Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister

With that in mind, I'll go on to the first item of business, which is the thematic session. We have two sessions today. The first session will be on the theme of inter-governmental relations and the second session will be on topical issues, and we'll have a short break between the two. Can I welcome the First Minister? First Minister, would you like to introduce your officials for the record, please?

I've got Andrew Jeffreys accompanying me, who is in charge of finance in the Welsh Government. What's your official title?

I'm director of the Welsh Treasury.

There we are. And Piers Bisson, who is in charge of constitutional areas.

Yes, Piers Bisson, director of constitution.

Thank you. As I say, the first session is on inter-governmental relations, and we have some questions relating to those points. Perhaps I'll start off. First Minister, you've been First Minister only under the Labour Government at the moment—you were Minister and Cabinet Secretary previously under previous Governments—and you have often said that you now see a 'partnership in power' scenario and how it would benefit Wales. So, in your view now, how do you think we can assess that benefit and what formal structures will be put into place for us to do so, to ensure that the partnership in power actually does deliver for the people of Wales?

Thanks. I think the first thing to say is that what we've seen is much more frequent connections with the UK Government than we saw before. As health Minister, although there was a really good relationship during the pandemic, once that was over, basically we had hardly any connection with the health team in Westminster for, I think, about two years. So, things have changed significantly.

I have been in post now for eight months or so, and during that time, I've had official and unofficial contact with the Prime Minister six times. That's a huge difference, I would suggest, from what happened prior to the UK Labour Government. Some of that has been formal, some of that has been informal. One of the key things that has changed is the introduction of the Council of the Nations and Regions. There was an opportunity there for the Prime Minister and the heads of devolved Governments to meet prior to that, and we're expecting the second meeting of that to be held fairly soon.

You mentioned formal and informal. I think that's important for us, because formally, our evidence shows that you've actually had 16 formal inter-governmental meetings since the general election, but you had 35 in 2023 and 23 in 2022, so actually, we're behind previous years in formal meetings. How do we assess the informal? Because if it's informal, we can't assess it; we don't know when they occur.

Also, when we have the formal meetings, we often get a statement about that meeting four weeks, five weeks, six weeks beyond the meeting, so we actually don't know what's happened for several weeks. How do we get to know and therefore scrutinise those formal meetings, and also, how do we get to understand what happens in and what benefits we get from meetings that are informal?

I understand that you as a committee and the Senedd need to, in particular, have sight of what's happening during those formal meetings; that's why following those meetings we do try and provide a note on what happens. Sometimes, they happen pretty quickly. Just to give you an example from this week, I had a meeting with the Chancellor yesterday. We didn't know that was happening until Monday or Tuesday this week, so it was all very quick. There was an opportunity to speak to the Chancellor and we took it. How formal was that meeting? It was a meeting, but we tried to make sure that there was a difference between the political meeting and the formal meeting as well. So, a note will be provided on that. Maybe Piers could elaborate a little bit on the formality and informality.

Thank you. Certainly, over the course of 2025, we've definitely seen a picking up of the pace of inter-governmental meetings happening through the inter-ministerial groups. In addition to the middle tier and the Interministerial Standing Committee, and the finance equivalent to that, which have both met back last month, then there was also a meeting of the business and industry inter-ministerial group, which hadn't met for a couple of years before that. We've had probably up to around 10 of the inter-ministerial group meetings happening, whether it's environment, food and rural affairs, whether it's in relation to sports, whether it's in relation to elections—there's a range. So, there's been a picking up of the pace and the rhythm and the pattern of those meetings. We would say in this period that we're in now, and looking back over the last two or three months, we've definitely seen, as I say, a picking up and a strengthening of that overall pattern of engagement.

That's good to hear. I will give an example. We had a written statement this week of a meeting with one of the Ministers that took place in early February. It's the end of March. The indication was that there was a joint statement published on 25 March, if I remember rightly. For Members of the Senedd to be able to scrutinise Government and to understand what was discussed, and what may have caused the delay in the publication of the joint statement, that's coming way too late. How can we as Members of the Senedd actually have the information sufficiently in time to hold the Government to account, to ask questions about what was achieved in those meetings? This is the whole matter of scrutiny. We can have 100 meetings, but if we don't know what's going on, and we don't know what's going on for several weeks, it doesn't give us the opportunity to actually ask those questions. So, are you able to actually push the UK Government for earlier statements, for clarification as to what's happening, so that Members here can scrutinise?

Well, there's usually a communiqué after a meeting. I guess that would give you a sense of what was discussed, but I guess the more detailed information is something that the UK Government has and we have to wait for them to make that available to us. Is that right?

Yes, sometimes, communiqués and statements afterwards can take a while to actually then be agreed, and that might be a factor. I can't comment on the specific example that you've mentioned, but I'm more than happy to look through with counterparts within the Senedd Commission to think about whether there are ways in which we can speed up that process and try and make sure that the information is available as quickly as possible.

So, will you be looking at—? First Minister, you highlighted, I think, to the Welsh Affairs Committee that there is a review being undertaken of the relationships at the moment. I chaired the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee from 2016 onwards, and we were expecting an inter-governmental review for many years. It eventually happened, I think, after several years. You mentioned there's another review, now. So, what is the review going to deliver, and will you include in that review a request from the Welsh Government (a) for more detail in communiqués, (b) a speedier process in communiqués, and (c) consistency in communiqués, because there's inconsistency that occurs? So, will you make sure that those requests are given to the UK Government, and I suppose the question is: what processes are in place to actually make sure that those are pursued and followed?

Well, the current IGR was only set up in 2022, and the UK Government has only been in power for about 10 months, so they took a while to settle in and to get into the process. I think that would explain why some of those meetings at the beginning weren't at the frequency that we are seeing now. But there is a look at the moment at the different ministerial groups, looking at composition, and we're certainly happy to feed that back to them in the light of that review.

I suppose it all comes down to, in one sense, what the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales recommended, that those mechanisms should be statutory. Are those discussions going ahead with the UK Government?

Well, I think we're—. At the moment, we're in a position where we're trying to just make sure we get frequency, that they happen, so let's be practical and get that done first. The statutory part of it, I think, is certainly not off the agenda, but we're trying to just get on with making sure that we meet first; rather than focus on the more constitutional bits of it, let's get on with the practical bits that will make a difference to people's lives.

Okay.

Jenny, do you want to come in here, or Llyr, did you have a supplementary?

Well, yes, because you accepted that recommendation from the constitutional commission to put it on a statutory basis. So, you're now saying that that's no longer the case.

No, no, I'm certainly not saying that. I said that the order—. I'm much more interested in making sure we meet first. Let's make sure we meet regularly, that we know what's going on, that we establish those relationships. But we've made it clear to them that we would like to see that on a statutory basis.

Diolch.

Jenny.

I'm moving on to the difficulty of getting UK Ministers to appear before our committees. I assume, when you appeared before the Welsh Affairs Committee, you went down to London. Is that right?

I did, but I also made it clear to them that I'm not going to do this all the time. I'm accountable to the people of Wales, I'm not accountable to MPs in Westminster. I did it on a—

A courtesy basis.

—a courtesy basis, but they should not make any assumptions that they can call me to account in Westminster.

Okay, but looking at it from the other end of the telescope, the Equality and Social Justice Committee was endeavouring to get the prisons Minister in the same scrutiny session on the jagged edge of criminal justice as the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, because, otherwise, there's always the temptation for one of them to say, 'Well, actually, that's not my responsibility'. But that's an illustration of the jagged edge. So, Lord Timpson wrote to us to say that he was delighted to give evidence to us, but he's now saying that he can't come and actually see us in person. In an area where, clearly, there is quite a substantial responsibility for the prisons that are in Wales, you would expect his diary to be able to manage an appearance at one meeting in a year. So, I just wondered how that conversation with the UK Government to facilitate that—. Because we've had joint meetings with the Welsh Affairs Committee and that's proved—. In the past, under the past Government, that was a very profitable meeting.

Look, I can't speak for Lord Timpson—

No. I appreciate that, but I'm just talking about how we get more joined-up scrutiny of matters that are clearly of great interest to both Parliaments.

I understand that, and I know that Jane Hutt, for example, as the Minister responsible, has meetings with Lord Timpson. I don’t think she insists that they're face-to-face meetings all the time, so it may be something that you might want to consider, that, if you do want to ask them to—

Well, we are considering it. But the point is that where we've got issues with things where there's clearly an interface between the two Governments, you'd think that Members who are responsible for scrutinising how effectively that's working would endeavour to get them there together.

The other issue that has arisen is the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee have tried, on several occasions, to get the Secretary of State for Wales and Pat McFadden, who I think is the—I can't remember his title—

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

—you know, together, obviously, to discuss precisely all the interface that there is between what goes on in the UK Parliament, the UK Government and the Welsh Parliament and the Welsh Government. Yet they've made no progress whatsoever. So, if we're going to somehow try and iron out some of these bumps in the road, what conversations are you having along these lines, that it isn't just about inter-governmental, it is also about interparliamentary, liaison?

No, I appreciate that. Our focus is obviously on the Government part of it and making sure that we can move things on. I think it may be worth your while speaking to the Parliament in Westminster about whether there's any scope to work with them.

