lord Thompson as well. This is, of course, an area where we will continue to press, and I welcome the questions. You may wish to be asking me those questions next week, when I have my oral Senedd questions.

War in Iran has already pushed up global fuel prices, and the consequences are being felt directly by households across Wales, particularly in rural communities that are off the gas grid and rely on heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas. For many of these families, energy costs are already a major driver of fuel poverty, and the recent spike in prices is only making matters worse. Therefore, I would be grateful for a statement from yourself as Cabinet Secretary on what the Welsh Government is doing to help rural homes with their energy bills.

At the same time, Trefnydd, the Chancellor is considering increasing fuel duty. That would be the worst possible decision at the worst possible time. Diesel prices have already risen by around 22p per litre in just three weeks, but because value added tax is charged as a percentage, the Treasury is already taking more in tax revenue every time the price at the pump rises. So, a fuel duty rise would be callous. Given your responsibility for fuel poverty as Cabinet Secretary, Trefnydd, would you write to the Chancellor and make it absolutely clear that now is not the time to pile further costs on households, businesses and rural communities? 

Thank you for those important questions and reflections, which I know that we're addressing. It was raised earlier on today, and, in fact, the Chancellor did say yesterday quite clearly in her statement that the economic impact of the situation in the middle east will be felt. It will depend on its severity and its duration.

Just looking particularly at the situation for households who use oil for their heating in Wales, it's important, again, that we recognise that, in 2025, 14 per cent of Welsh households used oil or solid fuel to heat their homes. This is an estimate of 7 per cent of Welsh households using oil. So, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning, you will have heard earlier on, spoke to UK Government Ministers today to raise these concerns—to raise these concerns, and I'm sure reflecting on the points that you've made. In fact, Ed Miliband, we know, wrote last night to industry to warn them against price gouging, and also to ensure that we get clear access to understanding what is available in terms of forecourt stocks, et cetera.

Now, what I can say as being responsible for tackling fuel poverty is that we have access to funding for people off-grid, who have off-grid fuel supplies, through the discretionary assistance fund, and I hope you will be sharing that with your constituents and also with our partnership with the Fuel Bank Foundation, which has a heat fund available to people off-grid. And important also, of course, to remind Members that the Fuel Bank Foundation also funds people on prepayment meters as well, but it is those dependent on oil that we're looking at today, and I'm certainly going to be updating the Senedd on those provisions in terms of supporting people dependent on off-grid oil.

And finally, James Evans.

I'd like to refer you to my Member register of interest. Cabinet Secretary, I'd like two statements, please, from the Minister with responsibility for sport, one statement on the value of community sports clubs across Wales. I'm a member and vice chairman of Gwernyfed RFC, which was promoted this year up a league again; that's two years on the trot. None of the players there are paid, and no one in the club is paid at all, but the value that that club offers to the community is absolutely huge in terms of getting young people into sport, women into sport, and creating wider community cohesion. So, I'd like a statement from the Minister of how we can actually grow our community sports clubs across Wales.

I'd also like a statement from the Minister about the benefit of major sporting events coming here to Wales. In this Senedd term, we've had major events in terms of golf. We had the AIG Women's Open here, the largest women's sporting event ever to come to Wales. We had the Senior Open coming here as well; we've had rugby, football, cycling, all coming to Wales. But I believe that adds a huge benefit to participation in sport across Wales, especially women's sport across Wales. So, if we could have a statement from the Minister on these matters, it would be very much appreciated in the final days of this Senedd. Diolch.

Thank you, James Evans. I don't think anyone would disagree with those two points in terms of the value of community sport, and also recognising the fact that so much of the human resource in supporting community sport is through volunteering, and it's often parents as well as grandparents and people in the community who really value what it means for them and their communities. But we also have great strength in our major sporting events.

Thank you, Trefnydd.

Item 3 is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales: a vision for rail across Wales and the borders. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Ken Skates.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Today, we stand at a defining moment for the future of rail in Wales. We're at the point of genuine transformational change that will be felt for generations to come. 

Developed by Transport for Wales, the 'Today, Tomorrow, Together' vision is a rail industry-led £14 billion package of bold, impactful schemes that will see improvements right across the Wales and borders rail network. This ambitious programme of investment is jointly backed by both Welsh and UK Governments, a clear demonstration of our partnership to transform rail and deliver future growth and prosperity for the people of Wales. 

Phase 1 is already under way. We are delivering seven new stations, six of the new stations that were recommended in the South East Wales Transport Commission report as part of a genuine and credible alternative to a new motorway. They'll transform travel for passengers across the region, creating a viable alternative to the car and help ease pressure on the M4. In north Wales, a new station will be built at Deeside to serve one of Europe's largest employment sites. Together, these new stations will boost connectivity, create opportunity and drive prosperity at the vanguard of our rail renaissance.

And this is just the start. The £440 million announced in the spending review was a down payment on the 43 projects endorsed in the £14 billion vision. The comprehensive spending review enables us to make rapid and tangible progress against our immediate priorities. We now have a fully funded strategic pipeline to feed a conveyor belt of rolling enhancements and investment. This demonstrates that we are serious, we are ready and we are determined to deliver investment opportunities for the whole of Wales.

There are those who seek to undermine this progress. They claim that it isn't real, that the money isn't there. They compare it to the baseless promise to electrify the north Wales main line, made by the former UK Government. This couldn't be further from the truth. 'Today, Tomorrow, Together' is a rail industry-led package of schemes that is the result of years of careful planning and collaboration. It has been developed by Transport for Wales, working with Network Rail in Wales, for the people of Wales.

These are not fantasy schemes dreamt up to direct attention away from cancelled investment elsewhere; they are carefully developed proposals, endorsed and costed by the UK Treasury and announced by the Prime Minister. They are firmly backed by both Governments, a direct result of collective efforts across Welsh and UK Government departments. Our groundbreaking partnership is fuelled by an unwavering determination to deliver for passengers in Wales.

This generational £14 billion commitment is an historic achievement. It is a long-term programme designed for sustained and consistent investment over 10 to 15 years, impervious to political whims and divisiveness. It is a programme that delivers on the recognition by the UK Government of historic underfunding in rail in Wales, and writes a new chapter of fair funding for rail in Wales. We have done the hard yards to lay the foundations for change, winning the argument for redressing past underinvestment and securing the commitment from the UK Government to achieve that change. Now, we must press on with renewed ambition, vigour and unyielding conviction.

The joint UK-Welsh Government and rail industry Wales rail board will now prioritise the schemes within the vision document and jointly agree which of those schemes are put forward into the UK Government spending review in 2027, to build on the £440 million of funding already allocated. We will deliver, because we know how it's done. We have a record to be proud of. Look no further than our £1 billion upgrade of the core Valleys lines for evidence of what can be achieved with a clear vision and steadfast determination to deliver for passengers.

Gone is the old and unreliable Victorian infrastructure that was designed to move coal. In its place is a state-of-the-art public transport system designed to power social and economic mobility. Wales is no longer lagging behind, but boldly leading from the front. We are breaking barriers and raising the bar, utilising public transport to make our society fairer.

The core Valleys lines is now one of the best performing railway networks in Great Britain. Our innovative smart electrification is changing the way that the industry thinks about electrifying railways. This will pave the way for affordable future electrification of the north and south Wales main lines, and the key marches route, which connects them. Arterial electrified corridors will form the backbone of our rail network, unlocking greener and smoother travel across vital routes in Wales and enabling seamless cross-border travel.

Rolling stock modernisation will play a key role in this transformation, and we have already made great progress, thanks to our £800 million investment to upgrade and expand Transport for Wales's fleet. We'll see Transport for Wales go from having one of the oldest fleets in Europe to one of the newest. The 270 carriages inherited in 2018 are eclipsed by 484 new carriages, and more to come tomorrow. Most of these new trains are already in service, delivering a better service for passengers from Flint to Fishguard.

In north Wales, we are reaping the benefits of UK and Welsh Government investments to deliver, in partnership, an integrated high-frequency public transport network. In its first year, the network north Wales programme has already doubled the service frequency between Wrexham and Chester and upgraded stations on the Wrexham to Liverpool line. From May, we'll see a 50 per cent increase in train services on the north Wales main line.

The roll-out of pay-as-you-go ticketing in north-east Wales will begin this spring. Now, pay-as-you-go has been a phenomenal success for Transport for Wales following its launch on the south Wales metro. It has supported over 3 million journeys, becoming TfW's fastest growing ticket product. And there's no secret formula to this. We've simply made it easier, faster and cheaper for passengers to pay for travel. We've demonstrated what can be done with the right investment, record performance, improved passenger satisfaction and growing demand. But we're not stopping there.

Passengers across Wales are now welcoming the news that we're freezing all rail fares on TfW services until next year. It is our latest step in making travelling by train more attractive and cheaper. This generational £14 billion investment in our rail infrastructure will transform our non-devolved network to align with what we are achieving on the devolved core Valleys lines. It will complement and enhance the impact of our investment in rolling stock services and innovation, like pay-as-you-go ticketing and discontinuous electrification, to deliver whole-network improvements.

And it's only when you look back you can truly appreciate the scale and pace of progress. Less than a decade ago, Wales's railway was tired and grim, operated by shoddy trains delivering a bare minimum service. The squeal of old Pacers will still be ringing loud in the memories of passengers, even as the transformation unfolds before them. The difference is night and day. What we have already achieved is truly remarkable. What stands before us is simply unprecedented. Now, it is vital that we build on this momentum and partnership to seize the opportunity of this £14 billion generational commitment to deliver the future that Wales deserves.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement here this afternoon. It is important, of course, that we have a vision for rail in Wales that recognises the role of a modern, reliable network in connecting communities, supporting local economies and boosting jobs and investment. We on these benches welcome any long-term plan that aims to improve capacity, reliability and connectivity.

That said, while the 'Today, Tomorrow, Together' document sets out ambitious intentions, much of the £14 billion package reflects commitments and aspirations that have been previously signalled, building on existing investments such as the core Valleys lines, network north Wales and new rolling stock for TfW. I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary would not want to overstate the novelty of this package that is being discussed here this afternoon. What matters to passengers and taxpayers is delivery, accountability and value for money, ensuring these commitments translate into real improvements on the ground and not just words.

From a Welsh Conservative standpoint, we believe a strong rail network should sit alongside enhanced choice and competition, where it benefits passengers and regional connectivity. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware that I strongly support the principle of open access. In that context, routes such as Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway and Liverpool & South Wales Railway have clear potential to bring additional connectivity to parts of Wales that have long been underserved. These can unlock new travel opportunities, complementing core services, and offering passengers more options. That's why I was pleased to be able to write to the Office of Rail and Road to express my support for these routes and to outline the benefits they could deliver, and also welcomed the opportunity to meet with the Cabinet Secretary recently to discuss these proposals in detail, and to hear of his positive engagement on improving connectivity across Wales.

Our manifesto commits to working with the UK Government to secure meaningful improvements to Wales's transport networks, including that electrification of the north Wales main line, new-station investment, and better links to economic hubs, such as in Manchester and Liverpool, where they are vital for economic growth. We believe improving rail must go hand in hand with boosting overall economic performance. And from an economic perspective, we know that an efficient rail network can support local business, support those tourism businesses and commuting, reduce congestion on roads and help communities to thrive. But these benefits will only materialise if plans are implemented effectively, fairly and with passengers' needs at their heart, rather than becoming a bureaucratic exercise.

I'd be interested to hear from the Cabinet Secretary how he would want to avoid bureaucracy getting in the way of the delivery of this 'Today, Tomorrow, Together' plan. And given the potential benefits of open access routes, such as WSMR and L&SWR, I'd be interested to know what specific steps the Welsh Government will take to ensure these routes are supported within the 'Today, Tomorrow, Together' framework, and how he'll be ensuring that rail investment delivers tangible benefits for passengers and, really importantly, Deputy Presiding Officer, the Welsh economy. Thank you.

Can I thank Sam Rowlands for his contribution today and for his questions? First of all, I agree with his final point. We're not just talking about transport for the sake of talking about transport; it's all about driving prosperity and creating opportunity for all people.

Can I also pay tribute to the work that Sam has done in promoting the Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway—the proposed Wrexham-Shropshire rail link direct to London? This would make a huge difference to many communities that don't have a connection at the moment to London. MPs from Wrexham through to Shropshire and beyond recently joined the service on a trial run. I was pleased to be able to join only briefly from Ruabon to Gobowen, but I did appreciate just how valuable that scheme could be. I'm also formally supporting that particular intervention and open-access rail service.

I think it's important what Sam referred to as a vision that is deliverable and that has the right governance in place and also promises value for money in terms of the projects that it will deliver. This is, of course, an industry-led vision. It's owned by Transport for Wales, who have been working closer with Network Rail than I have ever experienced, and I've been doing this job on and off for quite some time. They are operating as one team. To have put together such a compelling and comprehensive vision I think speaks to just how far Transport for Wales has come since we created it 10 years ago—full of expertise, energy and vision.

In terms of value for money, I'd like to just point to the work that's been carried out on the south Wales metro as evidence of how Transport for Wales have led the way in this area. Discontinuous electrification has proven to be incredibly cheap compared to traditional forms of electrification. In the past, the traditional form of electrification, i.e. overhead lines, was incredibly costly when it came to dealing with bridges and tunnels. On the metro, we have bimodal and trimodal trains, as well as traditional overhead units as well, and that has reduced the cost of delivery. We're going to be looking at every opportunity to deliver this £14 billion package for as little as it costs to the taxpayer, but equally for maximum benefit to the taxpayer in Wales and the borders area.

In terms of governance, this is a hugely important issue. I'm delighted by how the Wales rail board has been beefed up, and I'm delighted that the chair of Transport for Wales is now also the chair of the Wales rail board. It's a hugely important board bringing together industry with both Governments and with rail operators. I've attended board meetings myself, and I can testify to just how much expertise and determination there is to work together.

Bureaucracy getting in the way is a risk. That is always a risk. I do think we need to learn lessons from schemes such as Cardiff Parkway, which was held within the planning system for quite some time. We need to make sure that administration is timely and efficient. What we are hoping to do is to work outside RNEP parameters as much as possible on some of these projects—RNEP being the rail network enhancement pipeline—because it can speed up the process of development and delivery, and we want to make sure that we deliver pretty much the entire package by 2040.

There's a reason for that, because we want to be part of the Olympic Games in 2040, and to do that you've got to have the right transport network in place to deliver such an event. That is the point on the horizon that we're working to, but I do agree with Sam that we need to ensure that bureaucracy and unnecessary administration does not get in the way of delivery.

There's much to welcome in the Transport for Wales plan, 'Today, Tomorrow, Together', but unfortunately I must once again reiterate a fundamental problem: the UK Government has made no commitment to actually funding it. There is no additional funding confirmed in any spending review period to deliver this plan—today, tomorrow or together. This remains, in reality, an unfunded rail announcement. All the most recent UK Government announcement did commit to funding was, in fact, largely a reannouncement of commitments already made in previous spending reviews.

At the current rate of funding, it would take more than 30 spending reviews to deliver the investment required for this plan. However, looking more closely at today's statement and the plan itself, I'm also concerned that emphasis is on cross-border rather than connecting our communities. We see it in the title of today's statement and in the description of Transport for Wales's plan. For too long, Wales's transport network has supported an extractive economy. The most developed rail links move people and prosperity out of Wales towards the major English cities, whilst communities within Wales are left disconnected from one another. And the most recent UK Government spending review tells the same story. It announced no rail funding for Wales further west than Cardiff. So, again, if you live close to the border, you get the investment, but if you live further west, you're not a priority. So, how is this a whole-of-Wales plan?

The Transport for Wales plan does identify a number of very worthwhile projects across Wales, but without clear funding and timescales to deliver these infrastructure projects, we once again risk seeing connectivity with English cities prioritised. An endorsement of proposals is not the same as funding commitments. Knowing how much something costs doesn't pay for it. We have a Welsh Government that seems unable or unwilling to stand up for Wales and to address these problems.

The public see when big numbers are not backed up. You talk about fantasy, but are you actually selling a fairytale? When a different party was in power in Westminster, Labour Ministers, Labour Members here and Labour MPs were loud in demanding the billions owed to Wales from projects like HS2. Now we have a UK Labour Government overseeing Wales being short-changed once again on projects such as the Oxford to Cambridge line and Northern Powerhouse Rail, and those same voices have fallen silent. When parties fail to call out injustice, they entrench it. When they make it acceptable, they normalise it. But, as we heard in FMQs today, that might be part of the Labour plan. The people of Wales can see this for what it is: the party is unwilling to stand up for Wales and unwilling to demand the investment Wales deserves. So, can the Cabinet Secretary explain how and when this pipeline of projects will be paid for and delivered? Diolch.

Can I thank Peredur for his contributions today? In contrast to Sam Rowlands, I have to say that I disagree with most of his points, not least because I think the points that have been raised expose Plaid Cymru's threat to communities across Wales. The opposition to cross-border services and cross-border investment is incredibly dangerous to communities far, far deep into the west of Wales.