I can assure you that we do talk and there is an interparliamentary forum, which we participate in. But I think the point that Jenny made is that there are occasions when devolved responsibilities are shared, and sometimes the UK Government's decisions actually have a major impact upon a devolved area, and you may want to actually explore those with UK Ministers, because they're the ones making the decisions. I think we just want to ask the question: are you having discussions with UK Government as to how we can facilitate greater opportunities, when needed—as you say, not going up all the time or coming down all the time, but when needed—to actually have that joined-up scrutiny to look at how the two Governments would work together on certain scenarios: the youth justice scenario and the implications of what happens when people come out of prisons and the support that they require, and education in prisons, which, by the way, is Welsh Government's responsibility? And the Secretary of State for Wales. And very often—we'll come on to legislative consent memorandums in a minute—there are Bills being put forward and we have two lots of scrutiny of the Bills and the LCMs of the Bills, and there may be occasions when it's beneficial in that investigation to actually speak to a UK Government Minister. So, the question, I suppose, we're asking is: are you having those discussions to look at how that can be facilitated on those occasions?

Look, we are having discussions, obviously, on the jagged edges. And on something like youth justice, I know that the Deputy First Minister will be speaking to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster pretty soon. But it is not for me to instruct the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come and speak to your committee. He has to make that decision himself.

I think we're getting to a point—. We're not asking the question of you instructing, we're asking the question of what discussions you're having with Government to see whether that could be facilitated. There's a difference.

Well, look, I'm happy to speak to the Deputy First Minister to suggest that that's a topic that's picked up with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but, you know, it will be his decision, as to whether—. I can't make him do things.

Mark Isherwood.

Developing this theme, how could this, given your earlier comments about your own attendance at the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, for example, be developed into an informal reciprocal agreement between the two Governments to ensure a two-way transfer, where this arises? This didn’t just start occurring recently. I’m in my fifth term, and this has occurred throughout, under both Labour and Conservative UK Governments, on multiple matters. And there’s so much that the Senedd does, which our committees do, which our cross-party groups do, which require us to engage with the UK Government on a regular basis. Some relate to matters that are devolved, some reserved, and some matters that are reserved but the Welsh Government seeks to have devolved. So, how could you at an inter-governmental level agree some form of reciprocal arrangement, whereby committees in both houses can access Ministers from the other Government?

Well, I'm not sure if I'd want to do that, Mark, in the sense that I am not accountable to MPs in Westminster; I'm accountable to Senedd Members in this Chamber. And I wouldn't want to set a precedent where there's an expectation that I go to Westminster. If I go to Westminster, it's because I'm being kind, and because there are people there who represent constituencies in Wales. But I am not accountable to them, and I made that very clear at the beginning of my evidence when I went to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. So, I certainly wouldn't want to be signing up to a kind of blank cheque that I could be called to account in Westminster at any moment. I am accountable to this establishment, not to Westminster.

Llyr.

Well, couldn't that be exactly what UK Government Ministers are saying in reverse, as a justification for their non-attendance when asked to attend committees in our Parliament?

Well, that may be the case. I think there's a slight difference, in the sense that the jagged edges are things that are less clear when it comes to things like justice.

Llyr.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and I think it's unfair to compare—. If we make a decision here or if you, as a Government, make a decision in Wales, it doesn't really have the same impact on the UK as the other way around. When UK Ministers make decisions, they have a significant impact potentially on us here in Wales. So, I don't think it's a 50:50 relationship in terms of Ministers from here appearing at Westminster and vice versa. So, surely, you recognise that and you acknowledge that there would be more of an impetus on UK Ministers and Secretaries to appear before committees here when it's appropriate, and, obviously, when and if they are available.

Look, it's got to be a decision for them. I can't tell them what to do, right.

No, no. I know that.

They're—.

I'm asking for your opinion, rather than whether you think they—.

Look, I think, around the jagged edges that I think your committee is quite interested in, there probably is a case to be made there, and that's why I think I'm happy to ask the Deputy First Minister to bring that up with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, for example, when he meets him.

You told us two very interesting things in your earlier answers. One was that you've spoken with the Prime Minister six times since you became First Minister; some were informal, some were formal. How many of the six were formal?

Let's have a look. One, two, three—. So, I'll list them for you: he came on a visit, shortly after I was first elected, and we had a formal meeting then; I obviously met him in the Labour Party conference, so that was an informal—.

As First Minister or as a Labour Party—?

No, no, as a Labour Party—.

All right. Okay.

I think it makes—

No, just for clarity—I wasn't criticising. Just for clarity.

It's a relationship. I had a meeting at the Council of the Nations and Regions. I had a meeting in the British-Irish Council. We met briefly in the investment summit and we met briefly in Windsor castle.

Diolch yn fawr. You also told us that you didn't know that you were going have a meeting with the Chancellor until they contact you a few days before, so clearly that wasn't your initiative. Have you tried to have a meeting with the Chancellor, and would it not have been useful to have a meeting before the spring statement rather than as part of a photo op when she chose to come to Wales?

I did have a meeting with the Chancellor back in February, I think it was, and that was an opportunity to set out some of the concerns. So, I have had a meeting with the Chancellor.

We'll come back to that, probably, in the next session. Jenny, do you want to come back in on something?

No, I think we've covered it as far as we can go.

What we're trying to get at is the way in which we can undertake our scrutiny and our work. The relationship between the Welsh Government and the UK Government is important because the ability for Ministers to come to us from Westminster on various topics is important. I'll give an example. When we had the steel issue, it was very important that we had the Secretary of State for Wales at the time come to the Senedd to talk about it, because they made the decisions. So, it is important on occasions that we have that opportunity. So, if you can ensure that the Deputy First Minister has that message quite clearly when he goes to London, or when he has a meeting with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that's going to be crucial for us to do our work.

Linked to that is legislative consent memoranda. We've talked about LCMs. I want to pass on to Buffy at this point in time.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, First Minister. I have some questions, like the Chair has said, around LCMs. To date, there have been 143 LCMs or supplementary LCMs relating to 60 Bills in the sixth Senedd, already surpassing the total for the previous Senedd terms. Can you explain the reasons for this increase, and how do you respond to concerns that the Senedd is being sidelined due to the increase in UK Bills legislating in devolved areas?

Thanks very much, Buffy. Lots has changed in the sixth Senedd. We've had Brexit and there was a huge amount of work to get different laws onto the statute books, for example in relation to the environment and procurement. We wouldn't have had the capacity to do all of that in-house within the Welsh Government, and I don't think the Senedd would have had the capacity to deal with that either. There were all kinds of Acts—the trade Acts, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, Professional Qualifications Act 2022. All of those things were fall-out from Brexit, so there was a huge amount of work to do legislatively in relation to that.

I think it's probably worth stating that there are times when LCMs—. They're not all bad. There are times when I think they are unacceptable. So, when the UK Government legislates without the consent of the Welsh Government and the Senedd, I think that is absolutely a problem for us. Then there's a second instance where there's a rush to legislate and we don't really have an opportunity and the Senedd doesn't have an opportunity to scrutinise in the way that it should, but again, that's slightly out of our control. But I think that's problematic.

And then the third one is, actually, there are times when if they're putting something through that we agree with, why wouldn't we hitch a ride on the bus? So, look at something like the vapes legislation and things coming in. Yes, we could wait in what is a packed legislative agenda to do our own law on vapes, but the fact is our legislative work is packed already so why wouldn't we hitch a ride on a UK Government Bill if it's going to be in our interests, and, more than that, in the interests of protecting young people in Wales?

Thank you for that answer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee has described the Welsh Government’s use of UK Parliament Bills to legislate in devolved areas as a regrettable and unwelcome approach to devolution that is reminiscent of the executive devolution of the first and second Assemblies. How do you respond to these concerns?

I'm really grateful to the committee for its role in terms of scrutiny in this area, but I'm afraid I don't agree with the conclusions, because of the points that I've just made. I think there are occasions when you can justify hitching a ride, as I suggest, with UK Government legislation. We start our Senedd term with a clear set of ideas, in terms of manifesto principles and legislation that we'd like to enact. We set out our capacity in relation to that, and all of a sudden we might get a UK Government Bill just hitting us and we have to make a judgment with the capacity that we've got. So, that is something that, again, is a little bit out of our control. Piers, is there something you could add to that, do you think?

As the First Minister described, we would start a Senedd term with a legislative programme that looks to make the most of the capacity that we have within the Welsh Government. Obviously, then, around the point of a King's Speech, we would start seeing more information around the UK Government's legislative programme and whether there would be Bills within there that we might look to take advantage of, or ones that, inevitably, will have an impact on Wales.

There has been a whole range of different circumstances over the years, and at those points in time we're trying to understand whether the approaches in those Bills are ones that the Welsh Ministers support, how we deal with Bills where there might be a different context to that and what we do, and whether there are discussions with the UK Government to seek to reach agreement on the provisions and how they might then apply to Wales.

So, it is one where we are, then, needing to adapt to what we hear and what we see from the UK Government, and there are times, then, when we obviously look to take advantage of UK Government Bills to achieve provision for Wales, perhaps sooner than we might do otherwise if we were to leave it to a later point and look to develop something within our legislative programme subsequently.

Before Buffy comes back in, can I ask a question on that? Are we saying that due to the limited capacity within the Welsh Government, we are not taking the full opportunities to look at how Bills may work better for us if we did it ourselves, rather than following the UK Government?

I think when we see proposals for a UK Government Bill, then we give consideration to whether that's appropriate in a UK Government Bill, whether that's something where we want to see whether we can develop a proposal for ourselves, and, if so, at what stage in our legislative programme we might be able to do so. There is then a judgment to be made about whether it's something that we can look to have in a Welsh Bill and what the time frame for that would be, or whether it would be something that is achievable in an appropriate way, perhaps in a swifter way, within a UK Bill. But that is all built on the platform that we develop a legislative programme in the first instance, cognisant of the capacity we have, and we look to make best use of the capacity that we have in the Welsh Government to pull together a full legislative programme in the first instance ourselves.

Sorry, Buffy—keep going, and then I'll bring Jenny in.

I think Carolyn wanted to come in here, Chair.