The Member opposes this, but, for example, if you take communities in the far north-west of Wales, they will not benefit from more trains unless we resolve the issue of congestion at Chester. Chester is the block. [Interruption.] Members in the north know Chester station pretty well and know those services across north Wales. If we do not deal with congestion at Chester, you will never get more trains operating to the north-west of Wales. And the same applies on many of our lines. On much of the network, we are dependent on upgrading infrastructure in England to benefit Welsh citizens. That is a fact. As much as you would like Wales to be an island in its own right, we are not. The rail network, whether you like it or not, is interfaced and integrated with a broader UK network.

In terms of the risk that it poses, it's myopic, it's insular, it's poorly informed to believe that you shouldn't invest in cross-border infrastructure. [Interruption.] I'm afraid the inference is very clear—that the focus of this vision document is on cross-border areas. My point is this: unless you deal with the blockages in and out of Wales on the rail network, you will never get more services operating in Wales. Because most of the services that need to be enhanced cross the England-Wales border, and there is no slate curtain in existence, as much as you would like one to exist.

Instead, what we have outlined is a hugely ambitious package of projects. The first 43 amount to more than £4 billion. When you put in some optimism bias, that will of course be more, and the UK Government reflected that in their statement when they said—and it's a very welcome statement—that costs will vary over time. So, while there is the estimate, there is every chance that it will cost more to deliver this hugely ambitious programme. Plaid Cymru, in their first 100 days, state that they would begin negotiations with the UK Government over UK rail funding. We have completed the negotiations. And we didn't seek £4 billion—we sought £14 billion, and we've got it. You might want to rip up that vision, but I'm afraid it's not yours to rip up. It's Transport for Wales's, an arm's-length body. Are you going to interfere in the work of an arm's-length body and tear up a £14 billion package of work that the UK Government is fully committed to and will fund? 

In terms of the funding profile, it's curious how you believe that at the start of a project of this magnitude, you should squirrel away £14 billion that will be spent over the course of 14 or 15 years. That's not the way things are done. We didn't do that with the metro. We didn't allocate all of the money and put it into lots of individual savings accounts and invest in daffodil bulbs and things, just to make sure that it could be drawn over time. No—you allocate it on the basis of periods. Comprehensive spending reviews will outline how much is allocated in each of the future periods, and that's why I said in my statement the next critical date is 2027. The Wales rail board will produce the priority list of packages that will then draw down funding for the next spending period.

It would be unimaginable to deliver this whole package within one spending period. That would be impossible. So, what you have to do is draw down the funding over several deliverable spending periods. That is what the UK Government stated will happen, and they've put a figure to it. They've endorsed it. They've supported it. They are committed to it. The greatest threat, perhaps, based on what I've heard today, to the whole package of £14 billion of upgrades is actually from your party.

I welcome the roll-out of tap on, tap off in north Wales, and the freeze in rail fares in Wales and across the border. As the UK Government announced, it will freeze rail fares for the first time in 30 years. And our network is cross-border, as you said. The network north Wales plans are taking shape, leading to more frequent services this year, and there will be a joined-up integrated transport network thanks to investment over the last 10 years in Transport for Wales by this Welsh Labour Government, working with Network Rail.

Cabinet Secretary, we have both campaigned for the Deeside Industrial Park station over the last 10 years, and I'm pleased that it is now happening. Please can you confirm approximate delivery dates, and can you explain that there is a priority pipeline that needs to be worked through, which is being delivered, which will then lead to the electrification of the north Wales line? But this has to happen first, following the priorities set by the experts in this paper, which was denied by the Tory UK Government under levelling-up funding, and it is actually happening now.

Can I thank Carolyn Thomas for her comments and for warmly welcoming the vision? I pay tribute to Carolyn, who, over many, many years, has championed public transport in the region of north Wales, particularly in Flintshire and Deeside, and the Wrexham area as well. Of course, Carolyn was responsible for public transport within Flintshire council for some time and knows the value of, particularly, bus services to some of our poorest communities.

It's still a fact that people who are least affluent and face the most challenging financial circumstances are those who mostly use buses. That's why we are very pleased to have taken back control of the network and to have promised a £2 fare cap for all adults. Of course, we've already introduced the £1 fare cap with work contributed by the Welsh Liberal Democrats, by Jane Dodds. It's proven to be hugely successful and it's helping families, not just young people, with the cost of living.

Carolyn is absolutely right about the need to prioritise certain schemes so that you can get the end result. In the case of north Wales, which Carolyn was referring to, in order to get electrification of the north Wales main line completed, it has to go, in my view, not just to Llandudno but all the way to Holyhead. To do that, smart electrification is going to be required, because the cost would otherwise be prohibitive, and the amount of time that it would take and the disruption that it would incur would simply not be acceptable, not just to the travelling public but for many communities as well.

In order to deliver smart electrification, you first of all start with some of the signalling systems and with the level crossings. This is what we've seen in the past 12 months. As a result of a very early agreement, before the CSR, between the Welsh Government and UK the Government, Network Rail started to take forward a package of work on the north Wales main line to benefit communities right the way across from the border to Llandudno. And as a result of that, we're going to see the 50 per cent increase in rail services in May, on top of the doubling of rail services that were introduced on the Wrexham to Chester line. So, smart electrification will come as a result of these projects being taken forward in a sensible way by industry, and by an arm's-length body, not by politicians interfering. 

The same applies with the Wrexham to Liverpool line. And work, now, has got under way on the first critical component, which is the Padeswood sidings. Now, once the Padeswood sidings have been dealt with, it will lead to congestion being eased on that particular line. There is an issue with freight movements, and the freight movements are very complicated at Padeswood. This will simplify it, and it will create more capacity on the line for passenger services.

So, we're able to guarantee, as a result of that work, two reliable services per hour. But, of course, you want to get to full 'turn up and go' metro services, which will require, again, smart electrification. And we're working with the Liverpool region to determine how best to take forward direct electrified services between Wrexham and Liverpool. And it will happen. It's part of the vision document. It's fully supported. It's one of the most exciting projects for north Wales, in my view, because we're going to be using lots of innovative technology and breakthrough technology. 

On Deeside industrial park, which, of course, is on the Wrexham to Liverpool line, the value of this can't, I think, be overstated, for a number of reasons. One: two many people can't access even job interviews because they don't have access to public transport—it just doesn't operate. And Deeside industrial estate, alongside Wrexham industrial estate, are two of Europe's biggest. But they are very poorly served, historically, by public transport. Having that railway station right there in Deeside industrial estate will address that challenge for people to get to and from job interviews, to and from work. 

I visited the site very recently. There is one small part of it that we are working towards completing, one small agreement that needs to be reached, and it's just about crossing from one platform to another. But we are on target to complete that station. It will be the first new station in north Wales since the nineteenth century, and we are on target to complete that work by the end of 2027, which would be quite an achievement. But the industry is up for it. Network Rail, TfW—they are most certainly up for it. And they're adopting a unique approach to this particular station. We won't be able to see it introduced at all station sites, but at Deeside—and I know you're very familiar with where the station is and how it's going to go—it's an incredibly flat piece of line, and it lends itself perfectly to an experimental modular station, not least because there is an existing method of crossing from one platform area to the other. And it's perfectly positioned to be able to serve the entire industrial estate, which employs something in the region of 8,000 people. So, as a result of that investment, I think we're going to drive social justice and opportunity for far, far more people who have been shut out of the jobs market, as I say, because they couldn't access public transport.

I just wanted to raise two issues with you, if I may. One is the national picture, and one is around the Heart of Wales line. On the national one, as I said last week, there is confusion and befuddlement around the amount of money that is actually going to be coming into Wales for rail expansion. I'd be very grateful, please, for clarification. I understand that £445 million has been committed to 2030. My party in Westminster has tried to be clearer, and tried to do some research on the £14 billion committed, but to no avail, and they haven't actually found anything in terms of their research. So, I would be so grateful if you could say where the £14 billion commitment is from, and until when, given that £445 million has been committed to 2030. So, how does it all fit together? 

The second point is around the Heart of Wales line. Whatever way it's funded, there is nothing in the announcement around the Heart of Wales line, which is a significant disappointment to those of us who've campaigned for it. We're glad to see a fifth service. We want eight services a day, but we won't see that. So, please could you just comment on that?

But specifically, going back to my first point, all of this amount of money, really, is just confusing, and it's just not clear. Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr. 

Can I thank Jane Dodds for her questions? Rail is an incredibly complicated area. It's so fragmented and investment takes so long because it's such an incredible process to build new railways, new stations and to complete networks. But I'll try my best just to outline how the funding works.

The funding is allocated in spending rounds. The current allocation of £445 million is actually more now as a result of further commitments, to take forward, for example, Deeside industrial estate station, the crossing at Buckley station and Cardiff parkway. So, that figure has gone up. But that figure, that £445 million, only applies, you're right, to the immediate future, the next few years, and the projects that are deliverable in that time. A key factor in future delivery is that we develop the projects to the point where you can put shovels in the ground, or diggers in the ground. In that regard, the £95 million of development funding comes into play, and that was announced as part of the comprehensive spending review. That £95 million can then contribute to the development and completion of plans for those projects that are within the rail vision document.

The capacity of industry simply isn't there to deliver everything on page 19 all at the same time. That's why the Wales rail board will have to prioritise the projects over a number of spending periods. So, the money will become available in accordance with how the Wales rail board determine they, with Network Rail, with TfW, with the supply chain, are able to deliver those projects. But I do accept it is tremendously confusing unless you're very familiar with this particular subject area. I'm quite happy to write with a fuller explanation, if the Member wishes. I'm more than happy to do that.

In terms of the overall figure, the £14 billion—yes, this is interesting, and I think we need to welcome it, because if you look at the initial pipeline of projects, the 43, that amounts to circa £4.4 billion. Then, later in the document, there are the other major projects, such as electrification of the Marches line, which then brings you to a sum total, where, if you then apply optimism bias, which in rail tends to be around about 40 per cent, you then reach the £14 billion.

Now, it's worth saying and worth stressing that, over time, the costs can fluctuate wildly, as we saw with the south Wales metro and the costs associated with things like the Ukraine war, Brexit and cost-of-living issues. So, the costs can vary. That's why it was so welcome that, within the statement, we also have the commitment to deliver the pipeline and the recognition that the costs may vary. We know right now, with what's happening in the middle east, that the cost of oil is increasing. It may have an impact in other areas. So, it may send the cost of the projects that are already funded within this period up. We don't know yet; we are watching very carefully whether that might be the case. If that happens, then, of course, we'll be working with industry to ensure that we can deliver as fast as possible, because this is what the Prime Minister was at pains to stress—as fast as possible. But we will not fail to deliver, if we have—and this is what I was trying to stress last week—agreement across this Chamber and the UK Parliament.

The whole reason why we were able to deliver the metro, and we've electrified 170 km of it, is because parties across this Chamber supported it. I do not believe any party in this Chamber, had they been elected in 2016, or in 2021, would have cancelled at least the vision of the metro. They may have reduced it in scope; we didn't, as a party. We chose to pursue it, even though we faced incredible financial pressures associated with COVID. But if you can present a compelling vision for infrastructure improvements, you can cross electoral cycles and deliver them. That's what we're seeking to do here and at Westminster, to ensure that that whole package of £14 billion of projects is delivered.

Cabinet Secretary, I think we just need clarity on that £10 billion figure. Because on pages 34 and 35, it clearly states there:

'The schemes in this section require more detailed development to explore...whether they would provide good value for money.'

So, for anybody reading that, it suggests that actual funding will need to be decided and whether those projects are viable or not. There's no certainty that they're even viable. So, to say that the funding is on the table for something that's not even been deemed viable—. I really can't understand how you can stand here and tell us that there is £14 billion for each of these projects if that work hasn't been completed. Surely, there would have to be due diligence, or are we going to be sidestepping due diligence? I just want that clarity. If you were standing here saying about the £4 billion, I think we'd all see how that could transpire, but the £14 billion—surely the people of Wales deserve some honesty here, and surely saying that figure is not accurate? You've even outlined in your response now that it could be more, it could be less. Let's be honest, how much is committed and what is the exact pipeline and what is hopeful in the future as an IOU? Because that's what it seems that £10 billion of that money is to me.

Can I thank Heledd for her contribution? Once again, though, it's disappointing not to hear any recognition of the work that's taken place over the last 10 years to transform rail in Wales, particularly in the core Valleys lines area. Huge, huge investment, time and money to transform communities and opportunities. Now, in terms—[Interruption.] That's right.

The Cabinet Secretary is quite capable of answering for himself. I will ask all Members to allow him to answer as well.

But, of course, Mike is absolutely right, an annual deficit through independence of—what was it, Mike—£12.5 billion would, I'm afraid, make it prohibitive to invest in rail upgrades if it were to be devolved. I'm afraid it would just be fantasy land to believe that you could upgrade rail when facing a £12.5 billion deficit annually.

In terms of value for money and in terms of the £14 billion, of course you have to get value for money from every project. Value for money refers to the method by which you might deliver a particular project. I've already referenced smart electrification rather than traditional electrification. It may be deemed that part of the network is better suited to smart electrification, whereas another part of the network may be more suited to traditional forms of electrification. But the whole point of developing the work is that you then have a cast-iron case to take forward for delivery of the work. You can't provide all of the answers at the outset of a vision. You have to work on each component part. And if you don't have the development funding to do that, it simply doesn't happen. For far too long, we haven't had the development funding. We've now got that. We've got the vision. We've got the plan. It will be delivered.

Now, in terms of value for money in other areas as well, it often depends, in reference to stations, how you specify them. And, of course, we will be seeking maximum value for money. We are obliged to. So, if it can be proven that a higher specification on a new station in one community can be achieved, then you'll take it forward. And if value for money shows that a lower specification needs to be implemented, then you would take forward that option. We have to guarantee value for money for taxpayers.

But in terms of the plan, the UK Government has committed to the package. The Treasury has estimated it at £14 billion. But as they have stated, and as I have stated on numerous occasions now, costs can vary. That £14 billion might not be the final figure. We don't know what events may come. The whole point of promising to deliver the package is that every project will be taken forward. That is not something that would happen under your leadership. Absolutely not. [Interruption.] Why am I so confident? [Interruption.] Says who? Your former MP, Jonathan Edwards. [Interruption.]

There's no need to have a conversation across the Chamber.

Jonathan Edwards, when he said that a party of no other colour would have been able to secure this deal. It's worth just looking at what he wrote on Nation.Cymru. [Interruption.] You might want to belittle the publication, but the fact is he offered an op-ed on it, and he stated that no other party of any other colour would have been able to deliver this deal. [Interruption.] I'm simply quoting from one of their own. 

There's no need to have a conversation across the Chamber, from both sides.

Finally, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. Alongside you, I attended the network north Wales launch at Wrexham University back in May, where many of these proposals were first outlined. I firmly believe that improving public transport links and rail connectivity is absolutely vital for our region. I'm pleased the significant investment is already making a tangible difference locally, and you've already referred to the doubling of trains services between Wrexham and Chester. 

In the coming years, the north Wales metro will provide direct services between Liverpool city centre, the Wirral and Wrexham via the Wrexham to Liverpool line. That does include better connections to Deeside industrial estate, which isn't far behind Wrexham industrial estate in size, so it is going to offer huge employment opportunities for our constituents. Working with partners over the border, the project will use innovative battery electric trains, as you've said, to provide those greener direct services, which are really needed to reduce the need to change trains also, and by improving those connections between north-east Wales and Merseyside these proposals will improve access to jobs opportunities, support more homes, more jobs and more services.

Wrexham is on the rise on many fronts, and delivering a modern integrated transport network is absolutely a game-changer, really, in the years ahead for my constituency and also our region. So, perhaps you could say a bit more about any thoughts specifically on any further developments to north-east Wales and is there any further investment planned for the region. Thank you.

Can I thank Lesley Griffiths for her contribution and for her questions? Lesley and I attended the Wrexham business professionals breakfast event last week, and we heard from Alistair Aldridge about the development of the Wrexham Gateway, an incredibly exciting transport interchange at the heart of Wrexham, also with, of course, the Kop end as a component part, a hugely important part, of it, and what struck me was that the Wrexham Gateway should be delivered by 2029. And the timing of that is perfect for Wrexham's city of culture, if Wrexham should be successful in the bid. So, actually, having that upgraded transport interchange could prove vitally important in attracting a successful bid outcome.

At the meeting on Friday we also talked about how important improved transport links are in terms of job opportunities—creating jobs and also accessing jobs. The doubling of rail services between Wrexham and Chester is vitally important. Chester is one of the biggest financial districts in our region, and so having access by public transport is vitally important. It's vitally important for Wrexham in return, with the growing tourism industry and with the growing creative sector as well in Wrexham. So, having that improved link is hugely, hugely valuable.

The Wrexham-Liverpool line is going to be a massive contributor to economic growth as well, and I'm sure that Lesley won't disagree with me in saying that very soon we expect Wrexham to be playing in the Premier League. Well, I'd like the fans from great clubs like Everton, and some of the others, like Liverpool and Manchester United, to be able to access games at the Racecourse by train. And having that metro system in operation between Wrexham and Liverpool, having the improved line—the Liverpool to Manchester line, which will have the connection at Warrington to Wrexham—that will hugely, hugely help in terms of getting people out of their cars and on to public transport in a cross-border area.