I've got Jenny who wants to come in first, then I'll bring Carolyn in.

I think the First Minister makes an entirely logical argument when we're talking about things that involve our porous border, like the regulation of vapes or the taxing of ultra-processed food, which I'm desperate for the UK Government to get on with, simply because it would lead to inappropriate trading across borders, which would be very difficult to close down. But I think the issue here is around things where the UK Government is legislating on something that's going to have a significant impact on the way in which we protect the well-being of our citizens. It could be around management of data; it could be around medicines management—there could be many other things. I think that one of the problems with the LCM process is that we can't suggest amendments, because they just go nowhere. We may very well have an eye on something that's significant and useful to tighten a Bill, and there just isn't that process there. So, how we get around that, and have there been any conversations with the UK Government on how suggestions from other legislatures could be given due consideration within the UK parliamentary process of scrutiny?

Well, there is a mechanism and it's through the House of Lords. It's not very satisfactory from a constitutional point of view, but that is a way, and certainly I know, in the past, there have been amendments made through the House of Lords. That demonstrates why, personally, I think there should be a reform of the House of Lords, and if it reflected the nations and regions, that would be an appropriate place for that to happen. That's not the situation, but, in practical terms, there are examples where amendments have been made that have been beneficial to Wales through the House of Lords.

I also think it's not just about the situation in terms of cross-border porous areas. I'd be very surprised, Jenny, if you, for example, would not want to see a Bill that addresses the blanket ban on prospective tenants with children or people on benefits being able to rent accommodation. There's the renters Bill going through the House of Commons now, and I for one think that's something I'd want to sign up to. Do we want to just hitch a ride now, or do we want to say, 'No, we think it's a good idea, but we want to do it ourselves', when actually that might take a few years for us to get through? I'm personally in the space of, 'Let's try and give that protection as soon as possible to the people in our country.'

I would agree with you, obviously; there are things that I would have no difficulty passing, and there are other things, around the control of the internet, where, clearly, there's a much more difficult challenge than simply our geographical regions. But, nevertheless, it's this issue of being able to influence Bills and strengthen them. You've given us the clear path that we have to go to through the House of Lords, which is a route, but it's not very satisfactory at the moment, I agree.

Piers, do you want to add anything?

Just to pick up further, obviously, when committees currently give consideration to UK Government Bills and legislative consent memoranda, when recommendations are made, Welsh Ministers consider those very carefully, and there will be points at which we actually look to pick up perhaps the strength of a recommendation in discussions with the UK Government, assuming the timetable allows for that to happen. So, some of those mechanisms, I think, we can use. I would like us to be able to use that more, and then, hopefully, when we do have discussions further around an MOU on Sewel with the UK Government, then that's something that we could look to pick up further about how you try and make sure that the views and recommendations through from, in this case, the Senedd, are then being able to be taken into account more during the parliamentary passage of a Bill within UK Parliament.

Before I bring Carolyn in on this point, just for clarification, there is no formal mechanism for the Lords. I remember, when we did the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, it was an informal relationship that existed, and we had Lords who were prepared to take the amendments forward. So, we still rely on an informal process in that mechanism. Again, perhaps when the Deputy First Minister goes and has that discussion with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, perhaps he can look at how we can make some form of observation. Because amendments are very often, for us, at the Lords stage, not at the Commons stage, and sometimes we need to make the Commons stage, where they do the scrutiny, to try and catch them earlier. It may be something we want to ask the Government, to have those discussions as to what is the possibility other than the use of the Lords to do that, because that does depend upon Lords wanting to take them on for us. Carolyn.

Thank you. I wanted to give an example. Under the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the national underground asset register, which would be welcome, was added at a later stage as it was going through under the previous UK Government. Under that, the powers for decisions and design of the national underground asset register would be given to the Secretary of State, which has been raised at our committee as a concern. I know that the Welsh Government have also written to say it's a concern as well. But, at the moment, local government street works departments deal with the underground assets, because they're under the highway—I've spoken about this before–and it comes under planning. It is a big issue, and I'm worried that we will lose the powers that will go to the Secretary of State, and I don't think they quite understand the implications of it. Now, I know the Government has written, raising concerns, but what can we do as Senedd Members as well, other than just write to the Government as a Senedd committee?

I think there's been some progress in relation to that. Can I ask Piers just to update you?

My understanding is that, just in relatively recent days, there have been some amendments that have been tabled to that Bill, and the part which you referred to, and colleagues are working on a supplementary legislative consent memorandum to come forward. But I think that that represents positive progress on the source of concern, which you've absolutely articulated and which we have shared as we've seen the development and passage of that Bill. So, I am hopeful that there is a positive moment that we are at in respect of the points that you raised and the concerns expressed.

Could we ask for more detail on that? That would be really useful.

Yes, we can send you detail, but I think it's really positive. I think it's something that we should celebrate, where, actually, our engagement has made a difference. We've seen a change and they've listened to us. There you go—there's a little bit of partnership in power for you right there.

Well, I think a change of Government and a change of attitude has been really helpful on this matter, but also raising the impact of it on the ground as well. It's been useful, the communications between the two Governments. Sometimes what you think it's about, there's a lot more to it; it's not quite as straightforward. So, that is really positive. Thank you.

Can I just also mention other areas? So, for example, on the roll-out of the deposit-return scheme, I believe this conversation is happening now with the UK Government, but also planning. So, in Wales, we've got the future generations well-being Act and we're a member of the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance. So, sometimes I feel like our policies might not quite match what we're hoping to achieve in Wales. I'm hopeful, now we've got the Welsh Government working with the UK Government, that there are more conversations taking place, going forward, so there's more joined-up thinking. Is that something that you believe is happening now?

Yes, I think things are definitely improving. There are examples where we're miles ahead of England. An example of that is on waste. So, in the way we deal with waste, we are miles ahead of England. What we don't want to do is to wait for them to catch up in relation to something like that. So, hence why we were quite keen to see a deposit-return scheme in relation to glass and things. So, there have been a lot of conversations around that, and there will be examples where there'll be tensions. It's called devolution. We do things differently. We have different priorities. That's not something we should have a problem with. It's something we should celebrate. It'll become a problem if we can't do what we want to do in areas where we have devolved responsibilities. So, I think there are some firm conversations going on around these things, and I think we're all still getting used to each other in terms of understanding that devolution means that we do things our own way in Wales, and I will always stand up for Wales and make sure that there is an understanding that, if it's a devolved area and we want to do something different, we will exert our right to do that.

Buffy, do you want to add anything else to your LCM questions?

I just had one final question, Chair, if I may. What consideration has the Welsh Government given to whether it will lay a legislative consent memorandum regarding the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill?

I think this question is in particular relation to the fact that there have been two amendments recently that give powers to Welsh Ministers.

Right. First of all, I think the private Member's Bill raises a really profound issue. It's got lots of operational, moral, legal, constitutional implications, so this is not going to be straightforward. It's not going to be simple. We're in contact with the UK Government on this. We're monitoring the Bill's progress. Work on a Welsh Government policy impact assessment has already begun. Now that the Committee Stage has concluded in the House of Commons, the Bill's going to be assessed under Standing Order 29, and we're currently determining whether an LCM will need to be laid in the Senedd. I think we can probably all guess what the answer to that is likely to be, but we're expecting to have to set out a memorandum in terms of the initial description of the Bill in the next few weeks.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Russell.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, First Minister. Can you tell us about progress the Welsh Government is making on taking forward the recommendations of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales? Where are we at?

Thanks very much and it's lovely to be back in front of you again, Russell. I'd just first say that we are committed to all 10 recommendations. Some of them will be much tougher than others to enact because they're not totally within our powers to make happen. I just think it's important to set that out. We're currently establishing the innovating democracy advisory group. We've appointed a chair, Dr Anwen Elias, who is going to I think play forward a key part in terms of those recommendations. This is, really, to strengthen democracy and democratic engagement, and the new innovating democracy advisory group is going to help tackle the commission's first two recommendations. I know that, on the other areas, the Deputy First Minister and I have both raised the commission's work in our meetings with UK Government Ministers.

When is that group likely to report, do you think?

I don't know when it's likely to report. Do you have the details on that?

We're just going through the process of appointing other members of the group at the moment, and I would expect that the Deputy First Minister would issue a written statement in the near future just to confirm appointments when those have been possible. We would then expect the group to start its work probably around May, and then there will be a forward work programme that is agreed, obviously, with the chair and with the group as a whole. I think we would anticipate, hopefully, being able to see then some products coming through over the course of the year that then follows—i.e. in this Senedd term—but we'll agree a work programme as the group gets constituted.

So, you think there should be some progress and a report made prior to the next Senedd election.

I would hope we would see some advice through from the group in this Senedd term, yes.

Okay. Thank you. Now, the Labour 2024 general election manifesto stated that

'Labour recognises that the Welsh Fiscal Framework is out of date',

and that, of course, is your position as well. That's right, isn't it, First Minister?

It is.

So, can you tell us what discussions you've had with the UK Government in that regard around the fiscal framework and also the review of the Barnett formula?

Well, I mentioned to the Chancellor yesterday that we would like to see reform of the fiscal framework. That was something that I reminded her was in the UK Labour manifesto.

What did she say?

She said that all of these things are going to be considered in the context of the spring budget. So, you know, we'll have to wait and see, but that's—

Spending review.

The spending review. I always get them mixed up. The spending review, which is in the spring.

In June.

That's why I get confused. It's June, yes. So, yes, something we're particularly pressing on is enhanced budget flexibilities in the meantime. So, you've got the reform of the Barnett formula and all of that, and we still think that that is something that needs to be done. But, in the meantime, we want to see more flexibilities in relation to our current budget.