In terms of additional investment, yes, in brief, yes, there will be considerable investment. The Marches line will be electrified—there'll be a form of smart electrification for that—as well as the north Wales main line, and we're also looking at new stations at Wrexham north, Wrexham south, possibly Greenfield and Broughton as well. We know how big Broughton is as an employment district, and again it's very difficult to access work opportunities unless you have a private car at the moment. So, it will, first and foremost, drive fair economic growth across our communities.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. 

Item 4 on the agenda today is the Representation of the People (Removal of the Edited Register) (Wales) Regulations 2026. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government to move the motion. Jayne Bryant.   

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. We want to improve people's engagement in our democracy and we want to build people's confidence in elections, reduce barriers to participation and preserve the integrity of elections. The abolition of the open or edited version of the local government register in Wales will help to achieve that. It is in this context that I'm pleased to bring the Representation of the People (Removal of the Edited Register) (Wales) Regulations 2026 before you today.

As Members will be aware, there are two registers in Wales: the reserved parliamentary register, used for elections for Members of the House of Commons, and the devolved local government register, used for local Senedd elections and local elections. For each, there is an open or edited version of the register and a full version. Currently, the edited register is available to be sold to organisations willing to pay for access to electors’ data. This can mean that registering to vote entails inviting direct mail advertising. Last year, we piloted automatic voter registration and, as part of those pilots, we made sure that people being added to the register were not being added to the open register. This meant that the residents that councils could identify and add to the register weren't being passed on to commercial purchasers of the register. To prepare for the roll-out across Wales of automatic voter registration, we are abolishing the open local government register entirely.

Members will recall during the passage of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Act 2024 through the Senedd that the Act requires that, prior to electoral registration without application being rolled out across Wales, the open register must be abolished. Even if we weren't rolling out automatic voter registration, removing the edited register for Welsh elections would still make sense. The Electoral Commission has long called for the abolition of the edited register and we agree with them that the registration information should be used for electoral, not commercial, purposes. These regulations achieve this by removing the requirements for the electoral registration officers to publish an edited version of the local government register for an area in Wales and make it available for public inspection and sale.

Electoral data will continue to be supplied via the closed register to those organisations that are allowed access by law, such as political parties or credit reference agencies. The full register is also open to public inspection, normally by appointment—transparency that is an important safeguard against electoral manipulation. An edited register will still be in place in Wales for the parliamentary register. This would only apply for those people over 18 years of age who have made an application to register to vote via individual electoral registration. I note that the UK Government are looking to move to an opt-in system for the edited register, rather than an opt-out system as at present. So, I'm pleased to be making the first step towards automatic voter registration with these regulations today and I look forward to hearing the views from the Siambr.

I have no speakers. So, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

In accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the two motions under item 5 and 6, the Local Elections (Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026, and the Representation of the People Act 1983 (Security Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2026, will be grouped for debate but with separate votes. I have heard no objections.

So, I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Housing to move the motion. Jayne Bryant. 

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. Elections are essential to our democracy, and I'm therefore pleased to bring two important statutory instruments forward this afternoon: the Local Elections (Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026 and the Representation of the People Act 1983 (Security Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2026. The Local Elections (Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026 amend the rules for the running of local government elections in Wales, the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (Wales) Rules 2021 and the Local Elections (Communities) (Wales) Rules 2021.

The rules were fully redrafted and modernised in 2021. The amendment rules before you today make largely technical changes or those required to take account of changes to policy and other legislation. Recent changes made to the Senedd election rules contained in the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025 are reflected in this legislation. The legislation supports consistency in electoral legislation and the rules themselves align as far as possible with the rules for Senedd elections in Wales. They also make a small clarification to the treatment of joint party descriptors, following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission.

Our goal has been to support the equal use of the Welsh and English languages in elections, and for this to be reflected effectively throughout the legislation. This legislation makes changes to ensure that this is the position in the conduct of local elections, making Welsh elections bilingual wherever possible.

I would like to thank those who responded to the consultation. We have responded to feedback on the commencement and coming into force dates for the legislation. While the amendment rules will come into force on 13 March, they will not take effect until the next local government elections, in May 2027. This timescale ensures compliance with the Gould principle of election rules being in place for six months before the affected election, and allows sufficient time for electoral administrators to update relevant procedures and guidance forms.

I would like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their consideration of this legislation, and my officials will continue to work closely with key stakeholders to ensure that local government elections next May are run as effectively and efficiently as possible.

In terms of the Representation of the People Act 1983, we are all too aware of the rise in abuse in politics in recent years, which is a significant barrier to participation. The Representation of the People Act 1983 (Security Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2026 ensures that candidates at local government elections will not, as part of their election expenses, have to account for reasonable expenses incurred in providing for their personal security and the protection of property. This change is in line with the position for candidates at Senedd elections, as part of changes brought about by legislation passed in this Senedd last year, and in line with the wider UK approach. The changes to local government elections require an amendment to be made to the Representation of the People Act 1983. By providing for consistency across elections, this reduces confusion for candidates and electoral administrators alike. The Order also implements a recommendation from the Jo Cox Foundation report.

Given that there is no longer a grace period, and individuals cannot be a Member of the Senedd and a local authority at the same time, we are mindful that there may be by-elections following the Senedd election. The coming into force date is 13 March. However, the legislation will come into effect in relation to local government elections from 7 May 2026. Whilst I acknowledge that this technically does not meet the Gould principle, it is important that the changes take place as soon as possible to protect the safety of candidates and that there is consistency for candidates at May's elections and at council elections. I am sure Members would agree that a delay would have a detrimental impact on the safety of candidates and the integrity of elections. This is a straightforward change, bringing rules into alignment with other elections, and guidance can be updated quickly. The Order does not require any administrative changes to the systems used to run elections.

I’d like to thank those who responded to the consultation, and, again, I would like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their consideration of this legislation. Again, officials will continue to work closely with key stakeholders to ensure that the local government elections next May are run, as I said, very efficiently and as effectively as possible. So, again, I look forward to hearing views from Members.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mike Hedges. 

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. My contribution today will be in respect of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (Security Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) (Wales) Order, which the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered last week. The committee did not request a response from the Welsh Government. The report's single merits scrutiny point highlights that this Order will come into force on 13 March 2026, and will therefore come into effect in relation to local government elections from 7 May 2026. The explanatory memorandum acknowledges that the Order therefore breaches the Gould principle, which states that electoral laws should not be changed within six months of an election. However, the explanatory memorandum states that the changes are straightforward and do not require any administrative change to electoral systems. It also argues that it is important that the changes take place as soon as possible to protect the safety of candidates.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Diolch. Once again, thank you very much. Just to say that my officials and I are keen to engage with and support electoral administrators ahead of the local elections next year. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 5. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next proposal is to agree the motion under item 6. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 7 today is the Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2026. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language to move the motion. Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion.

The Procurement Act 2023 came into force on 24 February 2025. Today's regulations update Schedule 9 to that Act to give effect to the UK-India's new comprehensive economic and trade agreement, concluded between the United Kingdom Government and the Republic of India.

By amending Schedule 9, these regulations formally recognise India as a treaty state for the purposes of the Act. In practical terms, this means that suppliers from India must be treated in accordance with the procurement obligations set out in that agreement. Welsh contracting authorities will now be required to offer suppliers from India the same opportunities as those provided to UK suppliers for procurements covered by the agreements. In return, Wales will benefit from enhanced access to India's public procurement market, including preferential treatment under the 'make in India' policy. This change strengthens our compliance with international commitments and serves to reinforce our commitment to fair and open competition in public procurement.

I'm grateful, as ever, to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their continued consideration of these regulations. If they are supported today, the regulations will come into force on 31 March.

The Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered its report on the draft regulations alongside the Welsh Government’s response last week. The report contains one technical scrutiny reporting point and four merits scrutiny reporting points.

The technical reporting point highlights that there is no reference to an interpretation or definition provision for the term 'framework', which is referenced in the regulations. The Welsh Government responded that the term 'framework' is well established in the context of procurement, and therefore argues that a definition is not required. 

The committee’s four merits scrutiny reporting points bring matters of political or legal importance to the attention of the Senedd. I will mention two of these today. Reporting point 4 highlights that the Welsh Ministers have consented to the UK Government laying and making a connected UK statutory instrument, the Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. The committee noted a letter from the Deputy First Minister about these connected regulations on 26 January. And finally, reporting point 5 highlights that the Welsh Government has not undertaken a public consultation on these regulations. The committee did not request a response from the Welsh Government to the merits reporting points.

We will be objecting to today's regulations. Today's regulations are required to ensure that the procurement chapters of the UK and India trade deal are implemented in Wales. This trade deal gives a national insurance exemption for Indian professionals on short-term and temporary transfers. In Reform, we believe that the UK-India trade deal is a complete cop-out and sells out British and Welsh workers. In light of this, we'll be abstaining on today's regulations. Diolch.

Does the Cabinet Secretary wish to reply?

I continue to ask Members to support the regulations.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection and I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 8 is next, a legislative consent motion on the Crime and Policing Bill. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice will move the motion. Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I move the motion.

I'm bringing forward the legislative consent motion for the UK Government's Crime and Policing Bill. I've considered this Bill holistically. There are provisions within the Senedd's legislative competence that will deliver sensible and important changes that will benefit Wales. I've laid three separate memoranda in relation to the Bill, reflecting UK Government amendments tabled during various amending stages in the UK Parliament. I'd like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for the consideration they've given to the memoranda on the Bill to date, and for the reports they've published on the first two LCMs. I regret that the third memorandum was laid too late for similar scrutiny, as the latter amendments were laid on 13 and 23 February.

The LJCC has agreed with the Welsh Government's recommendations to seek consent for clauses 1, 2 and Schedule 1, clause 5 and Schedule 2, clause 6 and Schedule 3, clauses 7, 14, 74, 75, 90, 127, 128, 129, 132 and 133, which fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd and should be considered by the UK Parliament. I acknowledge the UK Government considers clauses 1, 5, 7, 14, 74, 75, 127, 128, 129 and Schedule 2 as requiring the consent of the Senedd.

The key provisions of the Bill cover tackling crime and anti-social behaviour, introduce respect orders, introduce a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker, and increase the severity and penalty to take tougher action for low-value shop theft and knife crime. This Bill creates a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker, so that incidents are properly recorded and used to drive an effective police response, while tougher penalties make clear that violence against retail workers will not be tolerated. By removing the £200 threshold for shop theft, it tackles the low-level crime that blights our town centres, supports retailers, particularly small businesses at the heart of our communities, and sends a clear message that no offence is too minor to face consequences.

This Bill strengthens the law so that women and girls are safer in their homes, online and in public spaces. The Bill strengthens offender management and enhances notification requirements on registered sex offenders, giving victims of stalking the right to know the identity of the perpetrator, in addition to introducing multi-agency guidance on stalking, to enable agencies to identify, prevent and respond to stalking behaviour more effectively.

The Bill also sends a clear message that spiking is a serious criminal behaviour and will be treated as such, introducing a new criminal offence of administering a harmful substance. The Bill introduces a statutory definition of honour-based abuse, and a power to issue statutory multi-agency guidance. These provisions align with our ambition to make Wales a safe and free place for women and girls, and with our violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence national strategy.

Further, the Bill also seeks to protect children and vulnerable adults, introducing a new duty to report child sexual abuse, creating new offences of child criminal exploitation, cuckooing and coerced internal concealment, introducing new offences related to the taking of intimate images without consent, and making grooming behaviour a statutory aggravating factor.

Finally, the Bill creates new offences that relate to racially or religiously motivated threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards an emergency worker, and behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress an emergency worker. The new provisions would ensure emergency workers in Wales receive the same protection as counterparts in England, and this provision aligns with the vision to make Wales an anti-racist country, as set out by the Welsh Government's 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', as well as the well-being goal of Wales being a more equal nation, as put in place by the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

There are also measures to enhance counter-terrorism powers, introducing a new youth diversion order and making changes to terrorism legislation, recommended by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. 

We know that provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 relating to unauthorised encampments have created real and understandable fear among Gypsy and Traveller communities. I acknowledge the proposed amendments to reduce the amount of time an individual must not return to the same location from 12 months to three months. Whilst I welcome this improvement by the UK Government, the continued focus on enforcement and criminalisation still undermines and jeopardises the nomadic way of life of Gypsies and Travellers, and disproportionately affects this group. I raised these concerns when the provision was first enacted in 2022, and my opposition to criminalisation remains the same. 

The Welsh Government's updated 'Guidance for managing unauthorised encampments', to be published in the coming weeks, places an even stronger emphasis on early engagement and communication by local authorities. This work is explicitly prioritised within the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', which commits us to addressing long-standing inequalities in accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller communities. The Welsh Government has been consulted and worked with the UK Government on the Bill's development, and we will continue to work closely with the UK Government in the Bill's final stages.

Finally, Llywydd, recognising the Crime and Policing Bill's importance and the impact it will have across Wales, I recommend the Senedd supports this Bill and gives its consent. Diolch.

The Chair of the legislation committee to contribute now, Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee has laid two reports on the Welsh Government's legislative consent memorandum for this Bill. The committee's report on the first memorandum was laid in July 2025. Its second on memorandum No. 2 was laid in November 2025.

The committee's first report reflected on the clauses in the Bill that give Government Ministers and the Welsh Ministers powers to implement an international agreement relating to information sharing for law enforcement purposes. These are described as 'I-LEAP provisions'. At the time of the first memorandum, the Welsh Government said it was not in a position to recommend that the Senedd consents to the Bill, saying further engagement was necessary with the UK Government on these provisions. The committee sought clarity from the Welsh Government on its position around the I-LEAP provision. By the time that memorandum No. 2 was laid in July 2025, the Welsh Government said it was satisfied with the approach taken by the UK Government. It said that this was following further engagement between the Governments.

Because these discussions did not conclude until five months after the Bill's introduction, the committee expressed concern at the level of engagement between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, in particular during the Bill's development. The committee also recommended that the Welsh Government should provide further detail about its engagement with the UK Government during this period. However, in response, the Welsh Government simply stated again that agreement had been reached, giving no further detail. This unwillingness to provide even a brief commentary is very disappointing.

The committee also highlighted in its report on memorandum No. 2 that the powers in the I-LEAP provision are delegated to UK Government Ministers and Welsh Ministers concurrently. As Members will know, the inclusion of these so-called concurrent powers is not aligned with the Welsh Government's principles on UK legislation in devolved areas. The committee noted that there may be limited flexibility around how these powers may be exercised because of the need for Welsh Ministers to comply with international obligations. The Government of Wales Act 2006 places explicit duties on Welsh Ministers to observe and comply with international obligations, as does the ministerial code. The committee is therefore of the view that the powers in the Bill in devolved areas should be conferred to the Welsh Ministers alone.

The Welsh Government laid a further supplementary consent memorandum, memorandum No. 3, last Tuesday, on 3 March. This memorandum relates to amendments tabled to the Bill for consideration at the House of Lords Report Stage. The committee was able to give some consideration to this memorandum at its meeting yesterday, but due to the short period of time between the laying of the memorandum and today's debate, it was unable to report. This is very regrettable. 

The committee, however, noted a number of issues linked to memorandum No. 3 during its limited consideration, and decided to write to Welsh Government last night to seek clarity on these matters. Two of the issues we raised as a committee were in relation to which of the amendments tabled require consent. Cabinet Secretary, I would be grateful if you could confirm now whether amendments 334 and 375 for consideration at the House of Lords Report Stage require the consent of the Senedd.

The third issue the committee raised is possibly the most significant. This relates to the fact that some of the amendments identified in memorandum No. 3, namely amendments 446 and 468, are yet to be agreed by the House of Lords. The Senedd is therefore being asked today to agree the inclusion of provisions in this Bill without the full picture of whether these provisions will form part of the Bill's final version. The House of Lords sat yesterday to consider amendments, but did not reach these particular amendments. The Lords are expected to consider the remaining amendments tabled to the Bill tomorrow and next Wednesday, ahead of the Bill's Third Reading on Wednesday, 25 March.

It is therefore disappointing that the Welsh Government has not decided to use the time available to it to postpone today's debate until the outcome of the Lords' consideration of the amendments tabled to the Bill is clear. This would have enabled the Senedd to have a fuller picture of the Bill that it is being asked to consent to ahead of reaching its final stages.

Welsh Conservatives fully support many of the policy objectives of the Crime and Policing Bill, such as tackling serious violence, child sexual abuse and violence against women and girls. We welcome tougher penalties and enforcement on knife crime and low-monetary-value shop theft. We welcome action to combat anti-social behaviour and terrorism. However, we will not be supporting the LCM today because the Bill as currently drafted also includes measures to allow the widespread use of AI, facial recognition and the recording of non-crime hate incidents. Despite many high-profile incidents of people being falsely accused of criminal activities as a result of artificial intelligence and facial recognition surveillance, the UK Government are continuing to press ahead with these measures. We cannot subject the Welsh public to these risks, and therefore the Welsh Conservatives will withhold legislative consent until the Bill is amended. Diolch yn fawr.

Plaid Cymru sympathises with the general aim of this Bill: restoring public confidence in the policing system and the wider criminal justice system. That's precisely why we argue for the devolution of these powers to Wales, because devolution is the most effective route to achieving that aim. We do welcome the Cabinet Secretary's efforts in ensuring that the protected characteristics of sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability have now been included within the scope of the new offences relating to emergency workers, but we cannot support this motion today. What we see, once again, is areas of devolved competence being ceded to Westminster, and the Welsh Government retreating from its own principles on the use of concurrent powers.

As we've heard, concurrent powers are being included in relation to international law enforcement data-sharing agreements—I-LEAP—where there is no obligation whatsoever on UK Ministers to consult with Welsh Ministers before legislating; no consent, no voice. I was alarmed by the Cabinet Secretary's assertion that consenting to this motion represents a limited constitutional risk. Shouldn't we be seeking to eliminate constitutional risks entirely, especially in relation to a constitutional architecture that is decidedly fragile at the moment? Goodwill is not law, a promise is not a safeguard, and the current relationship between the two Governments, even when they're made up of the same party, cannot be described as one of parity of esteem. Indeed, we heard earlier at First Minister's questions of a letter sent by the Prime Minister to all Cabinet members on 12 December last year. In it, he warned against, and it's worth quoting again,

'an overly deferential or laissez-faire approach to devolved government engagement'

because it

'almost inevitably creates political challenges.'

Well, 'For whom?', I suppose, is the question. But, far from respecting devolution, this letter instructs UK Ministers to be, and again I quote,

'confident in our ability to deliver directly in those nations, including through direct spending, even when devolved governments may oppose this.'

Let's focus on that. It goes on to attach guidance on using the financial assistance power under section 50 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—the very power that Welsh Labour Members of the Senedd denounced as a constitutional outrage only nine days earlier. Let's be clear about that sequence. On 3 December, more than a third of the Welsh Labour group accused the Prime Minister of rolling back devolution. Nine days later, his response was to tell his Ministers to press on regardless, to spend in devolved areas whether Wales agrees or not. That's not a reset; that's an instruction manual for undermining this Senedd.

In this context, the Cabinet Secretary, as we've heard, has been unable to disclose the nature of her engagement with the UK Government that led to the decision to override her Government's principles on concurrent powers. She cannot tell us what was discussed, but we now know what the Prime Minister was telling his own Ministers. If this trespass on the part of the UK Labour Government in relation to our own powers causes us concern today, consider what would happen if Reform came to power at Westminster. Every time this Senedd cedes ground, we are doing the hard work for them. A leap of faith, not an informed decision—that is what the Senedd is expected to take yet again today. That's not good enough. It is this Senedd that has been overly deferential and laissez-faire in our approach to inter-governmental relations. That must change now, and if not now, then surely after 7 May.

On this basis, because of the ceding of powers, the lack of transparency, and the failure, once again, to advance the devolution of justice, Plaid Cymru will be voting against this legislative consent motion, and we urge others to do the same.

We in Reform will be objecting to today's LCM. Whilst we support, of course, the general principles of tackling crime, we do not believe that the Crime and Policing Bill goes far enough in effectively tackling crime. This is why the Reform MPs in Westminster voted against the Crime and Policing Bill, and that's why we'll be voting against today's LCM. Diolch.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply—Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I thank Members for their comments and observations. It's really important that I brought this to the Senedd. I appreciate we've only had a short time to discuss the Bill, and I am grateful to the LJC committee for their scrutiny of the Bill. Members have asked and want to know why I've scheduled the LCM debate today, because there are ongoing debates in the House of Lords and the Bill is not yet fully settled. But holding this debate today ensures that the Senedd's views are heard and represented in the passage of this important legislation.

I think it's important also to acknowledge the fact that the LJC committee discussed this again on Monday, and I do thank the Chair and the committee for their recent letter on supplementary legislative consent memorandum No. 3. I regret that we haven't been able to give committees any further time to scrutinise these amendments. These amendments, which are yet to be agreed, have been included in SLCM No. 3, but they're Government amendments, and we are confident that they will be agreed by the UK Parliament.

The debate was rescheduled, as you recall, following the UK Government advising us that amendments were to be tabled on 13 February, and further amendments on 23 February. Rescheduling the debate to today ensured that these amendments would be included in today's debate, obviously giving the Senedd the opportunity to vote on them. It also allowed committees to consider the further amendments brought forward late in the Bill's passage. I haven't been able to move the debate back any further, Llywydd, due to the Plenary timetable and the constraints in the pre-election period, but I was keen to ensure that the Senedd did debate and vote on these provisions.

I will respond to the letter in full, because it is important that we recognise that amendment 335, noted as containing provision requiring consent, should instead be a reference to amendment 334. I'd like to put that on the record. And also, in relation to the LJC committee's question regarding not seeking consent in respect of provision within amendment 375, I can confirm that this has been a drafting error, and amendment 375 should have been included in SLCM No. 3.

I won't go again through the very important policy issues that this Bill is addressing—strengthening the law so that women and girls are safer in their homes, online, in public spaces; tackling spiking; protecting children and vulnerable adults; and a statutory definition of honour-based abuse. I feel very strongly that this debate is important in terms of giving that legislative consent. Again, I would urge Members to support this LCM, and would thank the committees, of course, for considering these memorandums.

It's important, finally, Llywydd, to deal with these provisions in a UK Bill that covers both devolved and reserved matters, and to ensure that our inclusion in this UK legislation enables policy objectives to be most effectively achieved. As I said, I ask Members to join me in supporting this Bill and giving consent.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore defer voting until voting time.

Item 9 is next, a motion to vary the order of consideration of Stage 3 amendments to the Senedd Cymru (Member Accountability and Elections) Bill. I call on the Counsel General to move the motion formally.

I move the motion.

Yn ffurfiol. Does gyda fi ddim siaradwyr. Y cwestiwn yw: a ddylid derbyn y cynnig? A oes unrhyw Aelod yn gwrthwynebu? Nac oes. Felly, mae hwnna wedi'i dderbyn.

Item 10, the Building Safety (Wales) Bill: signification of His Majesty's consent. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government—Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the Senedd that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Building Safety (Wales) Bill, has given his consent to this Bill.

The next item is item 11, the Stage 4 debate on the Building Safety (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move the motion—Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm sure none of us needs to be reminded that the origins of this Bill are in the dreadful events of 14 June 2017, when 72 people lost their lives in the fire at Grenfell Tower. In response to that tragedy, we set out to deliver a new building safety regime for the benefit of residents of shared buildings across Wales, regardless of building height or tenure.

Three key principles are fundamental to this Bill. First is safety. While we can never eliminate all risks, we can significantly enhance safety by identifying risks and ensuring that these risks are properly managed. Through doing so, people are safer and feel safer at home. The second principle is accountability. The legislation will end any confusion about who is answerable for managing building safety risks. We will ensure that those responsible for buildings are held to account, in law, for their safety. The third principle is resident voice. Residents are fundamental to this regime. Their experiences and concerns must be heard and addressed. We will empower residents with clear routes of redress and a stronger voice in matters that affect their home.

We recognise from the outset that reform on this scale is complex and time-consuming. The result is one of the largest Bills ever to be considered by this Senedd. It is far broader in its scope and ambition than the equivalent legislation in England, and I'm convinced that this is the Bill we need if safety is truly to be our guiding principle.

Many partners have contributed to getting this Bill to this stage. I must thank my predecessors, Julie James and Hannah Blythyn, for doing so much of the groundwork, and Welsh Government officials, who have worked so hard and for such a long time, determined to get the technical details right. I'm grateful to the Chairs and members of the Senedd committees that have scrutinised the Bill so thoroughly. In particular, my thanks to Rhys ab Owen and Siân Gwenllian, who have championed the concerns of leaseholders with determination, and to Joel James and Lee Waters for their insightful challenge and constructive work. All four have shown a willingness to work with me to find solutions.

The Llywydd told us that last week's debate, where we unanimously agreed a whole series of complex amendments, was a Senedd first. It was achieved by hard work by many people and a willingness to compromise. Thank you to all involved. It showed what we can do when we choose to work together to achieve a common aim: politics at its best. Huge thanks must also go to the housing sector, to local government and to the fire and rescue services for engaging so enthusiastically, for supporting our aims, and for giving us the benefit of their insight and their expertise.

And finally, I must thank the residents and leaseholders who have shared their lived experience with us, and organisations like TPAS Cymru, who have helped to give them a voice. In particular, I thank Diana and her partner Terry. Diana invited me into her home so that I could hear about the work Merthyr Valleys Homes have done to ensure she feels safe. It was clear to me during that visit how seriously building safety was taken and also how important the engagement of residents was. That's what this Bill will ensure, and that's the legacy this Senedd can be proud of. Of course, we continue to feel the effects of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and as a Government, we remain focused on ensuring all the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry are implemented.

Today we have published a report on the progress being made. I feel deeply for people who are still waiting for remediation of their buildings and experiencing the stress and expense that can come with that. But I'm also aware that the logistical challenges of getting remediation work done are real. We have proactively supported residents by putting in place contracts with developers, and we continue to do everything possible to remove barriers to progress. I understand and share the frustration of residents, and I hope the next Welsh Government will bring forward a remediation Bill to further support leaseholders. Much work remains to implement a new building safety regime, but by passing this Bill today, we can take a huge step forward so that the people of Wales are safe in their homes. Diolch.

I'd like to start by outlining that the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting the building safety Bill at Stage 4. I want to thank the Cabinet Secretary for the constructive engagement we've had throughout this process. The Cabinet Secretary and her office have been quick to engage with me, particularly in the discussions we've had between the stages, and that has been genuinely appreciated. I would also like to thank those stakeholders who were able to contribute evidence and consider amendments throughout the Bill stages. I feel that this legislation has been a long time coming, given that, as we've heard, the Grenfell Tower fire that sadly killed so many people was almost nine years ago. I think we all would have liked to have seen this legislation come much sooner.

As I've previously mentioned, I've been concerned that the construction industry were not given the opportunity to contribute to the evidence sessions. I believe that this is a missed opportunity, especially since concerns have been raised by the potential impact on housing supply and the property market, whereby increased regulatory burdens and uncertainty over liability could slow development, affect saleability and the ability to remortgage some properties.

Though we have worked constructively to try and address a number of issues raised during scrutiny, I still believe one of the biggest limiting factors to the success of this legislation will be capacity. In particular, whether we actually have enough qualified fire safety and building professionals to deliver the new regime effectively. At present, there are real concerns that the sector simply does not have the workforce needed to meet the demands that this legislation will place upon it. This issue of capacity does not only apply to professionals delivering the regime, but also to those responsible for enforcing it. Local authorities are already under significant pressure, and they will play a key role in enforcing these new requirements. It is therefore important that proper consideration is given to ensure that they have the resources and support necessary to take on those additional responsibilities.

In addition to those concerns around capacity and enforcement, questions also remain about the amount of detail that will be set out later through secondary legislation. While that is understandable to an extent, it does create uncertainty for landlords, housing providers, residents and developers who will be trying to prepare for the new system.

Finally, I'd like to say that, while there are still areas where questions remain, the principles behind this legislation are important, and we all share the objective of ensuring that people in Wales are able to live in homes that are safe, secure and properly regulated. Thank you, Llywydd.

The fact that the Senedd has accepted all of the amendments tabled during Stage 3 of this Bill is an indication of the detailed collaboration that has taken place over recent months, and it's a sign of the maturity of the debate in this Senedd. We now have a Bill that will strengthen the building safety system for the future and that also addresses, to an extent at least, the need to speed up the work of remediating existing buildings. Accountability and the voice of residents are important elements of this legislation.

This legislation does go further than what is in place in England, and that is something to be welcomed. This includes new regulation on building safety that encompasses assessment and management of building safety risks while a residential building is occupied. This regulation would apply to all residential buildings containing at least two units, while in England only high-risk buildings that are at least 18m high or at least seven storeys high fall within the scope of the regulation. So, the fact that we've taken a little longer in order to reach a point that includes more buildings is to be celebrated, I think.

The legislation places a duty on Welsh Ministers to prepare and publish an annual report on progress made in carrying out remediation work in Wales—that is, the work that has been set out in the Government's contracts with developers, or that has been funded by the Welsh building safety fund. Residents who live in buildings that have been identified as those needing remediation have more power to hold developers to account, and have better protection regarding increased service costs, and those were certainly issues that were a priority for me when we were discussing this legislation.

It's almost nine years since the horrific Grenfell tragedy, one of the biggest disasters of modern times. And yet, far too many people live in fear that a similar tragedy will recur, with almost half of the buildings that have been identified for remediation still awaiting inspection or waiting for the commencement of the work. The Local Government and Housing Committee heard powerful evidence from residents who are still living in fear since the Grenfell tragedy.

During Stage 3, of course, the Government finally accepted that remediation was within the scope of the legislation. It's slightly disappointing that this happened so late in the day, and it will be at least another nine months before some of the amendments on remediation can be implemented. So, I do understand the frustration of the residents and those who have been campaigning for these amendments. But I do really hope that the Government will press ahead and will create these new regulations. There is a process around that, of course—there needs to be consultation and so forth—but certainly that work needs to start now, and we shouldn't wait until the next Senedd. I do hope greatly that that will happen, and I certainly will hold the current Cabinet Secretary to account on that, and I will also be encouraging the next Government to get on with the work immediately. Thank you.

To many of the residents surrounding us today, they'll see this as an historic moment. Of course, we share their frustration that it's taken nearly nine years to reach this point, but I'm so pleased that the Bill has arrived at its final stages before the Senedd election. Why is this legislation so important? Well, the final report on the Hackitt review, which was published back in May 2018, found that a regulatory system covering high-rise and complex buildings is simply not fit for purpose. The all-Wales housing expert panel noted that the current system of fire safety risk assessments is not all-encompassing and, again, not fit for purpose. And the fire safety Order is based on commercial premises, so it doesn't concentrate on residential dwellings. We know that, currently, the responsibilities are unclear, adherence is inconsistent and residents have a lack of access to justice to enforce basic rights.

The evidence was clear that a regime with stronger responsibilities and rights is required, is required urgently, so as to improve the safety of those living in multi-occupied residential properties across Wales. And that Bill does deliver that. There are numerous important aspects, such as the fact that every building in the three categories will now have an individual with responsibility for safety, a record of building safety information—the golden thread—and a fire safety risk assessment undertaken by a competent person, which has to be reviewed annually.

I welcome too that the requirements for category 1 buildings include the need to have a residents engagement strategy, and that is so important. And maybe a lot of the issues we've had in the past is because residents don't feel listened to. It's so important that we now have a process for investigating complaints. At heart, this will enable relevant stakeholders to have a say in decisions of relevance to their own building safety, to their own homes. It gets to grips with the finding of the Hackitt review that there needs to be better communication about safety between landlords or property owners and the residents themselves. We must remember that it's the lives of every person, child, family living in such buildings that need to be at the forefront of our minds, and the minds of all who are involved with multi-occupied residential properties. That's what has inspired me since holding my first meeting as a Senedd Member back in May 2021 with a resident from Victoria Wharf. And at last, after years of campaigning by the Welsh Cladiators and other building safety victims, remediation is now part of the Bill. And I'm so grateful, Cabinet Secretary, for that. There is now a clear route for residents to bring cases before the residential property tribunal for remediation orders and remediation contribution orders.

But as the Cabinet Secretary knows well, nine months is the longest amount of time this or the next Welsh Government has to introduce the required regulations. Now, victims are of the opinion, and the experience of Westminster proves, that nine months is not required. I believe that the Welsh Government and this Senedd can deliver sooner, and such action must be prioritised.

Nonetheless, I am so pleased to be able to acknowledge today that this Bill strengthens rights, strengthens voices and, more importantly, and this is such a basic human right, it strengthens the homes of so many people in our communities. Thank you to all the people who have contributed for so long, who've battled for so long, in this generally invaluable process. Diolch yn fawr.

The Cabinet Secretary now to reply. 

I'll just move to the vote, Llywydd. 

In accordance with Standing Order 26.50C, a recorded vote must be taken on Stage 4 motions. So, I will defer voting on this item until voting time.

Items 12 and 13 are next. Unless a Member objects, both motions under items 12 and 13, namely the final stage of the Planning (Wales) Bill and the final stage of the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Wales Bill, will be grouped for debate, but with votes taken separately. I don't believe there are any objections.

So, I call on the Counsel General to move the motions—Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. Today, the Planning (Wales) Bill and the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Wales Bill are before the Senedd for final consideration, and I'm very grateful to Members for our constructive debates and for the clear support shown for progressing both Bills. That support now allows us to take an important step towards realising their benefits.

For decades, planning legislation in Wales has been dispersed across many Acts, layered with amendments that have created growing complexity. If the Senedd passes these Bills today, it will mark an important and decisive milestone. For the first time, professionals, local authorities and the public will be able to access the full body of Welsh planning law in both languages, in one coherent code.

The Planning (Wales) Bill draws the principal legislation together and restates it in clear, modern and bilingual language. This will make the system more accessible and better able to deliver positive outcomes across Wales. Stakeholders recognised these benefits during scrutiny and strongly supported the significant step forward these Bills provide.

It is also important to recognise the vital purpose of the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Wales Bill. By updating, aligning and repealing provisions spread across multiple decades of legislation, it ensures that the new code operates smoothly from the moment it comes into force. Without it, the clarity achieved through the Planning (Wales) Bill would be undermined by inconsistencies elsewhere in the statute book.