So, if I've got that right, you're saying that the Chancellor was open to a review of the Barnett formula, following your discussions this week.

She was certainly—. It was what was committed within the Labour manifesto, which was the Welsh fiscal framework is out of date and needed to be changed. So, that was the commitment. That was what she said we need to look out for.

Okay, because, in November, the UK Government said it had no plans to review the Barnett formula.

So, these are two different things. Can I ask Andrew to come in?

Yes, sure. So, yes, definitely, the Welsh Government's position remains that public spending in the UK should be distributed based on need rather than by the Barnett formula. But the UK Government doesn't seem interested in any substantial reform to the way that system works. So, our focus is on making improvements to the more specific elements of the system that we operate within. So, yes, the fiscal framework has a number of different aspects to it. The key focus for change, really, is on things like the Welsh Government's borrowing limits, the extent to which we can carry forward funding in the Wales reserve, the extent to which we can draw funding that has been carried forward from the Wales reserve. So, there are limits on all of those things, fixed by the Treasury, in the fiscal framework, which was agreed—well, it was introduced—in 2018-19. There haven't been any changes to those fixed limits in that time. So, our borrowing limit, for example, is worth about almost 30 per cent less in real terms now than it was when it was first established. So, there are changes like that that we think can and should be made as quickly as possible.

Okay. Understood. So, the Welsh Government has a different position in terms of the Barnett formula to the UK Government—that's correct?

They know that that's our position. You know, that's not going away.

Yes. Okay. And then, when you had your discussions with the Chancellor—this week, you said—as well, did you discuss the disputes over rail infrastructure and funding in Wales?

Yes, that was the No. 1 point on my agenda—the fact that we think Wales has been short-changed when it comes to rail infrastructure in Wales, and that we were pleased to see that the UK Government has now acknowledged the historic low levels of enhancement spending on railways in Wales. And, once again, she suggested that this is something that may be considered in the forthcoming spring budget. No, not the spring budget—the spending review.

The spending review in June. Is that right?

The spending review, yes.

Yes. Okay. Were you satisfied with that? Were you satisfied with that discussion and conversation?

Look, this is an ongoing conversation. This is not something new; it's not the first time I've raised this issue with her. And I've also had really constructive conversations with the Secretary of State for Transport, as has Ken Skates. Look, I think those conversations are heading in the right direction, and we've explained that our top priorities are the recommendations of the north Wales and south-east Wales transport commissions, and that includes the need for new stations and capacity improvements to support more and new services. I made it clear that this is a part of an economic development strategy as much as anything else, but is also absolutely in keeping with the four priorities that I've set out as First Minister.

Okay. Now, the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, it recommended that responsibility, of course, for justice and policing should be devolved. The Welsh Government welcomed those recommendations. So, can you tell us about what discussions you've had with the UK Government in that regard?

So, I've personally raised this with the Prime Minister and also with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and obviously the Secretary of State for Wales. The Deputy First Minister has done likewise, and he is due to meet the Lord Chancellor next month to continue the conversation in relation to this.

Can I bring in Jenny on this one, then, please?

Yes, I'll come back.

Okay. So, I want to examine the progress that's been made on the devolution of youth justice and probation, because these are the most obvious examples of the jagged edge that is mainly resting with Welsh Ministers. Are you able to give us any concrete progress on that? Because I've seen progress being made in the concordat around administration of welfare benefits, but nothing on youth justice and probation.

So, the UK Labour manifesto said that:

'As part of the strategic review into probation, we will explore the devolution of services to enable them to be more locally responsive.'

And it also says that:

'We will work with the Welsh Labour Government to consider devolution of youth justice.'

So, those are the two commitments that the UK Government has made. We've shared some of our early thinking with the UK Government, including the research papers that we've done on youth justice and probation that we commissioned last year. I think these were reasonably positively received, but now we have set up those more detailed conversations with the Ministry of Justice, and, as I suggest, that's exactly what the Deputy First Minister will be doing in the next few weeks.

Okay. Because I had a meeting yesterday, as it happens, with Safer Wales, and there are clear examples of where we're going way ahead of what I'm aware of in England in terms of deviating people away from being sent to prison and capturing them earlier, and also seeing the holistic picture, not just saying, 'This is only for first offenders', because there are complex issues around violence against women and adverse childhood experiences that mean it's a long piece of work, and needs careful work. So, it is frustrating that, as yet, there's nothing tangible going on. There's some urgency on this in order to be able to spend public money more effectively.

No, I think this is an example where we have some of the services that would really help to support people from being kept out of the system, including mental health support; that's fairly fundamental as well. But, as I say, these things will be discussed by the Deputy First Minister.

But there's nothing that you can tangibly see that can be completed before the end of this Senedd.

Well, I'm not giving up on it, no. I'm not giving up on it. We've done quite a lot of the work ourselves, but, at some point, we need them to dance with us. So, I think that's where we're at. Is there anything to add to that?

No. We're very much hoping, following the Deputy First Minister's meeting with the Lord Chancellor, then we'll be able to accelerate on with discussions in more detail through with UK Government counterparts.

Okay. Because, at the moment, the criminal justice system is broken, and I think we could do a lot better than what is being done, directed from London, partly because we haven't got the Daily Mail on our backs in the same way.

Russell.

Yes. You said in response to Jenny's question that you shared your preparedness, your documents, in regard to the devolution of justice with the UK Government. Have they given you any formal response to that?

I don't know if they've given us a formal response, but I know that they were reasonably positively received.

Yes, that's right. There wasn't a sort of formal request for a formal response, but it was something that I think has been referenced in some of the discussions that have happened by colleagues at official level as a prelude then to the ministerial conversations.

Okay, thank you.

Before I ask Mark to come in, Mark, is it on this particular topic? Mark.

It's following on from other comments actually made. In terms of Jenny's comments, I'd be interested in the First Minister's view on the position that devolution of matters is a matter of constitutional reform, not transient policies of different Governments, whether they're of the same party or different parties, because different Governments, even if these matters were devolved in Wales, would change their policies over the years, as will successive Governments at UK level. So, we should separate the current policy priorities of any Government from the permanent changes introduced by constitutional reform, and the merits that might apply to that. But, if these matters or any other matters were to be devolved, are you completely confident that, under the current arrangements, they'd be fully Barnettised and that the cost, not only of delivering equivalent services in Wales, but of establishing the corporate structures and the expertise to do so, would be there?

I don't think we've got into that level of conversation, Mark. Is that right?

Not at this point in time, but I think the constitutional commission’s recommendation on all areas of further devolution made reference specifically to making sure that there was a fair funding transfer at the point of devolution of any further functions.

I think that is something we've got to be really careful about. If we keep on asking for things to be devolved, and we don't get the money, we are setting ourselves up to fail as an institution, and I don't think that's somewhere we want to be.

Our experience has tended to be that, when functions are devolved, or parts of functions are devolved, we don't get a transfer of funding sufficient to cover the costs of actually operating that function in a devolved context. In my experience, anyway, there's always a gap, and that's something we should be aware of when we're considering these kinds of issues.

Carolyn, did you want to come in on this particular point?

It's regarding finance. Can I just ask a question, please?

On finance of what?

So, previously, we had the aggregates levy fund for Wales, which was really valued by communities. It's quite significant. It really helped them if they were impacted by quarrying and quarry lorries, and used for lots of community initiatives—village halls, play areas—and it's something I've been raising with the Cabinet Secretary for finance, and he said that he would be having discussions over it. But I've been asking for quite a while, and I was just wondering if it's something that you're aware of. I believe, with quarries now, some have been mothballed, but planning is coming through again for them to reoperate, and it would be really valuable if we could have that money back in Wales.

Carolyn, can we come back to you on that? I know it's kind of a green tax on the commercial extraction of aggregates, but, if you don't mind, we'll come back to you with a bit more detail.

Thank you.

On this?

Yes. I wanted to discuss the concordat and how it relates to welfare benefits.

I'll come back to that, because it's the next stage. Russell.

I'm just trying to clarify. When areas of UK Government responsibility are devolved to Wales, you're suggesting the money doesn't automatically follow it. I just thought that's bizarre.

We get it, but not enough.

Yes, money follows, but it's very rarely sufficient to cover the actual cost of operating the function. What tends to be transferred is what the UK Government saves from no longer having to operate the function in Wales, if that makes sense.

But it's automatically Barnettised, I assume.

No, it tends to be what we call a baseline transfer. So, the UK Government will say, 'It costs us'—I don't know—'£100 to operate this function at the moment. We'll transfer you that.' But that's not necessarily the amount it that it will cost us to operate the function on a Wales-only basis. So, for example, when we devolved some powers over taxation, for example, that saved His Majesty's Revenue and Customs a few hundred thousand pounds not having to apply those taxes in Wales. It costs us about £5 million or £6 million to operate them, a year, in Wales, so the gap is often quite large between—

Is this approach acceptable?

No, of course it's not.

How is that being addressed, from your perspective, from Welsh Government?

Part of the challenge is that if you want the function—. If the function is something that Government is keen to have devolved and the Senedd thinks is a good idea, then there's a kind of deal done at the time of the transfer of the function where you accept the rough and the smooth that comes with that.

This is messy, surely. Is this done elsewhere across—?

Oh, it's totally messy.

The same happens when things get devolved to Scotland or—.

Okay. Jenny, on this point.

Yes. The concordat you published on 24 February between the two Governments helpfully says that:

'Before reaching a decision on the transfer of executive functions, the Welsh Government and the UK government will identify the administrative, programme and capital costs involved in the exercise of those functions in relation to Wales, taking full account of all relevant factors.'

Now, I took that to mean that there were serious discussions going on about what duties and responsibilities we would be taking on if we undertook the administration of welfare benefits in Wales, just as they have in Scotland. So, is that not what it means? Because, clearly, we need to discuss how much it costs to run various buildings as well as the staffing involved, but the actual policy discussions we've had with Sir Stephen Timms have been very positive around reshaping the Department for Work and Pensions to be much more a helping hand than a punitive stick. So, could you just tell us exactly how the Welsh Government is taking forward what I think is a very positive approach by the current Minister for pensions and disability, as I think his title is?

We are definitely exploring the devolution of the administration of welfare—so, not the benefits system, but the administration—and I think this would give us an opportunity to align the welfare system more closely to our existing devolved functions and policies. And we could do some better wraparound care around people. We could point them to services. You can see how successful we've been in relation to tackling youth unemployment compared to England. So, there are examples. We have got to be really vigilant, though, because our experience in the past is that we don't get all the money that we should get in relation to this. So, I just think we've got to be vigilant, and, whilst there is a concordat, none of this has happened yet. I'd want to see the detail of how much we think it would cost us and how much they would offer. And you have got to be careful with this stuff. Some of it is—. Setting up an entirely new system is expensive. If you look at the rail infrastructure, for example, I know there's a big debate about should we have rail infrastructure. Well, the legacy of rail infrastructure is so expensive. If they just said, 'Yes, take it away, it's up to you now,' I think it would be really problematic in the sense that there's a big legacy that we would have to make up in Wales. We've just got to be very careful in terms of what we ask for and what the implications are, because if you want to put money into that it means you're not putting money, then, into hospitals and all those other things that matter.

Totally, but we're never going to get the redistribution of resources if we continue to have all these things run by the UK Treasury, who, frankly, most of them have never been to Wales. So, what about the alliances you may be having with important regional players like the mayor of Greater Manchester and Yorkshire and these sorts of places, because these issues must be coming up all over the place? We've got this unbelievably overcentralised system at the moment, and it doesn't enable you to innovate. When did the UK Government ever pay attention to our much lower rate of those not in employment, education or training in Wales compared with the headline figures that Rachel Reeves gave in her spring statement?

That was an example I gave her yesterday. Our youth unemployment figures are half the rate that they are in England, and she was keen to learn from that, what we've been doing, what our youth guarantee means and the fact that we are much quicker to address mental health issues amongst young people than they are in England. But there are, I think, examples of where they will allow us to do a lot more in this space. So, for example, the trailblazers plan that they've got now in relation to tackling economic inactivity, I think there will be scope for us to do our own things around that. And that's money that we should get from the UK Government to help with that.

But, concretely, on the administration of benefits, where we definitely have a different attitude towards helping people get back into work, rather than looking for ways in which we can take money off them, I think that Sir Stephen Timms has got the right attitude, but he may move on. And we therefore need to try and move forward on getting this much more helpful approach to ensuring that all of our citizens are in work if they're able to be.

So, as I say, it is something we're exploring at the moment, but I would want to know that we'd get the money to cover that.

But nothing concrete you can tell us about, that next month there's going to be a meeting to discuss these assets.

Not at this point, but—. Is there anything? I think that conversations are going on all the time. And obviously, these new welfare reforms are all quite new, so we're having to digest what are the implications of those, how is that going to work. They're going to put £1 billion extra into precisely standing by people and trying to support them into work. How does that work alongside some of the projects that we have? So, we just need a bit more time to digest what came out this week and last week.

Fair enough. But, by the time we meet again in this committee, you think that you'll have something concrete.

Well, look, I think that there's a lot going on in the welfare space at the moment and I think we do need to see what more we could do. My ambition is to help people to get into work so that they are not in a poverty trap.

We'll come on to, I'm sure, the spring statement in the next session, probably, because we haven't got time left in this session, but you did mention rail infrastructure and I think Russell moved on very quickly before we could get to Llyr and his supplementary.

Yes, thank you, Chair. You mentioned that discussing historic rail underfunding and righting the wrong, maybe, in terms of rail funding to Wales was something that was top of your list in your discussions with the Chancellor this week. And you said that the conclusion of your discussion was that, and I quote what you told us earlier, that she suggested that it may be considered. So, you can't actually say that it will be considered, because she only suggested that it may be considered. Is that the outcome of your discussions?

We've been talking about this for months. This is an ongoing conversation. I've never met a Chancellor who is going to tell you what's going to happen in her budget beforehand. So, Llyr, if you know anybody else who knows a Chancellor who is going to tell you what's going to be, then name that person, because—

But she didn't even say that she'd consider it.

Sorry?

She didn't even say that she would consider it.

Oh, it's far further than consider. I think we're in a very detailed conversation about how it will work and what projects might be supported.

And is there information about that detail available, or are you intending to update Members on those discussions?

So, those conversations are going on between Ken Skates and the transport Secretary, and when there's something to report I'm sure he will report it.

Just broadly, then, on inter-governmental relations, you said, obviously, post general election at the UK level, you're getting used to it, in terms of the new relationship with the Government. But doesn't that drive to the heart of what we should have here, in that people change, yes, but structures shouldn't change dependent on who wins, who loses? You explained to me earlier that putting inter-governmental structures on a statutory footing isn't maybe your overriding priority, but—

I want it to happen, yes.

—I think you said it's work in progress. Can I ask about putting Sewel on a statutory basis, then, because obviously that was something that, again, the commission suggested and that the Welsh Government supported? I know that there's a memorandum of understanding that's been proposed by the UK Government. Can you just update us on any progress in relation to that?

So, we're really keen to make sure that this is something that is taken into consideration. So, we've been very clear with the UK Government on this. We have—

Sorry, what is taken into consideration? The statutory footing?

Yes. So, there is a discussion ongoing about the changes needed in relation to Sewel. Would you like to—

So, you're pitching for it to be put on a statutory basis.

That's where I'd like to be.

Well, you're First Minister, not the official—

Yes, that's where I'd like to be. Yes.

So, that is your intention from these discussions at the moment.

That's definitely where we'd like to get to and it's something that is shared with other devolved nations around the UK.

Do you want me to—?

Yes.

So, we're hoping that there will be further discussions around the memorandum of understanding in the coming months. I think there is scope for that to be a useful first step. Obviously, the constitutional commission recommended putting it on a statutory footing, and the Government has accepted and is committed to those recommendations. We're looking forward to those discussions with the UK Government and indeed the other devolved Governments and seeing where the MOU can go, but the commitment, following the constitutional commission's recommendation, remains.

So, those discussions haven't started yet, but you're hoping that they will in the next few months.

Yes. Sewel has featured prominently in a lot of the ministerial and official-level conversations. We're expecting to move into more formal conversations on an MOU in the coming months.

Okay, diolch. Thank you.

Do you want to go on to the next step?

Oh, yes, okay. Well, we're coming on to the Crown Estate then, if we may, which is another hot potato in terms of inter-governmental relations. Just to confirm again that it is Welsh Labour Government policy to devolve the Crown Estate.

Certainly Welsh Labour—yes, absolutely.

Okay, because some people will find it difficult to understand that the Welsh Labour Government's policy is to devolve, but then Welsh Labour MPs at Westminster voted against that when they had the opportunity.

Well, this is the world of devolution.

I'm just wondering how that made you feel.

Llyr, this is called devolution.

And I'm asking you how did that make you feel. Did you lose the argument then within the Labour Party, or how did that work?

I'm going to stand up for Wales. I'm going to do what I need to do, as the leader of the nation—

So, unsuccessfully in this case.

Well, I will keep on making the case. This is something that I'm very keen to pursue and I don't want to see a situation where Welsh resources are exploited and Welsh people don't actually benefit from them. I will not put up with that situation. So, we will continue to make the case for devolution of the Crown Estate.

But, when you talk about a partnership in power, some people will look at that as another example of where, maybe, that partnership is really not cutting it.

Look, there will be times when the partnership in power works well, and there'll be times when it doesn't. And those times—. This is devolution. We're not always going to agree. I'm going to be very clear that there are times when they're not going as far as I want, my party or not—you know, my nation comes first.

Can I ask then about the next step on that journey then in making the case and in eventually, hopefully, winning the argument—where do you go next on that?

Look, I think there are things that we can do to make sure that we benefit from the exploitation of natural resources in our country.

Such as?

Well, there are things that I'm asking people to explore at the moment, but they are very much at the exploratory phase.

So, what kind of things are you asking people to explore?

Well, they're at the very early stages, so, I wouldn't want to go into those at this point in time.

I've got Mark, who wants to ask a supplementary, Llyr, if you can hang on a second.

Okay.

Mark.

Thank you very much indeed. As you'll know, with the exception of monopolies and badly commissioned franchises, businesses—whether they're for profit or non-profit—don't make a surplus unless they deliver a quality product or service at an efficient price. And also you'll be aware that there are many precedents where Government takeovers of organisations have ultimately led to taxpayer subsidy rather than surplus. So, what impact assessments have you made, or will you be making, including economic impact assessments, for the devolution of the Crown Estate?

Can I ask Andrew to help out with that?

Yes, sure. So, it was obviously a recommendation of the commission on the constitutional future to devolve the Crown Estate and that's Government policy to pursue that. But, yes, a key question that we will be considering as we go through this process of making the case is, yes, what are the costs and benefits of devolution of that element of the Crown Estate. There are clearly going to be some potential advantages, upsides, to Wales of that, but there are potentially some downsides in terms of the efficiency of the Crown Estate's operation, potentially. I know that's one of the things that UK Government is focusing on when we make the case to them, that, by breaking up the Crown Estate, there are risks to its efficiency. So, all of those kinds of aspects would need to be considered and taken into account in an overall assessment of the case, and, crucially, the kind of terms on which any devolution would take place. But I feel like we're still at the relatively early stages of this debate with the UK Government. We're making the case to them for this change; they're, basically, saying they don't think that's the right thing to do. Maybe we'll get into more of a kind of, 'Okay, so how would that look in practice if it happened?' But we're not really at that stage at the moment.