Llywydd, these Bills also mark a significant step in Wales's wider devolution journey. By separating Welsh planning law from legislation passed by the UK Parliament, these Bills establish an accessible and clear legal framework that is uniquely designed for Wales. The terminology and references now used much more accurately reflect the operational intent and effect of the planning system. The Bills replace decades of fragmentation with clarity, and as a result, those who operate, use and engage in the planning system will be able to access and understand the law that applies to them.

Looking ahead, passing these Bills today will do more than simply tidy our statute book; they lay the firm foundations for our future. The Planning (Wales) Bill provides a clear platform from which reforms to the planning system can be taken forward. By modernising and consolidating planning law into a single accessible code, future reforms will not only be easier to shape, but far clearer for everyone to understand and scrutinise.

Llywydd, I want to place on record my gratitude to all those who have brought us to this point. I particularly want to acknowledge the Law Commission for its report on planning law in Wales. The Bills are, in no small part, the product of its meticulous and independent analysis, and this continues the strong partnership between the Welsh Government and the Law Commission in our shared mission to modernise and rationalise Welsh law. I'd also like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for its constructive and rigorous scrutiny of both Bills, and my sincere thanks also extend to stakeholders across the planning, environmental and legal communities who provided expert evidence to the committee. Llywydd, I'd particularly like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the Senedd Commission staff, working hard behind the scenes. I very much thank them for all of their efforts in getting us to where we are today.

And finally, I want to pay tribute to the Bill team. Their extraordinary commitment, technical expertise and sustained hard work have been instrumental in steering this highly technical and complex consolidation exercise to this stage. Their efforts will continue as we move into the implementation stage to ensure a smooth transition to the new legislative framework that will underpin the planning system in Wales. Diolch.

As we've heard, there is a clear need for this legislation, because the planning system in Wales has undoubtedly become too slow and complex, often delaying much-needed housing infrastructure projects, which has affected residents and families throughout the country. I really hope that one of the key aims of the Bill, to make planning decisions faster and more efficient by introducing clearer procedures and timelines that will help to reduce unnecessary delays in the planning process, will manifest in improved construction timelines. The Welsh Conservatives believe that a more efficient and predictable planning system is important for supporting economic growth, something the Welsh Labour Government has struggled with over the last 26 years. But, moving forward, greater certainty for developers and investors should help to unlock new developments and support wider economic opportunities. As such, we will be supporting. Thank you.

We will be supporting these two Bills at their final stage. We welcome the central aim to simplify and consolidate planning law in Wales. For the first time, there will be a full body of planning law in Wales that will exist in one co-ordinated Act. That is a very important step forward and one that has been too long in the making.

The current system has evolved through layers of legislation, many of them pieces of legislation from Westminster, which has created complexity and confusion at times. Bringing these provisions together in one place will provide greater clarity and certainty to everyone who is involved in the planning system—local authorities, developers, communities and decision makers alike. As we have said along the journey, there is always room for improvement in relation to any legislation, but the principle underpinning these Bills is robust. Consolidation is not the end of planning reform, but it does provide an essential foundation for it. A clearer, more accessible legal framework should help to make the system more efficient, supporting swifter decision making and providing a stronger foundation for future Governments to build upon. This work will be needed to strengthen the voice of communities, to safeguard the environment, to support sustainable development and to ensure that the Welsh language continues and is strengthened as a central consideration in planning decisions.

So, although this Bill won't resolve every challenge facing the planning system, it does give Wales something that we have needed for some time: a solid and co-ordinated foundation for the next Senedd to continue with reform. And for those reasons, we will be supporting these Bills today.

The Counsel General to reply. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I just want to take the opportunity to once more thank all of the Members who've played a significant role in this, and the staff of the Commission as well. And, Llywydd, I just want to say that I'm really pleased as well that we've got the procedure for consolidation Bills set out. So, this Bill is not only a historic moment for planning in Wales, it's a historic moment for the purpose of accessing Welsh law and codifying it for the future.

So, in light of those remarks, and in the knowledge that everybody around the Chamber has been supportive, I'm pleased to move the Planning (Wales) Bill and the Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Wales) Bill. I urge Members to lend their full support as we take this important step in consolidating, codifying and strengthening our statute book. Diolch.

I thank everyone for that. In accordance with Standing Order 26C.64, a recorded vote must be taken on the final stage motions. So, we will vote during voting time.

That brings us to voting time, and unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung I will proceed directly to voting time. 

So, the first vote this afternoon is on item 7. These are the Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2026, and I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 50, two abstentions and none against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next item is the legislative consent motion on the Crime and Policing Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Item 11 is next, Stage 4 of the Building Safety (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jayne Bryant. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 52, no abstentions and none against. Therefore, the motion on the Building Safety (Wales) Bill is agreed.

Item 12 is next, the final stage of the Planning (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 52, no abstentions and none against. Therefore, the final stage of the planning Bill is agreed to.

Item 13 is next, the final stage of the Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 52, no abstentions and none against. The motion is therefore agreed on the final stage of the Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Wales) Bill. 

That concludes voting for the time being. We will now take a short break, and the bell will be rung five minutes before we reconvene for our Stage 3 deliberations.

We're now ready to start our Stage 3 proceedings on the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill.

Before we commence Stage 3 proceedings on the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill, Members will be aware that this matter is the subject of active judicial review proceedings, and therefore Standing Order 13.15 applies. The Standing Orders are clear that the sub judice rule should not mean that the Senedd cannot legislate or that the process of legislating should be prevented. The ability of the Senedd to consider amendments to the Bill at Stage 3 proceedings today is not affected.

Members should be advised not to comment directly on the proceedings, nor to make any comments about the merits of those proceedings at all. It is not in order to speculate on what the outcome of that case will be or ought to be; it is for the court to determine those issues.

The first group of amendments relates to the definition of greyhound racing. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 3, and I call on Rhys ab Owen to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendment in the group.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. This is a simple amendment, to leave out 'around' and to insert 'on', but it will make a big difference. As it stands, greyhound racing relates only to running around a track. However, in my view, this is a huge loophole that does not futureproof the Bill.

When I raised this at Stage 2, committee members opposite me stated that they thought the curvature of the track to be a defining characteristic and questioned the commercial viability of anything other than the current model in Wales. In response, the Deputy First Minister advised that

'the drafting reflects industry norms and conventions'. 

However, it is viable to arrange straight-track racing. All racing in Spain is done on straight tracks. Look at New Zealand, where a straight track has opened and is seeing active use, as many as 12 races a day. They are learning from Australia, where straight-track racing is firmly entrenched, Dirprwy Brif Weinidog, within the weekly racing schedule. I read in preparation for tonight an article in the New Zealand Herald, which stated that, last year, on the straight track in New Zealand, a punter placed a bet of NZ$30 on straight-track races. He won around NZ$780,000. Clearly, the track does not have to be a round track for the betting sector.

Also, straight-track racing can be even more dangerous. Listen to what a Greyhound Board of Great Britain trainer said to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee of the Scottish Parliament in March 2024. This is what they say:

'Straight tracks could have an adverse effect, because a dog has to run faster in a straight line over 500m than it does when there is a bend. They do not keep up the speed on the bend, although they might get up to a good speed, but, if they were to run flat out for 500m, there would be more chance of injury.'

As the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home told us,

'If the intention is to stop all Greyhound racing'—

in Wales, and that is the intention—

'then we would suggest the Bill looks beyond that which is currently undertaken in Wales'.

My amendments would, as the Cut the Chase coalition described, 

'act as a preventative measure in terms of the future facilitation of racing on straight and/or other shaped tracks in the future.'

Please support these common-sense changes: remove 'around' and change it to 'on', to close one of these massive loopholes. Diolch yn fawr.

As was the case in the previous stages of this Bill, and as I know some other parties are doing, Plaid Cymru Members will have a free vote on the issues discussed at this stage of consideration of the Bill.

Members will recall that I previously probed some of the issues around the use of the words 'around' and 'on', and I'll be frank that I was persuaded by the Cabinet Secretary's response at the time, although, in fairness, I'm looking forward now to hearing what the Cabinet Secretary's response is to the comments that we've just heard. However, I have been persuaded, actually, that the curvature is a factor in some of the issues that are trying to be addressed here, and that was presented to the committee quite clearly in evidence. I don't believe that running a straight line would be commercially viable in the way that maybe has been outlined, because obviously the only track we have in Wales is of a curved nature, and I don't think that developing an industry around the length of straight running that you'd need is viable, but clearly I'll listen to what the Cabinet Secretary has to say. But I am minded, I have to say, to vote in the same way as I have done in previous stages.

I call on the Deputy First Minister.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. I can't support Rhys's amendments 3 and 5, which propose to change the definition of 'greyhound racing' in the Bill. As you rightly say, these amendments were brought forward at Stage 2, and I'll again set out clearly why I'm unable to support them at this stage, but I will elaborate further on the points that the Member has raised and to illuminate the matters further for other Members in the Siambr today.

So, amendments 3 and 5, as we've heard, seek to change the definition from 'around' a track to 'on' a track. The definition of greyhound racing currently drafted in this Bill involves setting greyhounds to run around a track, which is indeed intended to capture the curved nature of greyhound racing tracks. Now, the wording is intentional and very deliberate, as it captures the curved design of the tracks, where evidence shows the greatest risk of harm is prevalent. The drafting reflects established industry norms and represents a clear reflection of current practices. Now, greyhound racing on tracks that are not curved in nature is not undertaken in Wales or the UK, and the risk of such activity emerging is considered to be low. So, for these reasons, I cannot support amendments 3 and 5, which seek to broaden the definition beyond what we believe is necessary—[Interruption.] Let me continue my remarks just for a moment. What is necessary, what is proportionate, and what is grounded in the Welsh and UK context.

During the Stage 2 debate—pardon me, my voice is slightly husky at the moment—committee members were supportive of our rationale behind the definition, highlighting indeed that it had been tested in scrutiny, and the same amendments at Stage 2 were not supported. Jane, happy to give way.

Thank you very much for taking this short intervention. You said that the risk is very low, but it is a risk, and surely the replacement of one word with another means that that actually minimises and reduces the risk, and is absolutely not harmful in any way, as I understand, to the Bill, but if it continues, and if there's somebody who wants to come up with this particular way of racing, could be harmful to dogs. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

So, I said I was going to elaborate, and I will now elaborate. You've cued me up very, very nicely indeed, but before I elaborate, I'm going to turn and take an intervention from across the other side of the Chamber.

Sorry, I wanted to understand, in the drafting, why it couldn't have been drafted 'on or around'. Surely that would have just resolved all issues.

Right. Thank you, both, because that's quite helpful. I've explained in my opening salvo, if you like, exactly why this reflects current norms of racing, both within Wales and within the UK context. It's designed to capture the curvature of a track where the risk of harm, or indeed fatalities, on the evidence, is indeed the greatest. That's why it's been drafted as it is for that very purpose, but let me go a little bit further in response to Jane.

If we change the definition of the track to capture things that may happen at some point in the future hypothetically, it could risk being unwarranted, because what you're doing is prohibiting a theoretical model of racing that does not occur, rather than focusing on the prohibition of the real, evidenced risks that this Bill is designed to address. Straight-line racing, just to be clear, does not occur in Wales, or more broadly in the UK. The likelihood of it emerging in Wales is considered very low. Industry representatives were very, very clear in scrutiny that such tracks would not be commercially viable, Jane, that the infrastructure required is substantial and the costs are high, therefore removing any commercial incentive to operate them here within Wales or the UK. So, in these circumstances, widening the definition to cover an activity—straight-line racing—that does not take place in Wales and is highly unlikely to take place, and for which no clear welfare benefit has been evidenced and demonstrated, would not represent good law making.

We are aware, by the way, Rhys, that indeed straight-line racing is being trialled—pardon my voice—in parts of Australia, and we will monitor the evidence that is emerging very closely. But given that straight-line racing remains new, and, indeed, under evaluation even in Australia, and that no substantial body of evidence has yet demonstrated the comparable harm with curvature tracks or reduced risk, we do not believe that it's good law making, that it would be proportionate or necessary for Wales to include straight-line racing with the prohibition at this time. So, I understand the spirit in which this is being moved, but we don't think it is appropriate or proportionate within this legislation. For that reason, we would ask Members to oppose these amendments.

Rhys ab Owen to reply.

Simply, I just don't understand your logic, Deputy Brif Weinidog—'on' would also catch a curved track. And this is not a hypothetical idea. Straight-track racing is viable and is happening in Spain, New Zealand and Australia. If the intention of this Bill is to ban greyhound racing, we should ban greyhound racing on all tracks, not allow a massive loophole, because the betting industry will want to stop the banning of greyhound racing, and will look for loopholes. And there is a clear loophole that will make this legislation clearly unenforceable. I have no idea why you're carrying on, because one small change, one small word, will close that loophole completely. I just don't understand. Straight-track racing could happen in Wales, and one word would capture it, round and straight. Straight-track racing would make a mockery of the intention of this Bill. You have two choices: you can leave this gaping loophole open, or you can legislate sensibly by seeing that this is happening in other countries, and use my amendment to fill this clear gap. Diolch yn fawr.

If amendment 3 is not agreed, amendment 5 falls. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 3. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, seven abstentions and 30 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

We'll move now to group 2, and the second group of amendments relates to reviewing the operation and effect of the Act. The lead amendment is amendment 6, and I call on Rhys ab Owen to move and speak to the lead amendment and to the other amendments in the group.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Brif Weinidog. I tabled almost identical amendments at Stage 2. The only difference is that I've removed the requirement for the evaluation work to begin from 12 months after the Bill comes into force. Again, I didn't understand some comments from committee members who are sitting opposite me, and the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog. One Labour Member opposite opposed including a review and report on the effect and operation of the Act in the Bill as it would be in this legislation but not in all others. And then the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog opposed because he is insistent that there would be a review. He said,

'I would urge the committee not to support amendment 9, because in line with good practice there will indeed be a review, and that review will take place no later than five years after the legislation comes into force.'

Well, that might be the case if the current Welsh Government had just been elected. However, we must take precautions, bearing in mind there may well be a new Welsh Government after the elections in May.

And in terms of the other point that the Labour committee member had made, earlier this year I participated in the debate on the post-legislative review of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019, which Peredur Owen Griffiths led, and it was highlighted in one of the Finance Committee conclusions,

'The Committee believes that all public Bills introduced to the Senedd contain provisions for a post-legislative review',

because post-legislative review is just as important as scrutiny beforehand. That committee is now being listened to with regard to other legislation. Later on, we'll be looking at the Development of Tourism and Regulation of Visitor Accommodation (Wales) Bill. During Stage 2, both the Cabinet Secretary, Mark Drakeford, and I tabled amendments to introduce a requirement on the face of the Bill to review the Act. How can such a requirement be acceptable to the tourism Bill and not to the prohibition of greyhound racing? As the Cut the Chase coalition said in relation to the review, it guarantees that it will happen, regardless as to who forms the next Welsh Government. It seems now that the coalition and I have won the argument, because I'm glad that we've had a u-turn from the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog. I'd be interested to see why you have changed your mind, Dirprwy Brif Weinidog, because amendment 11 by the Welsh Government doesn't make a review within five years, it makes a review within three years. I'd be interested to know why you've changed that also. And it would also see a report based on the review published in a manner considered appropriate. Despite there being some differences, those outcomes are very similar to my amendments in this group that I also tabled in Stage 2.

Therefore, to facilitate delivery of the legislative intention that both charities and I have campaigned for, I will not be taking amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9 to the vote. Instead, I encourage you to support the Government amendment, and I thank the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog for changing his mind, and it's a shame that he didn't change his mind on other matters. Diolch yn fawr. 

I'd reiterate much of that, really. This whole Senedd is always aware of the importance of reflecting on legislation and learning the lessons either from Senedd post-legislative scrutiny or Government reviews of legislation. As we've heard, regularly committees bring forward recommendations in reports suggesting that that needs to happen. It's always good practice to consider whether new laws actually deliver what they say on the tin, and then, of course, to be able to address any shortcomings or unforeseen consequences.

Now, I was going to say that the only dilemma, therefore, was whether we go with Rhys's amendments for a review after five years or the Cabinet Secretary's after three, and I think Rhys has answered that question for me. Diolch.

It's the first time I'll be speaking, so, naturally, you're going to hear, probably for the last time, about the greyhounds that I've owned—Arthur and Wanda. This is landmark legislation, and I believe we should be really clear that this is going to move forward. These amendments are about doing exactly that—making sure we look back, assess the impact, and learn from what follows.

I've had the privilege of looking after both Wanda and Arthur. Both experienced real trauma. Both carried the lasting marks of a system, of a sport, designed to profit from their pain. I don't wish to repeat myself, but I will say this every time I come to this Siambr to speak about this Bill: I am more convinced, not less, of the need for this Bill. The situation with regard to greyhound racing is not improving. The death toll at regulated stadiums increased for the second consecutive year in 2024. I'm proud that Wales has the opportunity to lead here, to be the first nation in the United Kingdom to draw this line. I know that legislation is already under way in Scotland, and that lobbying continues in England and Northern Ireland. Already, we can see that where Wales acts, others will follow.