Okay. If we come back to Llyr now.

So, given that the UK Government basically whipped their Members to vote against the opportunity to devolve, are they still open to discussion, then, because it doesn't seem like an act of somebody who's—

No, I don't think they're particularly keen on doing this, and particularly, at this point in time, they're in the middle of a bidding round, and I can see that that might destabilise some potential investment, so I can see why they wouldn't agree to it at this point in time. But that's not to say that we're giving up, and that we won't continue to make the case.

So, in continuing to make the case, one of the things that was agreed through the commission for constitutional future was this expert group to advise on how to proceed with that. So, can you give us an update on where that expert group is at, really, and what progress you've made in establishing it?

Piers, can you—?

So, at this moment in time, we're just giving further consideration as to how best to get the value through from the expert group and how it would relate, then, to other sources of advice that we have, but we're hoping that we'll be in a position to be able to move forward on that relatively soon.

I've prioritised—I think it's really important to note this—I've prioritised getting investment and getting this stuff done, rather than a constitutional fight at the moment. So, I have set up a task and finish group on floating offshore wind to make sure that we can reap the benefits of any investments that are happening. So, that group is really powering ahead. I've got commercial partners around the table who are telling us, 'This is what you need to do to make the most of the opportunities.' So, that's where my focus is, on the practicalities, because if we miss this opportunity because we're just so busy having a constitutional fight I think nobody is going to gain.

But the whole point of having a constitutional agreement on this in order to transfer powers is to facilitate more of the kinds of activities that you're telling us you're focused on. I just have to say—

I'm not waiting, though, Llyr. I'm not—

Well, you are, clearly, on setting up the expert group, because it's going to be set up as—

That's my point. I think, in terms of priorities, I want to get jobs into Wales—

Which is—

—on the back of this. A constitutional committee—

It doesn't mean you can't do both.

Well, that's true. It doesn't mean you can't do both, and, as Piers has said, that is being developed. But I've come in—and don't forget, I've only been in for a few months, Llyr—and, during that time, we've set up this group, we've got experts round the table. You talk to anybody in the renewables sector about the change of pace that's happened since I've come in, and they will tell you that we're in a very different place, and the messages that are going out are that Wales is definitely a place to invest, but my interest is in making sure that we make the most out of that investment and we get jobs into this country, that we get a skills pipeline and that everybody knows where they stand. So, that is my interest; that is my priority. We will continue the constitutional fight, but I'm interested in landing jobs for people in Wales.

Indeed, and I couldn't agree more, but, of course, this has been Welsh Government policy for much longer than you've been First Minister and many people have been waiting for this for a long time.

Well, I'm doing what I can, Llyr, at this point in time.

Indeed, but we've just been told that the expert group has yet to be set up, and you told me earlier that you've asked some experts to look at some things, which you weren't very clear about. It doesn't sound like a plan, does it?

Well, I've told you: my priority is jobs on the back of renewable energy investment. That is my priority. I'm not going to apologise for that.

I'm not asking you to apologise for that.

I'm not going to apologise for the fact—

You can have more than one priority, First Minister.

Llyr, you need to let the First Minister respond.

Look, I mean, this is what—. This is brilliant. This is one of the things that I'm trying to get away from. I've set priorities. You say, 'You can have more than one priority.' I've got four priorities, right. You want me now to add a fifth, which is, 'Can you fight on constitutional reform?'

Well, surely, Government can do more than four things at a time.

I'm telling you I've got four priorities, and I'm focused on those, and I'm focused on jobs, because that's what matters—

So, nothing else happens in Government.

Did I say that? No. You're just telling me—

Well, no—. Well, it sounds that way, First Minister. I mean, this is ridiculous, Chair. This is—.

There needs to be a discussion, but it needs to be a respectful discussion as well.

Fair enough. Yes.

Last question, Llyr, because—

I don't think we're a million miles apart—

No, we're not, and that's the irony here.

It's a question of timing, really.

Yes. No, that's okay.

Okay?

That's fine. Thank you, yes.

Okay. In that case, we've come to the time where we've ended the first session. Can I thank you for that? We'll move on in a short while to the topical areas. I suppose, from what I've heard, the question I want to make sure of is that the Welsh Government keeps Members of the Senedd informed of the various aspects of the discussions going on so that we can push this, but also we ask that the Welsh Government continues to put the case to the UK Government on a variety of issues we talked about. Now, we've talked about the short-changing in rail infrastructure, and I personally separate rail infrastructure from the consequentials of HS2, because I see them as different, but it is important, therefore, that we're kept informed of where you are on those discussions and how the Governments are working together. With that in mind, I will now call the first session to an end, and we'll have a short, 10-minute break.

Good morning. Can I welcome Members back to the second session of this morning's Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister, where we will look specifically at some topical issues? We'll start with questions from Russell George.

Thanks, Chair. Is it acceptable for Powys patients, First Minister, when treated in England, to wait longer and face longer waiting times than English patients?

I think that is a very uncomfortable situation. I've only heard about that this week. I thought that they'd changed their minds on that; it looks like it's coming back. So, I've only heard about it in the past day or so. I haven't had a chance to chase up what's happening there, but, certainly, I know that the health Secretary will want to look at that very carefully. I understand that they're under pressure to come in on budget. We're putting that pressure on every health board, but that is not to say that you should be giving a service that is not what it should be.

The situation will be that a Welsh patient could be sat in an English hospital, being seen by the same health professional and being told, 'Because you're from Wales, you're going to have to wait months and months longer', even though there's capacity in that hospital, and that has got to be unfair, and it's got to be unacceptable. So, you are the First Minister, you are responsible for the Welsh NHS, you are responsible for Powys patients, so surely you could intervene, could you not, and tell Powys health board, 'This is unacceptable and you can't do this'?

Well, when they suggested it before, certainly there were some very clear exchanges of views and they changed their minds. But we'll have to, obviously, see what their thinking is and why they think it's acceptable to go back to what they were suggesting in the first place.

So, I suppose, on one hand, I think, First Minister, you're saying that you don't think it's acceptable, which I'm pleased to hear you say, but, on the other hand, you're saying that they've got to balance their own books. So, there are two issues going on here.

Yes, there are. Listen, it is always difficult for the health board to give the service when it's got massive demands from patients. But having a situation where you have such disparities is not acceptable either.

I suppose the issue, as I understand it, is that the NHS Wales planning and performance framework, which Powys works to, is based on the much slower Welsh performance and funds Welsh health boards on that basis. So, to me, I think there are two issues here. You're saying that it's not acceptable, you're saying that they've got to fund it within their own budget, but that framework is based on the slower Welsh performance time. So, if you want the health board to balance its books, as you do, either you need to accept that the waiting times will be different or fund the gap, surely.

Well, look, they are making choices and that's what they are employed to do, but I know that the health Secretary will want to make further investigations into how they've come to this decision.

The gap, according to Powys health board's papers, is £16 million. So, if they see patients in England, if they allow patients to be seen in England, based on the English waiting time targets, that will cost £16 million. So, the question is: will the Welsh Government fill that gap if they think that making Powys patients wait longer is unacceptable?

Look, I think these are questions that the—. This has only come to light this week, and I know that the health Secretary will want to pursue it, as he did last time.

Okay.

Llyr.

Thank you. Yes, well, the big news this week, of course, is the reforms to welfare. We know that disabled people are particularly going to be hit by this. Three million families are going to lose out financially, and 0.25 million people are going to be thrown into poverty, 50,000 of those children. Why did you support the changes?

Well, hang on, let's just be clear, first of all, this is a non-devolved area, okay, so I am not accountable for what goes on in relation to the welfare situation. What I do know is that it would be a good thing to have more people in work in Wales. Our employment rate is not nearly as good as some other countries, and we've seen a surge [correction: a surge in economic inactivity] particularly since the pandemic. So, I think it's really important that we try to get a much clearer view of the impacts on Wales, which is why I've written to Liz Kendall, and, no, I still haven't received a response from her, so I'm chasing that today. But I think it's important, certainly for me, for us to try to stand by and with people to try to get them into work.

Let me be absolutely clear, I don't think trapping people in welfare poverty is a great position either. I think we've got to support people to get out of the poverty trap, and I think that where we are making interventions with the powers that we have in relation to things like the youth guarantee, we are making a difference. We've got half the youth unemployment rate in Wales that they do in England. It was interesting to speak to the Chancellor yesterday. She recognised that we're doing better than they are and wants to learn from those experiences so that that can inform the trailblazers approach that she's trying to introduce in England.

So, just to confirm, you do support the changes as have been outlined by the Chancellor.

Look, I have yet to get a firm understanding of how that will impact on Wales, and until I'm clear about the impacts, I want to reserve my position in relation to that.

Well, that's very different to what the Secretary of State said, because she's on record as saying that, 'The First Minister wrote supporting the reforms we're making and I was really pleased to see backing for those reforms'. So, is she wrong?

Well, look, I'm telling you my position. My position is that I want to see absolute clarity on what the impact on Wales is. Until I get a firm view on that, I don't want to make a judgment—until I know what the impact will be and where we, then, as a Government, can position ourselves in relation to how far we can go to stand with and by people. But I also want to be clear that I don't think it's sustainable for us to see the kind of huge increases in the numbers of people who are going onto benefits. This is not a sustainable situation.

You explained as well that you'd spoken directly with No. 10 about this, explaining some of your concerns. Can you just, for the record, confirm exactly whom it was that you spoke with? Was it the Prime Minister himself?

It wasn't the Prime Minister himself, no.

Who was it, then? Was it a special adviser or a Minister?

It was some people in the No. 10 unit. I can't remember their names. I'm happy to provide you with the names.

So, as passionate as you are about all of this, and as mindful as you are of the impact it will have on Wales, you can't even tell us, or you don't remember, who you spoke with about it.

Llyr, I speak to hundreds of people every day, so—.

But not on something as significant as this.

Look, I speak to hundreds of people every day. I don't know everybody who works in No. 10, but I'm more than happy to give you their names.

Surely you know who you talk to when you ask for a call with somebody from No. 10.

Well, I do have armies of people who set up these meetings for me, Llyr.

But you're the one who was on the phone.

I was the one on the phone, absolutely.

But you're not sure who you were talking to.

I can tell you exactly who I was talking to; I just can't remember every single name of every person I meet because I meet hundreds of people every single day.

But you'd be willing to provide that information.

I'm more than happy to provide you with the names.

Thank you. Okay. Another thing you said is that, as a result of speaking with No. 10, you'd been able to influence the welfare reforms. So, can you be, maybe, a bit more specific about what precisely you did persuade the UK Government either to do or not to do?

I set out—. I gave them a sense of the concentration of the numbers of people who are on, in particular, sickness benefits in some of our communities. I also set out how, in Wales, because we've stood by people and how we've stood by people through things like giving very early mental health support to young people—. You know, that's been transformed in Wales in the past couple of years. You've got a situation where about 90 per cent of people who are under 18 are assessed within 28 days. That is miles away from the situation in England, and it makes a difference. That early intervention, alongside that youth guarantee, means that we are seeing better results. So, giving those kinds of examples, I think, helped. It wasn't clear, the detail of what precisely was going to come out, but being able to say, 'Look, there are lots of rumours going around. This is what I'm telling you in terms of the where the concentration might hit.' I'm told, afterwards, that that did help to inform their decision making.

So, just to be clear, then, obviously, you outlined some of the activity now that you will need to potentially ramp up in Wales in order to mitigate some of the impacts of the decisions that have been made by Westminster. You're still awaiting a Wales assessment. Are you starting to look at your assessment in terms of the impact here, and what kind of mitigating action will be required, because, frankly, if we are seeing the numbers that I quoted earlier of people being thrown into poverty, children particularly, knowing that there's a disproportionate amount of people in Wales that'll probably be impacted by this, it's going to put a huge strain on services here in Wales?

Yes, which is why I'm waiting and reserving my judgment until I can get a better sense of what that looks like. But what we—. First of all, it would be much better if we could get that information from the Department for Work and Pensions, so I've asked for that. I've asked for a meeting now with Liz Kendall. But, if not, I've been speaking to the Treasury about what opportunities there may be for us to make our own assessment. What do you think, Andrew? Can you elaborate?

Well, I mean there's very good data on how many people in different parts of the UK receive different benefits. What I don't think there is is a model. The DWP's model for how they assess the impact of changes to the benefits system doesn't have a geographical element to it. So, you can do something based on existing distribution of benefits, but the thing I think we would like DWP to do is to have a model that enables regional distributions to be modelled. That's really the step forward, I think, that we would like to see in technical terms. I'm not sure how straightforward that is for them to do. I don't think it's something we've asked them to do before, but it's certainly something we would see as useful now, going forward.

It just feels to me as if we're floundering bit. As much as you and all of us would want to do the best that we can to respond to these kinds of circumstances, it really does feel as if we're floundering to pick up the pieces here. And I come back to this partnership in power again. You told us that you lost the debate on the Crown Estate, you're not really having that upfront influence on decisions being made, but rather you're having to mitigate some of the consequences of them. It's not really going well, is it?

I think, if you look at the fact we've just had a £1.6 billion uplift—

As a consequence of increased funding in England.

It is an increase compared to where we were before—an increase that lots of people in this Senedd didn't support. I think that is something that we've got to celebrate. I think that is an example of where the kind of values and priorities that were set in England have been helpful to us—

Yes, exactly, and not as a consequence of us wanting it in Wales. You've said it yourself.

Well, our values in the party, in terms of putting money into health, education and public services, are reflected. So—

But you just said yourself that the increase has come as a consequence of an increase in England, not necessarily as a consequence of your lobbying for it.

Look, the increase is happening and that is something that we should celebrate. The fact that we've got an extra £25 million investment from the UK Government in coal tips. That wasn't on the agenda before.

But there's a £600 million price tag on that.

Llyr, you do need to let the First Minister respond.

Okay. But it's a bit frustrating, Chair.

There's Tata Steel, the fact that there's been an increase in public sector pay, there's been an investment in Shotton Mill—all of these things, I think, are examples of where we're working together.

Now, look, there's going to be a host of areas where we don't see eye to eye, because that's how devolution works. I just think it's very telling that there are people in the Senedd—. It gives you a sense of what might happen in future if other people were to come to power in this place: it would all be the fault of somebody else. And what I'm interested in is being able to manage and to determine where I am able to within Wales. I just think it's fascinating that I'm constantly asked about what's happening in Westminster. Hold me to account for things that I'm responsible for in Wales.

But you are the one that's been talking about a partnership in power between Labour in Cardiff and Labour in London. And you're driving the discussion to ask about that, because clearly, if you're saying you're having an influence, then it's no surprise that we're asking you where that influence is, because we’re just not seeing it.

I've just given you a whole list of areas there: £1.6 billion extra, a massive increase in money that's going to bring down waiting lists. The things that really matter to people are better jobs, better transport infrastructure, more housing, all of those things. That's where that money's gone to, and I think that's what people in Wales care about.

Before I bring Mark in, First Minister, the spring statement was mentioned by Llyr, and you're still awaiting the analysis. I understand what Andrew was saying, the regional analysis may not be as straightforward. It surprises me that, given that the south-east is the powerhouse, and therefore they should be looking at the regional dispersions across the whole of the UK, including the north and the west midlands, they are not doing that. But is it disappointing to you that, because there are no structures in place, you're not getting the answers within the time frame you should get the answers? Because the people of Wales want to know what the Welsh Government can do in relation to the decisions being taken by Westminster, and I'm assuming that, until you get that analysis, you'll find that very difficult.

That's definitely true. Let's think about what's happened in the past, in terms of when budgets come out. We don't know until the day of the budget what's happening, and everybody has to scramble around and say, ‘Right, what are the implications of this?’ This is not anything new. This is the way it has been done. I never thought that we would have early sight of the detail of the spring statement, nor indeed do I expect to have detail in advance of the spending review. That's simply not the way that it's going to work.

I don't expect that whatever political party is in power in Westminster, because there are massive implications in how many people know about these things, with the potential for influencing markets and all kinds of things. It's highly unlikely that is ever going to happen. There are very strict rules around who's allowed to know about the budget and things in advance. So, I don't think we should be surprised about that.

So, yes, we are currently—. And let's not forget; I can't remember, but it feels like an age ago that these welfare reforms came out, but we are talking about two weeks ago, and then some further details the day before yesterday. So, yes, you're absolutely right. We are still trying to find out the detail of how that will impact on us. But I don't think that's surprising so early into the knowledge that we now have. Andrew, is there something you'd like to add to that?

That's all true. There's very little prior engagement on matters and that practice hasn't changed significantly in the last year. The Cabinet Secretary for finance had a conversation with the Chief Secretary on the morning of the spring statement, but that was the only prior engagement on what was announced.

I appreciate, and this is just my thinking, that they can't give you the notification early because of circumstances and the way that it works. But I'm surprised that they actually haven't produced an analysis of what the implications are for themselves, which they can then distribute afterwards. I would have thought someone in Government would have done that, because everyone, no matter which statement you do, wants to know how does it affect our region, how does it affect our area. So I would have hoped that the UK Government would have done some work in preparation for the announcement, but it seems they haven't. Okay, I'll move on. Mark, you wanted to come in.

To be fair, they have for England and Wales, but they haven't broken it down further. Is that right?

Yes. There was an impact assessment published by the DWP of the welfare changes, but they model impact at either a GB or England—[correction: a GB or England-and-Wales level]. So, the personal independence payment is an England-and-Wales benefit, so that analysis has been done at an England-and-Wales level. Some of the benefits are GB. They don't have the model that does regional breakdowns.

Mark.

Thank you. This will have a direct impact for a range of matters the Welsh Government is responsible for: training, education, employment support programmes, social services, devolved benefits and very much more. As the First Minister knows, neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism, are lifelong conditions, not medical conditions, although many autistic or other people have heightened mental health problems in consequence of the barriers, the blame and the bullying they encounter.

I can assure you I'm receiving a high volume of concerns from autistic people who do regularly apply for jobs but are never successful, who are terrified about these announcements and what the implications might be for them in particular. You'll also know that although, overall, there's a far lower level of employment amongst disabled people, it's even lower amongst autistic people, despite the majority of them continually seeking to find jobs.

In the devolved context, how are you considering the impact of this on devolved services, including your employment support programmes, and because of the direct impact on devolved matters, what action—having listened to this discussion—will you now take to engage with the UK Government on specific matters such as this to influence the roll-out, for example, of the replacement for the Help to Work programme?

Thanks. That's precisely why we need to get a better sense of where these changes are going to impact, because we will need to work out do we need to ramp up our employability programmes in particular areas in order to respond to this. As a principle, I think we should try and encourage more people into work, and you, as a disabled champion, Mark, know that, actually, there are lots of disabled people—and, as you've just mentioned, autistic people—who are desperate to work, and they don't get those opportunities. So, I think we need to make sure that we look at what is the wraparound care around those. There's an extra £1 billion that the UK Government has said is going to be put aside to help support people back into work.