Today, we are not reopening the significant decision that was made last December, when we collectively agreed that banning greyhound racing in Wales was the right thing to do. We are making sure at this point that we deliver it properly. And that brings me directly to the amendments before us, tabled by Rhys ab Owen, which require Welsh Ministers to review the operation of this Act within five years and report back to this Senedd. To those colleagues who have raised concerns about the pace and the depth of scrutiny this Bill has received, I say this: this amendment, in part, is a response to that concern. A statutory post-legislative review is a commitment to keep looking, keep asking and keep acting. It is not a sign of weakness in the legislation, it is a sign of confidence in it—a statement that we are prepared to be judged by the results.

Statutory review gives us the legal basis to gather that evidence and, if necessary, to return to this Siambr and act on it. The Cut the Chase coalition—and I pay tribute to them; I think some of them are with us this evening—supports this approach. I support it and I urge all Members to support it too. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call on the Deputy First Minister. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. Amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9 in this group would require a review of the legislation within five years of it coming into force, the laying of a report before the Senedd and consultation duties. I understand the intent. I would instead urge Members, as indeed has the mover of those amendments, not to back those amendments but to support amendment 11, based on three years, and I'll explain why now. Thank you for supporting the Government amendment here, which does actually work with the spirit and the grain of what you're trying to do, and I have listened. The Government amendment in this group is the only amendment I've tabled, so please support it if you're minded to. It's the only amendment I brought forward at Stage 3 and places a requirement to carry out that post-legislative review within three years—and there’s a reason why—of the prohibition coming into force, and subsequently publish a report on the review as well. So, I ask Members to support this.

Originally—you're right, Rhys—I rejected the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee's recommendation for a statutory review, reaffirming instead, and it is right, the commitment set out in the explanatory memorandum that there would be a review in line with good practice. So, I didn't support at Stage 2 the non-governmental amendments to add a requirement explicitly for review, et cetera, five years after coming into force, but I'm not afraid of saying that I've listened, and I recognise the strength of feeling expressed by Members and stakeholders through scrutiny. That's what this process is all about. It's clear that there has been a strong and consistent desire to embed a requirement to review into the Bill itself. Amendment 11, therefore, working in the spirit of what you had brought forward and others had expressed, and the LJC committee, places a duty on the Welsh Ministers to carry out that review of the operation and effect and the compliance with the Act within three years of the prohibition coming into force, and to publish that report. Now, we believe this is proportionate and practical. I proposed, by the way, a shorter three-year review period so that that immediate impact of the prohibition can be assessed while the evidence is still recent and accessible.

The measures in the Bill are very clear. We anticipate that its effects will be felt quickly, so a shorter time frame is more appropriate than the five years normally used for larger, more complex regulatory reforms. So, we believe, and we agree, that publishing the review is the most effective and transparent way to demonstrate our engagement with stakeholders and present the findings directly to those affected and the wider public in the most accessible way. We think that this is clear, proportionate, workable and a strong basis for gathering meaningful insight. We also think it's a balanced, constructive response to the views expressed by Members and stakeholders. So, by putting this requirement, Rhys, for a review on the face of the Bill, we aim to give Members confidence in this commitment and clear reassurance that it will be carried out in the next Government term. So, I urge Members to support amendment 11.

Rhys ab Owen to respond.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, we're used to u-turns with Labour in Westminster and we've had one today from Labour in Wales. All jokes aside, I'm grateful to the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog, and I can see the logic behind why you've gone for the three years. So, I'm happy to support it. Diolch yn fawr.

I understand that you said that you would not move amendment 6, but you already have. Do you wish to withdraw it? 

I wish to withdraw it. 

Does any Member object to the withdrawing of amendment 6? No. Therefore, amendment 6 is withdrawn. 

Rhys ab Owen, amendment 7.

Not moved. 

Group 3 is the next group. The third group of amendments relates to transitional arrangements. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 12, and I call on James Evans to move and speak to the lead amendment and to the other amendments in the group.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move amendment 12 and speak to this and the other amendments in this group relating to transitional arrangements. I want to be clear from the outset that I remain opposed to this Bill and the proposed ban on greyhound racing in Wales. In my view, this legislation represents a poor policy choice that has emerged not from robust evidence but from a political agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats that will do long-lasting damage to the people who live, work and race in that part of the world. However, if this Senedd is determined to proceed with prohibition, then we have a responsibility to ensure that this legislation is workable and that transition to prohibition is handled properly. This is the purpose of this group of amendments. These amendments focus specifically on how the Bill operates during the transition period prior to prohibition. They deal with the practical, regulatory and legal arrangements that must be in place while greyhound racing remains lawful. As the Bill is currently drafted, it moves directly from a lawful activity to prohibition, without setting out a clear statutory framework governing the period in between. Legislation of this scale does not operate in theory; it operates in the real world, affecting animals, regulators, local authorities, people who work there and their communities. Without a transitional framework, the Bill risks creating a regulatory gap at precisely the point when oversight is needed the most.

Amendment 12, therefore, requires Welsh Ministers to introduce interim regulations governing greyhound racing in Wales within six months of Royal Assent, remaining in place until the date appointed for prohibition. The principle here is straightforward: if greyhound racing is to continue for any period before prohibition takes effect, it must do so within a clear and enforceable regulatory framework. Without that clarity, there is a risk of confusion for enforcement bodies and uncertainty about what standards apply during the transition period.

Amendment 13 complements that provision by requiring Welsh Ministers to review the effectiveness of those interim arrangements within two years, and to lay that review before the Senedd. This is a simple accountability measure. If the arrangements are working as intended, the evidence should demonstrate that. If they are not, the Senedd should be aware and able to respond accordingly. Amendments 16 and 17 are consequential provisions ensuring that these requirements come into force appropriately.

And finally, amendments 20 and 21 address the proposed timetable for prohibition. These amendments extend the earliest and latest possible dates for the ban to take effect. They are not about frustrating the intent of the Bill; it reflects the reality that prohibition requires adequate preparation, including enforcement arrangements, rehoming capacity for displaced dogs, and clarity for those people who are affected. Rushing this process risks unintended consequences that could undermine both animal welfare and confidence in this legislation. Taken together, these amendments strengthen the Bill by ensuring the transition to prohibition is properly regulated, subject to review, and implemented in a reasonable and orderly way. For those reasons, I urge Members to support the amendments in this group. Diolch.

Members will probably know by now my preference has always been that enhanced regulation or proper licensing of greyhound racing should have been the first step here. I know some in the animal welfare sector actually expected or anticipated that that would have been the case. The phased approach could have tested compliance, it could have improved welfare without going immediately to an outright ban and everything that that entails. And yes, if, after time, that is shown not to have delivered the outcomes that we all want here, then the option of a ban, of course, is still there. That would then be a decision taken from a much more informed position and a much stronger evidence base.

Members will recall, I'm sure, the significant concerns about the gaps in the evidence base for a ban, outlined in the culture committee's Stage 1 report on the Bill. But the main point for me here is that I would expect us to regulate first, then assess, then decide whether we need to go further. That would've been my preferred approach, and that is why I'll be supporting the amendments.

I'll be voting against these, and there are a number of reasons why.

Just to respond to Llyr's point, I'm not sure that any in the Cut the Chase coalition supported any regulation period. Taken together, these amendments would allow greyhound racing to continue in Wales under a new regulatory framework, potentially delaying the ban until October 2031. I simply cannot support that approach. The difference between April 2027 and October 2031 may look small on paper, but in reality, it means four and a half years of more racing, and we know what that means for the dogs involved.

With nearly three quarters of Valley-attached dogs suffering adverse effects in a single year, every month means around 10 more animals are exposed to falls, fractures and career-ending injuries. The central premise of amendment 12 is that a period of interim regulation would provide a responsible bridge to the ban. But let us look at what that regulation actually may deliver.

The GBGB's own published data for 2024, let's remind ourselves of this, shows that 3,809 individual injuries were recorded across the industry. That is the industry's own record of injuries. The most common were injuries to the hind leg, to the hock, to the wrist. One hundred and twenty-three dogs were killed at the racetrack that year. A further 51 were euthanised not because of injury, but because they were judged unsuitable for rehoming. These are the figures of a fully licensed, professionally governed industry. 

This is not the result of regulatory failure but the result of regulation as designed—recording, categorising, managing harm, yet utterly incapable of preventing it. After all, the harm is not incidental to greyhound racing—it is inherent to it. The culture committee were unequivocal on this point. No amount of regulation can ever eliminate the inherent risk to greyhounds from this sport. And I've seen the truth in my own home as well.

As a Senedd, we decided that greyhound racing should be banned. We have reached that conclusion on the basis of substantial evidence. To then ask Welsh taxpayers to fund the regulation of that same industry for a transitional period that would extend to October 2031 strikes me as impossible to justify. Only around 5 per cent of Welsh people follow or participate in greyhound racing directly. The public interest case for that expenditure is, I would suggest, extremely thin, particularly at a time of real pressure on public finances.

The argument has been made that more time is needed to prepare for the wind-down, yet preparation has always been under way, with the Wales greyhound partnership having been in operation for over a year. They are taking responsibility for rehoming the dogs. They have clear plans in place, and I pay tribute to them at this point. Between March and September 2025 alone, its nine member organisations took 75 dogs from the Valley track into their care. They suspended operations only because the lengthy commencement window made sustained prioritisation of Welsh dogs unworkable, but they are ready to resume the moment a firm date is set.

Preparation is not the obstacle here. Will is the obstacle. We cannot allow five more years of racing while we wait for a regulatory experiment to run its course. I urge Members to reject these amendments. The case for delay has not been made. The case for action is overwhelming. Diolch.

I would like to strongly oppose amendment 12 as well, which would see greyhound racing in Wales regulated as an interim measure. The Cut the Chase coalition, which is made up of many animal welfare charities, are clear on this: any attempt at regulation at this stage is simply a delaying tactic. Our main focus must be the welfare of greyhounds in Wales, and their protection cannot wait any longer than absolutely necessary. Any delay on an outright ban will ultimately mean many more terrible injuries and, tragically, more deaths. In this industry, where dogs and puppies are just classed as wastage, the evidence is very clear that regulation does not work. Only an outright ban will put a stop to this cruel and unnecessary suffering of greyhounds in Wales.

The journey was started by Vanessa from Hope Rescue, when she submitted her petition calling for a ban on greyhound racing at the beginning of this Senedd term. The petition received an incredible 35,000 signatures, securing an inquiry by the Petitions Committee, and subsequently a debate in this Chamber, which received support from Members of all parties. That was signed by many people that have adopted greyhounds, that have worked with charities, that have seen the terrible injuries that these dogs live with. Vanessa and her team have first-hand experience of the horrendous cruelty that has taken place at the Valley track in south Wales, with dogs losing their lives and suffering life-altering injuries on that track on a regular basis.

Those who signed the petition and responded positively to the Welsh Government consultation did so in favour of this outright ban, not regulation and further delays. The amendment seeks to undermine the true purpose of the Bill, and I would urge Members to vote against it.

I also oppose amendment 12. This is a Bill to ban greyhound racing. Greyhound racing is dangerous for the greyhounds and regulation is not going to change that situation. The central action of greyhounds running very quickly around tracks is one that's replete with risks for the dogs. While there is a lack of transparency about the data, and that is perhaps problematic, we know exactly what the overall picture is.

The injuries to dogs are numerous, falls happen regularly on the track and negligence and a lack of aftercare is very evident. The only way to ensure a better future for greyhounds is to ban greyhound racing once and for all, and immediately. Regulation will never address the dangers inherent in racing. That's the important point here. Animal welfare has not improved through regulation. Regulation has not been able to reduce the risks. The serious injuries continue.

Greyhounds are very gentle, quiet and loyal dogs. I know a lot of greyhounds, and they are ones that have been rescued from racing. But it has taken them many years to get over the trauma, if they are ever really able to get over it. Their natural speed has been exploited for the benefit of the betting industry and they suffer as a result. That is the underlying problem in my mind. These special dogs face abuse in order to produce entertainment, and they're exploited for commercial reasons.

There is also another argument against regulation and in favour of bringing in a ban immediately. If a person wants to breed a profitable winner, they need to breed a lot of dogs, and most of those dogs won't be good enough and won't be fast enough. So what happens to them? At best they end up in rescue centres that are already struggling, and at worst they will be wandering our streets. No system of regulation will address that.

Take Nel. She came last in every race that she ran in and was retired at the age of two. Then she had a year of being passed from one place to another before landing in a rescue centre at the age of three, reeking of her own filth and fearing the world. Nel now has a great home, but we need to stop this suffering in the first place. We have to stop it now. There is no purpose at all, no argument at all for continuing with a transitional period with a regulation that won't work anyway. Regulation has been tried and it has failed to keep those dogs safe. So we need to move quickly to a situation where the industry is banned entirely.

I commend James Evans for tabling the amendments, because it is important to have the discussion, but I won't be supporting them. I didn't disagree with the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog on every point in Stage 2. I agreed with him when he said that regulating greyhound racing in Wales detracts from the Welsh Government's intent to bring forward a ban as soon as practically possible. That was also the intention of this place. As we have heard from Jane Dodds, delaying the ban only leaves greyhounds at risk of further injury and death for a longer period of time. The only remaining stadium in Wales is already regulated by industry standards. The industry standards have failed to deliver adequate protection. As such, any attempt to delay the prohibition, which I believe is the intention of James Evans's amendments in this group and the next—it's clear that that is his intention—should be opposed. Diolch yn fawr.

I now call on the Deputy First Minister. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I just thank, first of all, all Members who've contributed to what has been quite an impassioned debate on the amendments brought forward by James, amendments 12 and 13? These amendments would seek to make provision for transitional arrangements for the regulation of greyhound racing in Wales, and an interim period before a prohibition comes into force and then to publish a review of that regulation. I cannot support these amendment and I'll explain why.

Regulating greyhound racing in Wales detracts, indeed, as Rhys has just pointed out, from this Government's intention to bring forward a ban as soon as is practically possible, and it leaves greyhounds at risk of injury and fatality for a longer period. One active greyhound racing stadium remains in Wales, which is Greyhound Board of Great Britain affiliated; it is already regulated by the industry's standards. Setting up infrastructure for further regulation and related enforcement powers for an interim period would be disproportionate. And to be clear, bringing regulation under Welsh Government control may require extensive and expensive changes, particularly if Welsh regulation went further than GBGB standards. Now, in contrast, as has been pointed out, a ban provides a clear, enforceable solution to prevent harm and to safeguard greyhound welfare. In spite of GBGB  standards, greyhounds continue to be exposed to harm while racing. Consequently, regulation at this stage would add no value whatsoever and little benefit to prevent the harm associated with racing.

The decision to ban greyhound racing was taken as a measure to prevent further harm, and that decision is driven by strong welfare and ethical concerns, reflecting the Welsh Government's commitment to prioritising animal welfare. So, as I cannot support these amendments, I also cannot support the related amendments 16 and 17, which would bring these provisions for transitional arrangements for regulation into force on the day after which the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Finally, I cannot support amendments 20 and 21 tabled by James. Amendment 20 postpones the earliest date on which the Act can come into force from 1 April 2027 to 1 October 2028. Amendment 21 postpones the latest date on which the Act can come into force from 1 April 2030 to 1 October 2031. Now, the Member's intention may be to allow time for the transitional arrangements prior to a prohibition suggested by amendments 12 and 13, but as I have set out very, very clearly, the intention is for a prohibition on greyhound racing in Wales to come into force as soon as is practically possible. The earliest possible date has been identified as 12 months after Royal Assent. Therefore, the Bill provides that it will be no sooner than 1 April 2027 and no later than April 2030. This proposed lead-in time will enable third sector organisations to manage the safe rehoming of greyhounds displaced by the ban. It will give the owners of Valley Greyhounds stadium sufficient time to wind down the activity and consider alternative options for that site. And as I set out earlier in response to amendments 10 and 10A, while I do recognise that some would prefer a shorter time frame to implement the ban, delaying the earliest date and extending the latest date a prohibition can come into force, as amendments 20 and 21 propose, would leave greyhounds vulnerable to harm for longer. Therefore, I cannot support amendments 12, 13, 16, 17, 20 and 21.

I thank all Members for taking part in the debate, and thank you, Llyr, for your support and, as I say, you and I both share the same view that this should've been regulated first and then to see how regulation was implemented and then look afterwards at where we were. I will say to some Members, respectfully, my amendment isn't about stopping this Bill, it's about regulating the transition period. So, I'd just like to ask Members to actually read what the amendments are before they make speeches in the Chamber.

Rhys, the delay is important—it is—because we have to understand that there are animals in this, and there are people as well, who work at that track. There are livelihoods here and we need to make sure that any Bill that comes in doesn't have any unintended consequences, and that is the purpose of this Bill. It doesn't detract, as people have said, from the aims of it, but it's making sure that we have transitional arrangements in place to make sure that anything that's carried out there is done in a regulated way to protect those animals that are racing there, which a lot of people, I'm sure, around this Chamber will want to do. Moving to an outright ban has unintended consequences for the animals and the people who work there, and I think it's poor legislation that's come forward anyway, and we should do as much as we can to strengthen it. That is why this group of amendments were put forward, and I will be putting them to the vote. Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer.

If amendment 12 is not agreed, amendment 16 falls. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I can hear an objection. Therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 12. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, six abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 12 is not agreed.

James Evans, amendment 13.

I move.

If amendment 13 is not agreed, amendment 17 will fall. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. So, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 13. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour seven, five abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 13 is not agreed.

Group 4 is next, and the fourth group of amendments relates to impact assessments. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 14, and I call on James Evans to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move amendment 14 and will speak to other amendments in this group relating to impact assessments. These amendments are focused on ensuring that the decision to commence prohibition is taken on a sound, evidential and legal footing. They do not seek to reopen the wider policy debate on whether prohibition should occur. Instead, they ensure that any decision to implement the prohibition is informed by proper evidence, consultation and legal consideration.

Amendment 14 requires Welsh Ministers to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the economic and social impact of the prohibition of greyhound racing in Wales before appointing a commencement date. The assessment must consider the impact on those directly and indirectly employed in the industry, the effects on local economies and communities where racing currently takes place, the potential cost to the public sector and the possible consequences for animal welfare arising from displacement or cessation of regulated racing.

The issues were raised during the Committee Stage of the Bill. Members of the committee noted that the evidence base surrounding greyhound racing and its regulation is contested and that the available data presents a complex picture. The committee also heard about evidence about potential impacts on local economies, employment and the welfare implications of displacement should racing cease at the track. 

Amendment 14 therefore ensures that these matters are assessed comprehensively before a prohibition date is set. It also requires consultation with those who have relevant expertise and experience, including industry participants, local authorities and animal welfare organisations. Importantly, the assessment must be published and laid before the Senedd at least three months before the prohibition date is appointed, ensuring that Members have the opportunity to scrutinise the evidence before implementation.

Amendment 15 complements this by requiring a formal human rights assessment, since we don't have a British bill of rights to go through. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee highlighted the need to consider the compatibility with article 1 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, particularly in relation to the property rights and proportionality. The amendment ensures that those issues are addressed directly and transparently before the Act is commenced.

Amendments 18 and 19 are consequential provisions, ensuring that these requirements come into force appropriately. Taken together, these amendments ensure that the proper implementation of this Bill is supported by proper evidence, consultation and legal analysis. This is simply good legislative practice and, for those reasons, I urge Members to support the amendments in this group. Diolch.

As I mentioned during the general principles debate, really, legislation has to be evidence based, proportionate and effective. The culture committee, in its Stage 1 report, obviously, highlighted that the evidence base for this Bill is highly contested and insufficiently robust. Despite these concerns being raised, the Government hasn't really completed sufficient work on assessing the impacts of the Bill, particularly, I'd say, in reflecting what amendment 14 says in relation to the social and economic impact. Now, regardless of where you stand on the principle of a ban, we should all strive, shouldn't we, to make sure that the very highest standards in terms of legislative process and rigour are upheld. So, I will be supporting amendments 14 and 16 to correct the oversight around the assessment of the economic and social impact of the Bill. But on the other two amendments, I think the response from Members here said it all, really. I think it's refreshing that a Reform Member of the Senedd is cheerleading the UN convention on human rights; long may that continue. I'm not convinced, to say the least, that those amendments are required. I voted against those particular amendments at Stage 2, and I intend fully to do so again tonight.

So, you know, I do want to engage seriously with the amendments in this group, because questions have been raised that deserve a serious answer. Economic impacts matter, human rights issues matter, but I do have two specific concerns. My first concern is about duplication. The Welsh Government has already established an implementation group to oversee the transition to post‑racing Wales. This includes the local authority, it includes GBGB and it includes other representatives. So, I have to ask: what is the purpose of the implementation group if we do not trust it to do its job?

My other concern relates to the human rights assessment proposed in amendment 15. This amendment asks Welsh Ministers to assess the compatibility of the Bill with article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. Now, I have to admit, this gave me a short pause and a significant element of confusion. The Member who put forward this amendment is a Member of Reform UK, a party whose leader has stated that leaving the ECHR would be his first priority in Government, and whose manifesto commits to repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 altogether. And yet, here we are with an amendment calling for a detailed assessment of our ECHR obligations before we can proceed with banning greyhound racing. It is, I must say, a very curious position. I want to be clear that the legal questions around the ECHR are not ones that I dismiss lightly. They are serious, and they have been seriously examined. The Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee examined these issues back in December, and the Welsh Government’s own legal advisers have said that this covers the ground sufficiently.

That brings me to the heart of this debate. The human rights framework asks us to consider proportionality, to weigh competing rights and interests carefully against one another. That is an important principle, but proportionality is not a one‑sided exercise. On one side, we have the property rights and economic interests of those involved in the greyhound racing industry, and they are considerable. On the other, the welfare of well‑loved animals who experience fear, pain and lasting distress. If any of you have a dog in this Siambr, I want you to consider that your dog is no different to my dog. Your dog is no different—[Interruption.] Would you like to intervene?

Yes, I'd love to, actually.

Great.

We all care about animal welfare. My dog's a working dog, and she also goes working—it's part of her breed. It's what she's about. Sometimes, I think, Jane, with all due respect, I think you give the people who race in this industry a bad name, and some of those people love their dogs just as much as anybody else in here. So, I'd reflect on some of your comments about some of the people who are in this industry, because they care about their dogs an awful amount more so than you ever give them credit for.

Thank you. I'm not sure how to respond to that, except to say that this is about animals that we love, and that I know you care for as well, and I have seen their suffering, and I have seen the consequences of that. They are bred specifically for profit, and they are discarded when they are no longer of use, and that's what happened with my two dogs, and that's what's happening right now, today, in Wales, and we intend to ban it. I don't believe we need to keep weighing that balance. This Senedd has already had evidence before it. So, I respectfully ask Members to keep the welfare of these animals at the forefront of our decision, and to reject the amendments in this group. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call on the Deputy First Minister.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I will try and address these amendments in a serious and a reasoned and a reasonable way, but I'll also be explaining, James, why I cannot support these amendments.

First of all, in respect of amendment 14, this would require Welsh Ministers to assess the economic and social impact of the Bill and to report on the assessment. Now, just to explain, the explanatory memorandum, the regulatory impact assessment and the integrated impact assessment have been published and laid alongside the Bill. I am satisfied that the social and the economic impacts have been assessed through these documents.

I responded to the related recommendation by the Culture, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee and advised that the explanatory memorandum, the regulatory impact assessment and the integrated impact assessment would be updated ahead of Stage 3 to reflect any additional information received since the Bill's introduction. And we talked at length about the ends we were going to to try and get additional information. So, these assessments have been amended as further information has been made available to the Welsh Government through the implementation group and dialogue with the industry, and subsequently they've been laid in front of the Senedd, following Stage 2. So, we've delivered on what we said we would do.

A detailed socioeconomic duty assessment has also been completed and a summary is included in the explanatory memorandum. And just to make it clear, the Welsh Government will continue to engage with stakeholders via the implementation group, who are providing practical guidance and advice to mitigate the impacts and to support transition.

Now I cannot support amendment 15, tabled by James, which requires Welsh Ministers to undertake a human rights assessment of the impacts that the Act will have on those affected, but let me explain why. Bill provisions are always subject to a thorough assessment of legislative competence including, by the way, convention rights before they are introduced. The outcome of the Welsh Government's assessment of the Bill's compatibility with the convention rights at introduction is included in the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the Bill. During determination indeed, the Llywydd also determined that the provisions of the Bill are within the legislative competence of this Senedd. And I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, including article 1 of protocol 1 and article 8.

I committed in correspondence to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee to updating the equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights assessment, which is now reflected in the explanatory memorandum and the regulatory impact assessment. So, I therefore also cannot support related amendments 18 and 19, which provide that new sections be added to the Bill related to amendments 14 and 15 coming into force the day after the legislation receives Royal Assent. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

And I call on James Evans to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you, Llyr, for supporting some of my amendments. I know you can't support them all, but the support is welcomed.

I would say, answering on the point of article 1 of the ECHR, that I would love us to get out of the ECHR—there's no-one who wants to leave the ECHR more than me—but, unfortunately, when you've got law in front of you, you have to use the legal routes that are available to you at the time. And these are the legal routes that are available to us at the time for protecting Welsh workers here, who work on that track.

I would like a British bill of rights that protects British workers, protects British people—

Will you take an intervention, James?

—not shackles us to the rights of Europe, but we are where we are. Yes, I will take an intervention, Gareth.

Would you be willing to note that it was actually the Liberal Democrats that first called for an EU referendum back in 2009, when Nick Clegg was the leader, which ultimately was the precursor to the line about wanting to leave the ECHR?

As someone who has spent most of my life campaigning against the Liberal Democrats, nothing that they say or do surprises me at all, I'll be honest with you.

But I will say this is probably the last time I am going to speak on this Bill before Stage 4. And I do think it is important that we do have those proper impact assessments laid before the Senedd to show the impact this is going to have on the communities affected, on the people who are affected, about the economy. Members in the back within the Labour Party may laugh, but there are jobs, there are people there who work on that track, and I think that you should be ashamed, laughing at the people who are going to lose their jobs. This Bill is not proportionate. It is poor legislation, poorly thought out, cooked up in a back-room deal between the Cabinet Secretary for finance and the Member for Mid and West Wales. This isn't the proper way to regulate; it has been driven by a certain group of people who are hell-bent on banning everything across Wales. And I will say that change cannot come soon enough, because I'm afraid to say that this place is becoming a laughing stock for banning everything that people enjoy across this country.

If amendment 14 is not agreed, amendment 18 falls. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 14. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour five, six abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 14 is not agreed. 

James, amendment 15.

I move.

If amendment 15 is not agreed, amendment 19 falls. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. So, we will proceed to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour three, six abstentions, 42 against. Therefore, amendment 15 is not agreed. 

Deputy First Minister, amendment 11. 

Move formally.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. And so we will proceed to a vote on amendment 11. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 42, seven abstentions, two against. Therefore, amendment 11 is agreed.

Rhys, amendment 8.

Not moved?

No.

[Interruption.] No, there wasn't a vote on the previous one, therefore it has not fallen. I still have to ask the question. 

Amendment 9.

Not moved. 

Group 5. The final group of amendments relates to coming into force arrangements. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 10. And I call on Rhys ab Owen to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendment in the group. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I explained at Stage 2 why I believe that greyhound racing should be prohibited as of 1 April 2027. A committee member at Stage 2 suggested that a four-year period was needed to provide the Welsh Government with flexibility. I haven't understood many things during this debate and I didn't understand the Deputy First Minister's comments when he advised that the current lead-in time, as drafted, would reduce harm to greyhounds as it gives time to stakeholders. Well, I will not be convinced that allowing greyhound racing to continue until 2030 will reduce harm to greyhounds than if racing is banned in 2027. I just cannot see that logic. The timeframe I am proposing is what Blue Cross, Dogs Trust, Achub Milgwn Cymru, Hope Rescue and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have called for. They are the ones who are preparing to rehome the dogs affected, as we've heard already from Jane Dodds. So, any argument that there isn't capacity is fundamentally flawed.

To support the rehoming, rehabilitation and treatment of any dogs impacted by the end of greyhound racing in Wales, the greyhound partnership was established shortly after the ban was announced in February 2025. There has been a long period of preparation already. This group comprises nine animal welfare organisations, and is currently preparing to rehome up to 258 dogs every two months, following the implementation of a ban, if required. The charities are ready. And we know that other tracks have been wound down in as little as nine months—for example, the track in Swindon. So, there is no reason why the Welsh Government should delay.

I stand by my deadline of 1 April 2027, but, if a majority are uncomfortable with the timeframe, I urge them to back the compromise position tabled by my colleague, Jane Dodds. But I'd also be interested to hear what the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog has to say about this matter, and I'm sure we'll hear more from the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats about her own amendment. Diolch yn fawr. 

I'm just proposing amendment 10A. Before I do, I want to be unambiguous. My preference is for amendment 10, tabled by Rhys ab Owen, to carry. A commencement date of no later than 1 April 2027 is the right outcome, and I urge every Member who can support it do so. Equally, I look forward to hearing from the Cabinet member as well.

This amendment exists because I understand that colleagues may have genuine reservations about process, about timing, and about the practicality of implementation.

To finish, this is the last time I will speak in this debate, and I'm grateful to the Cabinet member for his time and for his support and for his ability to discuss many of the issues. And I'm grateful, as well, for the support I received from many, many colleagues across this Cabinet—across the Siambr, and the Cabinet as well.

It hasn't been easy, I will concede, as a sole Member of a party wanting to see this happen. I'm really grateful for that support, and for the kind words of just genuine 'keep going' that I've heard. So, I am grateful to you all.

We know that, right now, in the rescue centre in Rhydaman, which is where Wanda came from, there is a dog waiting to take her place, and another one after that, and another. There are many dogs that are waiting to be rescued, and if there's one thing—. If you leave this place and you're looking for a rescue dog, I suggest you consider a greyhound. They sleep 20 out of 24 hours—[Laughter.]—and, contrary to myth, they only require two 20-minute walks a day. They do love to run. They don't like to race. And that's the difference.

So, I would say to you, in this last time I speak, please do consider this amendment. I look forward to hearing from the Cabinet member, but I'm also grateful for the support to get this Bill to this particular stage. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Of course, there's nothing—. I'm not going to do the Cabinet Secretary's job for him, but there's nothing in the Bill that says that the ban doesn't necessarily come into force on 1 April 2027. That's the purpose of having a window, that there is an opportunity to take everything into account.

Now, you're right, I'm very aware that the animal welfare groups say that they can create that provision in time. But there are many moving parts here. The advisory group the Minister has set up is working on other aspects or consequences of the ban. We've just heard about the economic implications, potentially, of people losing their jobs and needing to be found the support that they need et cetera.

So, I don't think we should put a hard date that's too early. I think, from April 2027 to April 2030, which is what is in the Bill at the minute, gives the Government a window to make sure that it's introduced in a responsible and reasonable way, and not because they have to do it by next week. I think that that's probably the best approach.

I was going to make further comment about why we're all here and what we all want to achieve, but I'll save those for Stage 4.

The Deputy First Minister.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I, first of all, as I'm speaking to the last group of amendments, just thank all of those who’ve contributed to scrutiny today and in previous stages of the scrutiny of this legislation, including those who've moved amendments and inspired debate? But also can I just give thanks as well to my small-but-perfectly-formed group of officials who've worked so diligently and so assiduously on this, including with Members across the Senedd as well?

So, amendment 10, as we've heard, removes the earliest date currently provided for of 1 April 2027 and, instead, brings forward the latest possible commencement date to be no later than 1 April 2027. Amendment 10A, in Jane's name, looks to change the latest possible commencement date to 1 April 2028. I understand your thinking, both of you, on this, but I'm going to explain a little bit more about my rationale here as well.

I do understand the sense of urgency expressed by many Members today to end greyhound racing in Wales as early as possible, to prevent further harm to greyhounds. However, the current lead-in time, as drafted in the Bill, is the right way to deliver this safely and definitively. It allows all stakeholders to adjust, mitigating the impacts of the prohibition on the rehoming and the welfare sector, the greyhounds, the racing industry, but also the wider community in that area.

The implementation group, as has been mentioned, will play a central role in supporting the transition to a ban, helping to mitigate the potential impacts and provide really practical advice and guidance and insight. They will ensure that this transition is safe, is responsible, and is carefully considered. We expect them to advise Welsh Ministers on a proposed timetable for commencement and to assure all parties that the necessary transition measures are fully in place before that date.

The group's considerations, as we've discussed in previous stages of this scrutiny, will be wide ranging. They will need to ensure that greyhounds can be safely rehomed, advise on the future of the site itself, so we don't leave a site unused and unloved, support the workforce to transition through appropriate measures, and assess the readiness of enforcement officers and local authorities. There is an enforcement element to this legislation as well. They must also consider the wider community impacts and work with the industry to ensure that practical steps are in place, so that the prohibition is honoured and enforceable from day one. These are complex and interdependent issues that must be properly considered, and that's where the work of the implementation group really comes in. It's been set up for a very good reason.

We do expect the group to act with pace, but also with careful consideration of these matters as well. They are formally tasked with supporting the transition, providing reports to Welsh Ministers to guide Welsh Ministers' decisions on the coming-into-force date. This commencement date will be set once all the transitional arrangements are considered and will benefit from clear assurance that the necessary measures are in place. I fully expect, by the way, that the group will want to recommend a date sooner rather than later—indeed, as early as they are confident that that transition can be delivered safely and responsibly without compromising greyhound welfare or community stability as well. There's a good reason not to rush at this. If we move too quickly, it risks creating potentially new welfare issues or placing avoidable strain on rehoming and enforcement capacity, and causing disruption in the local community.

What we want is a safe transition with sequencing, with judgment, and setting not just the earliest possible date, but the right date. So, in its report, the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee considered that the proposed lead-in period was sensible, and that was reinforced indeed at the debate in Stage 2. So, I therefore reiterate my commitment that the Bill will be brought into force at the earliest practical opportunity within the time frame we've laid out.

But let me expand just a little more. I remain fully committed to bringing the ban into force at the earliest practicable point within that window. So, keeping our commencement window from April 2027 to April 2030 ensures that we deal with all those aspects of the process and we can hear from the implementation group as well. It allows them to carry out their work effectively and provide that advice. The point of the window, Jane, and Rhys, is not to delay; it's to ensure readiness. It allows us to bring the ban in as early as possible without jeopardising welfare, community stability or operational capacity.

So, the strength of this transition—the strength of the Bill as currently drafted—lies in the expertise around the implementation group table. From welfare specialists to enforcement bodies, to local partners and indeed the industry themselves, their collective advice must shape the final commencement date. And this group is uniquely placed to identify the risks early and ensure that the safeguards are in place. Their involvement is what will give this Minister the confidence that we have a successful transition.

And just to say, ensuring that we have a positive and a productive future for the site itself is in everyone's interests. We have a responsibility to manage the consequences of a ban, responsibility for that site, for that community and the surrounding economy as well. And employees of the industry, as have been mentioned before, deserve clarity and support, not sudden disruption. So, giving advice and accessing training and support to move into new opportunities; all of that.

So, a considered commencement strengthens, I would say, Jane, the credibility of the legislation, Rhys, and ensures it delivers the outcome that this Senedd intends. So, on that basis, I would urge Members to, with respect, resist the amendments, or even for the Members, if they're convinced by the rationale behind what we are putting forward and what was debated and scrutinised in Stage 2, to withdraw their amendments, having sought this clarification from me, and support the way forward laid out within the Bill as set out now. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Rhys ab Owen to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I agree with Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, who said:

'With only one track, and an implementation group already working, it is unclear why a maximum of three years will be needed for the Bill to come into force.'

And I hope it will not be a maximum of three years. But I have listened to the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog, and I do concede the point with regard to the expertise of the implementation group. Therefore, I will be withdrawing my amendment tonight.

We've heard some comments again this evening about back-room deals. It's a lazy argument to throw if you don't like policy or legislation. We all know that the best decisions are made when people work together across different parties. I thank Jane for pushing this legislation, but, let's be honest, it wouldn't have reached this stage unless it had broad support with a majority in this place. I hope, as politics become more fractured, that the nature of that working together that we've seen in this Senedd continues to the next. Today, tonight, we have taken a greyhound stride forward in animal welfare. Diolch yn fawr.

Before disposing of amendment 10, we will first dispose of the amendment to that amendment. Jane Dodds, amendment 10A. Not being moved?

Not moved.

Not moved.

Rhys, withdraw?

Withdraw.

Does any Member object to it being withdrawn? No. Okey-dokey.

James, amendment 20.

It is moved. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 20. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour four, eight abstentions, and 40 against. Therefore, amendment 20 is not agreed.

James, amendment 21.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 21. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour three, eight abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 21 is not agreed.

We have reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill. I declare that all sections and Schedules of the Bill are deemed agreed. That concludes Stage 3 proceedings. 

There will be a short break—[Inaudible.]—Development of Tourism and Regulation of Visitor Accommodation (Wales) Bill. The bell will be rung five minutes before we reconvene. I would encourage Members to return to the Chamber promptly, please.

We will now move on to the Stage 3 proceedings of the Development of Tourism and Regulation of Visitor Accommodation (Wales) Bill.

The first group of amendments relate to advertising and marketing. The lead amendment is amendment 1, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. Before moving on to the substance of the amendments, I would like to make a few general points. Stage 3 amendments from the Government focus on the key areas that were discussed during the Bill's journey through the Senedd, as well as technical amendments in order to improve clarity. We have tabled amendments that build on significant amendments that were discussed at Stage 2.

The amendments before us today explain responsibilities for those who advertise visitor accommodation, including online platforms, the circumstances in which temporary licences will be available, and ensure that powers within the Bill do allow the transfer of licences.

We've also introduced a revised explanatory memorandum following Stages 1 and 2. The changes include additional information in relation to the prevention of nuisance, which was added to the Bill at Stage 2. We will publish a further explanatory memorandum to reflect the final Bill, and, naturally, those reading the Bill should consult the most up-to-date version.

I would like to thank those who have contributed to the development of this Bill, including bodies within the sector, Members of the Senedd and officials, who have worked in order to bring this legislation forward, which was, of course, part of the co-operation agreement.

Llywydd, I turn now to the first group of amendments. This is a group that deals with advertising and marketing of visitor accommodation. The Government is firmly of the view that it is reasonable to expect advertising platforms to take some responsibility for accommodation they are marketing. The Bill requires such platforms to take reasonable steps to include a valid registration number in their advertising. Failure to do so commits an offence. The Bill provides for a defence of reasonable excuse to be made in relevant circumstances.

Amendment 71 makes it explicit that if someone has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the requirements, or is not aware that they are breaching those requirements, then they will not commit an offence. What is reasonable would depend upon the facts, but might include steps such as informing accommodation providers a registration number is required, giving them space to include it in an advert, making it a contractual requirement for it to be included and updated, as necessary, and, where appropriate, checking the format of the number to confirm that it is indeed a registration number. And, of course, if an advertising platform were later informed an advert did not include a valid registration number, they will be expected to take it down. But this amendment, 71, makes clear that where it would not be reasonable for a person or platform constantly to monitor their listings or to perform ongoing checks, they will not have committed an offence.

Amendments 49, 70 and 71 put all the advertising, marketing and offering requirements under the Bill in sections 46 and 47. Should this be agreed, it would mean the requirements and associated offence for offering unlicensed regulated visitor accommodation would sit alongside the wider, more general requirements and offences for advertising and marketing visitor accommodation without a valid registration number. This not only provides greater clarity but, more importantly, allows the expanded defence offered under amendment 71 to apply in both cases. Amendment 71 additionally provides that a person can only be punished once for an offence under this section.

The remainder of the amendments in this group deal with the consequences of those changes. Amendment 50 updates section 32 to reflect the removal of the offence in relation to offering to provide unlicensed regulated visitor accommodation. Amendments 67, 68 and 69 make minor technical updates to section 46, and amendment 1 updates the overview section of the Bill to reflect the changes amendments 70 and 71 would make to Part 4.

Llywydd, the issues addressed by this group of amendments are ones that Sam Kurtz particularly has raised through the passage of the Bill. I'm grateful to him and industry bodies for their ongoing engagement on these issues, which has helped us to provide the clarity provided in these amendments, and I hope Members will feel able to support them.

I would like to begin by thanking all those who've worked to bring this Bill forward. I'm grateful for the constructive and consensual nature of the discussions that have taken place during its passage, and I'm pleased that we've been able to find common ground on many aspects of this legislation. The number of Government amendments brought forward at both Stage 2 and 3 demonstrates the value of the scrutiny process, particularly given the significant volume of legislation that has passed through this Senedd since the start of 2026.

Turning to the amendments in group 1, and specifically amendments 70 and 71, these relate to the issue of liability in relation to the registration number issued by the Welsh Revenue Authority. As has been alluded to, and at Stage 2, I did table amendments on this issue, as I had concerns about where liability would sit, particularly in relation to whether platforms or agencies might be expected to take on responsibility for ensuring that the registration number advised was accurate. My view has always been that the responsibility for ensuring the registration number is accurate and valid should sit with the visitor accommodation provider. It is the provider, rather than the agency or platform, that is issued the registration number by the WRA. I am, however, grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for taking time to discuss these concerns with me, and for the movement the Government has made from this point at Stage 2 to today. That engagement has helped to provide greater clarity around the intention of these provisions. On that basis, and in recognition of the progress that has been made following the amendments I tabled previously, I will be supporting the Government amendments in this group. Diolch.

I, too, would like to thank all those who have worked on this Bill. It has been a long journey, and the Cabinet Secretary rightly highlighted that it began its journey during the co-operation agreement. So, I would give specific thanks for the work that Siân Gwenllian, Adam Price and Cefin Campbell did throughout this process.

Of course, this Bill is the second part to the visitor levy Bill, to all intents and purposes, and, arguably, the most consequential of the two. Now, throughout this entire debate, throughout the debate on the visitor levy, we all became very well rehearsed around the lack of data in multiple parts of the wider economy, but this is a particular issue when it comes to the tourism sector for a number of reasons. Now, as we have outlined consistently, and as we have heard throughout the debate on this Bill and the visitor levy, tourism is a vital part of the economy. There is no disagreement on this. Making sure that it works with the communities it operates in will only strengthen it further as a sector by improving the tourism experience for those communities.

In relation to what we have before us today, being able to, firstly, understand how many visitor accommodations are operating in Wales, and, secondly, understand whether or not those accommodation providers are adhering to the safety standards we all expect them to do does two things. It gives visitors confidence when coming to Wales and it allows us to root out those bad-faith actors within the sector, but it also gives us the base knowledge of how our communities are operating, how many buildings are accommodations within those communities, and thereby allows us then to make informed decisions on policy.

I have appreciated those conversations facilitated by the Cabinet Secretary up until this point, and was glad to see our amendments at Stage 2 pass, looking forward, of course, to the debate at Stage 3. In relation to this group, we'll be supporting the Government amendments. I do think it's reasonable for advertising agents to take responsibility in the way that the Cabinet Secretary sets out. I would also say, to be fair to the Cabinet Secretary, he has set out consistently that this isn't about catching people out. That has been reflected by the provisions set out by the Cabinet Secretary, allowing for those people who have potentially committed an offence to correct that. I think that shows that commitment to this being something that isn't designed to catch people out. So, we will be supporting the amendments tabled by the Government in this group.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply, if he wishes to do so.

Just to thank colleagues for their indication of support for these amendments.

The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 1 is therefore agreed.

We will move immediately to group 2. This group of amendments relates to the development of tourism. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 108, and I call on Rhys ab Owen to move that amendment.

Thank you, Llywydd. I would like to emphasise at the start how grateful I am to everyone who has collaborated with me on this Bill, including the legal team, the committee clerks, and the Professional Association of Self-Caterers UK, PASC. Their efforts have been beneficial, because we have had success with some amendments at Stage 2, and I am very hopeful again for this amendment today. I would like to thank the Cabinet Secretary and his team for their dedication. You committed at Stage 2 to positive collaboration, and that has happened.

My amendments in this group require Ministers to publish the code. At present, there is a choice to publish or not. Perhaps some of you will question whether the code is important at all. Well, yes, it is, and this is why: the code will include, for example, guidance on customer service, accessibility, sustainability, environmental issues and promoting the Welsh language.

As the Cabinet Secretary has already said, the code of practice will ensure that people know what is expected of them, and that they can find ways to comply as conveniently as possible. This goes to Luke Fletcher's point earlier that there is a desire to collaborate with the sector. It's evident to me that there is a consensus that having such a document is vital. So I hope that you can support my efforts to ensure that this code is published.

In addition to that, I've been pleased to collaborate with the Cabinet Secretary to introduce a second amendment, namely amendment 109, which will enable the guidance to be withdrawn if, after consultation with organisations representing businesses that work in the area of tourism or that are involved in tourism-related activities in Wales, there is a view that the code is no longer of practical use.

As I hope is clear by now, promoting a positive relationship with and being helpful to the tourism sector is what is at the heart of this group of amendments. Thank you very much.

Moving on to the second group of amendments, I'd like to speak to those in my name, amendments 105 and 106. These amendments would require Welsh Ministers to prepare and publish a report on the promotion of tourism development in Wales, with particular consideration given to the current 182-day threshold for non-domestic rates, and what alternative minimum letting periods might be appropriate.

The 182-day rule has caused considerable concern across the sector. It is therefore essential that we get this right, both for the industry and for the wider Welsh economy. Operators need certainty about the rules they are working under, and we must ensure that any threshold strikes the right balance between regulation and supporting a sustainable visitor economy. We must also ensure that there is sufficient supply of visitor accommodation available when demand peaks, particularly in areas that rely heavily on tourism.

I've previously made clear my view that the current 182-day threshold is too high, and that a threshold closer to 105 nights would represent a more proportionate and realistic requirement for many providers. That is why I believe it is important that the Government undertakes further work to properly assess whether the current approach is the right one. For that reason, I seek the support of the Senedd for my amendments. Diolch, Llywydd.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply.

Thank you, Llywydd. May I start by thanking Rhys ab Owen for the constructive conversations that we had following Stage 2 on the issue of the publication of the code? Following those discussions, and having heard what Rhys ab Owen has said this afternoon, we are happy to support amendments 108 and 109.

I'm not in a position to support amendments 105 and 106. The duty that they create is for the Welsh Government to produce a report on tourism development. It's normal, of course, for Governments to review the effectiveness of policies. It's simply not necessary to legislate for reports to ensure that that happens, and a future Senedd Government should be allowed to exercise its responsibilities in this area in the normal way. That Government could then, if it wished, bring forward proposals in relation to the 182-day requirement, having had full consideration of the matter.

I remain convinced that requiring businesses to be available half of the year is not unreasonable if they wish to take advantage of the support that is there for businesses that declare themselves to be such, and that it creates a proper balance between the needs of the industry and the need for accommodation for people who live in those parts of Wales where tourism is an important part of the economy.

It's also the case, Llywydd, that the next Senedd will be able to scrutinise Ministers on their plans and their actions to support visitor accommodation, and for the Senedd itself to decide what it wants to hear, who it wants to hear from, and when it wants to hear it. For those reasons, I ask Members to support amendments 108 and 109, but to reject amendments 105 and 106.

Rhys ab Owen to reply.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his support. As well as supporting my amendments, I encourage you to vote for Sam's amendments too. During Stage 2, Sam will remember that I had proposed similar amendments to the one Sam has brought before the Chamber today, but I'm willing to admit that your amendment, Sam, is better than mine, because it includes that only one report is necessary. I think that does address the concern expressed by the Cabinet Secretary in response to me in Stage 2, namely that creating a legal target of publishing reports frequently takes officials' time away from other important work. So, I do support the amendment. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 108 is agreed to. Does any Member object? No. It's therefore agreed.

Rhys ab Owen, is amendment 109 moved? 

Are there any objections to amendment 109? No. It's therefore agreed.

Samuel Kurtz, is amendment 105 moved? 

Are there any objections to amendment 105? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 105. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 105 is not agreed.

Group 3 is next. The third group of amendments relates to technical and miscellaneous amendments. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 2, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move that amendment.

Diolch, Llywydd. As you've said, this group brings together technical amendments throughout the Bill. I'll try to be as brief as I can, while still providing a proper explanation of the purpose and effect of these amendments.

Amendments 2 to 4 provide minor clarifications to the definition of regulated visitor accommodation, and amendment 20 is consequential to amendment 3. Amendments 6 and 9 ensure the definition of fitness for visitor accommodation applies where a person is offering to provide the accommodation. Amendment 13 removes an unnecessary cross-reference, and amendments 15 and 25 update the licence condition and approval requirements in relation to registration. Amendment 18 provides that regulations about training do not need to make provision about a code of practice if there is no active code, either because it has not yet been produced or because it has been withdrawn.

Amendments 19, 23, 56, 60, 62 to 64 and 84 all update cross-references to the Welsh Ministers' regulatory functions, which are contained in Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. This was a point raised by the ETRA committee in Stage 1 in respect of the information notice powers, and we have reviewed all the similar references in the Bill as a result to make these clarifications. Amendment 61 updates the Welsh language version of the Bill to ensure it is equivalent to the English version. Amendment 85 is a technical clarification to the requirement to consult on the review of the operation of the Bill.

Finally, Llywydd, and more significantly, amendment 65 narrows the scope of the data-sharing gateway to be inserted in the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act 2016, to be clear that the scope only allows the sharing of information that relates to registration, not any other information held by the Welsh Revenue Authority. All of these amendments aim to support the clarity and effective operation of the Bill, and I would therefore ask Members to support them.

I'm sure Members will be glad to know that I won't be discussing the miscellaneous amendments, but I think this is the moment to just thank the Cabinet Secretary for including an addition to the explanatory memorandum around items such as waste collection. This is one of the most irritating things for constituents, where rubbish is presented on the wrong day and then it's spread around the streets and people have to put up with it day after day. I agree that it is not the right place to put it on the face of the Bill, but what the explanatory memorandum does at 3.57 and 3.58 is make it absolutely clear that, if you're providing visitor accommodation, it's a business, and therefore you need to be using business waste provision. It also emphasises that the Welsh Government intends to work with local authorities to support enforcement action that is already being undertaken by environmental health or housing enforcement, similar to Rent Smart Wales. I think that's a really useful clarification so that people realise that there are regulations and they need to be adhered to.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. There were very useful discussions at Stage 1 in front of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee about the responsibility of accommodation providers to ensure that those visitors who occupy their premises are aware of practical things like where waste is to be stored, the days it is to be collected and so on. And those discussions were followed up at Stage 2, when I was glad to be able to accept amendments from Luke Fletcher about the way in which nuisance caused by visitors can be responded to as part of this Bill. I was glad of the opportunity to include a reflection of those discussions in the updated explanatory memorandum, Llywydd. And as I said in my opening remarks, there will be a further updated memorandum to reflect the nature of decisions made by the Senedd this afternoon.

The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 2 is agreed.

Amendment 3. Is it moved by the Cabinet Secretary?

Are there any objections to amendment 3? There are none. It's therefore agreed.

Amendment 4.

Move.

Are there any objections to amendment 4? No. It's therefore agreed.