The other thing I think is probably worth mentioning is that we're going to put a 10 per cent increase into the advice that is given to people to help them claim what they're entitled to, because we know for a fact there are about £2 billion of welfare payments that are not claimed currently in Wales. And with part of the £16 million extra that we've just heard about in the spring statement that will be coming to Wales, we're going to earmark some of that specifically to help people to claim what they're entitled to.

How will disabled people-led organisations, whether that's sensory loss, neurodiversity or otherwise, be involved in the design of programmes that you envisage, or the redesign of the programmes you already have?

I do think that we do need some time to digest what this means. I think we will need to, perhaps, look at those employability plans. We know that where they are targeted well, where you stand by people and with people, they succeed, as we've seen in relation to youth unemployment. There will be opportunities, I think, through the new trailblazer programmes to see is there something we can do in that space, particularly in relation to some of the people that you have pointed out that may need that additional support.

Jenny.

I wanted to ask you about one of your priorities, which is jobs and green growth, and particularly the operation of the latest Warm Homes programme. The Bevan Foundation estimates that at the current pace, it'll be 2160 before we've adapted all homes, because, at the moment, the target is 11,500 in the next seven years. There are lots of people calling for another area-based scheme because it's cheaper, quicker and can be done at volume, in a way that assessing individual homes—. It's a much more effective way than the current scheme. But I just wanted to ask you about when you're likely to see a new area-based scheme. Because otherwise, we're simply not going to achieve the opportunities for every family and their reliance on benefits, given that energy bills are such an important part of people's struggle on everyday bills.

I think a lot of people are struggling with their heating bills at the moment, and it is important that we give them the support we can. That's why we spend £30 million on supporting people with that. We have had these programmes that have gone on for years, the insulation programmes. The Arbed scheme was an area-based scheme, and most of it worked quite well. It was quite targeted and, as you say, there are economic benefits to targeting a particular area and making sure you can just roll through an estate or whatever, just to make sure that everything is done in a particular area.

There's a year left till the next election. There are programmes in place that need to be completed. I think we will need to give consideration to what should be proposed for the next Senedd election and the manifesto.

So, you're saying there'll be no new area-based scheme before the next Senedd.

Well, I don't know what the pipeline is at the moment.

At the moment, it's individual homes based on individual assessment of need. But an area-based scheme, according to the Cabinet Secretary for housing, will only be based on having evaluated the current Warm Homes programme, i.e. the 12 months it's been in operation, and then looking at the area-based scheme. But evaluation of the efficiency of individual homes' decarbonisation shouldn't be the basis of area-based schemes that will clearly need to be operated by local authorities to find what is the priority.

We've got a programme that, as you suggested, is only just getting started in that—

But 2160 is a very long way off.

I appreciate that, but I have been clear that I've got four priorities that I want to deliver on—

Green jobs and growth.

Yes. But I want to deliver on those four priorities, and I am absolutely determined to drive forward with those priorities, and—

So, why is the Warm Homes programme not part of that? It seems to me a key part of green growth and jobs.

It is a part of that agenda, but I think what's important is that we deliver on the programme that is already in place. If we chop and change every five minutes, that is not going to be helpful to people.

No. But Arbed was closed down in 2021, for good reasons, because although it was very successful in some respects, there were other aspects that weren't.

There were other problems, yes.

But that's a very long time ago, and, clearly, if you want to do this thing at pace and decarbonise and bring lower heating bills, you need to do it on an area basis.

Can I ask Andrew just to talk a little bit about the funding in relation to this, because I think that, ultimately, determines how much is done?

I guess there are two different things here. There's the type of programme and the amount of funding that you can put into the programme, and the speed at which these things can be done. There was, I think, a 6.5 per cent increase in the budget for Warm Homes in the budget that the Senedd approved recently.

I'm aware.

So, that's a bit of progress in terms of the amount of money available.

Okay. But that's barely kept up with inflation, if you look at it over the last four or five years. The important point is that we can do so much more, particularly for the poorest, who are least able to apply individually, if we use local authorities to target. And using also the mapping that's been done by Warm Wales, you can see exactly where all the worst homes are, which are mainly in the private sector, obviously. So, there's nothing at all for an area-based scheme.

Well, there's £30 million being spent on some of the poorest homes in Wales. So, I think that's something that should be noted.

Carolyn had a question on this as well.

Thank you. It was just regarding conflicting policies going forward. This morning, I went to visit somewhere where they're trying to bring an old building back to life in the high street. They've got some Welsh Government funding, which is really, really welcome, and they want to retrofit it and make it low carbon. They're going to use it for let as well. But, because of conservation issues, they're not able to do that, with the windows and different things. And with the wind turbines, they're looking at putting wind turbines in peatland areas. So, I was just wondering, how do we look at conflicting policies and prioritising them? Because it seems to be happening quite a lot.

Those two examples are really good examples of where they're both good policies, but you can see how they would appear to be contradicting each other. I think it is important for us to recognise the need to preserve buildings, particularly old ones that are marked as things that need to be preserved in a particular way. It means that there are restrictions on your ability to change them, and that is a balance that we have to try and do. For example, how you insulate will make a difference in some of those properties. It may still be possible to insulate; it's just that how you insulate may be different.

You're quite right in relation to wind turbines. We've got to get the balance right between renewable energy development and preserving peatlands. The great news is that, actually, we've smashed our targets in relation to the restoration of peatland. So, I think that's something we should be really proud of.

Can I ask a small supplementary, please, Chair?

On the same topic?

It's regarding green jobs and the apprenticeship levy.

Okay.

When the apprenticeship levy was brought in, it became quite prohibitive for some businesses and for local authorities who were training up people in planning and other areas. So, I was wondering if that is something that might be reviewed going forward.

I think the UK Government is looking at reviewing the apprenticeship levy, and there are clearly areas where our system and their system don't really match. It would be a useful opportunity to see, if they're reviewing theirs, if more can be done to see how it could work with our programme. So, I know some of those conversations are happening. Have you got anything to add, Andrew?

It's an interesting example of an area where the UK Government introduced a new tax in a devolved area some years ago, and there have been some problematic interactions between the apprenticeship levy and apprenticeships, which are devolved, funded by the Welsh Government. So, employers are paying into the apprenticeship levy, and they're getting a different return on that in Wales than in England, where there are specific programmes linked to apprenticeship levy funding in England, where there aren't in Wales, and that's definitely caused some issues. So, that's something that we should be looking at as part of this reform.

Thank you. That would be really useful.

Russell George.

Thanks, Chair. I noticed there was a Bevan Foundation report yesterday, a pretty damning report. It said no progress is being made in reducing poverty in Wales. Just linking that to the welfare reforms, there needs to be an impact assessment for Wales. I've heard what you've said in earlier answers, so I suppose the question is can the Welsh Government make representation to the Treasury, ahead of any budget announcement, that Welsh data is, if not made available beforehand—and I understand the reasons why that can't be—at least made as an appendix to the announcement being made. Because, surely, you need to have that information as soon as the decision is made. I'm wondering if the Welsh Government can make that representation to the Treasury for future spending commitments.

The picture is a bit mixed. There are some things where the UK Government does produce national and regional breakdowns. There are other areas where they don't. The one we've been talking about today, welfare, that's an area where they don't produce those at the moment. The First Minister has written to the DWP Secretary of State to ask for those to be provided, so we're following that up at official level, in terms of how that might work.

The question is not just for this time, but for all future spending reviews and decisions. If you say it's happening elsewhere in other spending decisions, then surely when it comes to anything around welfare, that can be the case and that's what you would want. I'm asking for representation to be made, to make sure that that information is available once the announcement is made, ahead of time.

Well, we can ask. Whether they do it or not, I don't know, but we can ask.

Just to go back to the issue of reducing poverty in Wales, we've spent £5 billion on tackling poverty in Wales over the past few years.

So why isn't it having an impact? The Bevan Foundation say it's making no difference.

Well, I'll tell you why, it's because we've seen massive inflation during that time— massive inflation. You look at the price of energy and how much that's gone up—it's gone up by about 30 per cent. The price of food has gone up by a similar amount. So, whilst you are pouring that money in, the costs, through no fault of the Welsh Government, nor indeed the UK Government—. The war in Ukraine, tariffs on cars, all of those things are beyond the control of the Welsh Government.

Llyr.

The Government's written statement responding to the spring statement claims that households will be £500 better off, on average, by the end of March 2030. Yet the Resolution Foundation have said that, because the benefits cuts fall disproportionately on lower income households, it'll mean an average annual loss of £500 in 2030 to those in the poorest half of the population. I'm just wondering how you arrived at those figures and whether you've actually considered the poorest half of the population, the most needy, in your calculations.

I don't think there's a contradiction there, in the sense that they were average figures, so the average family will be £500 better off. I recognise that there will be families who will be impacted by this, and until we get a sense of how great that impact is, I think we just need to be clear what we will need to do to stand by and with those people who may need support. And let's be clear, I'm very much in the space of let's try and get people back to work. It's a good thing to work. It's good for your mental health, it's good for your well-being. But I do think that what we need to do is to stand with them to support them.

Can I come back on that? I've been quite quiet on this. The spring statement, as you said, is not in your control—it's the UK Government's decision. But the Welsh Government will have to look at how it addresses a lot of the social challenges that will come as a consequence of that, including probably additional mental health support because of the pressures it puts upon people. I was told last night that there were some people thinking of themselves as no longer worthy of being a person because they felt that it was actually putting them down and treating them like something on somebody’s shoe.

The public services the Welsh Government has to produce, and add to what it's currently got, are going to increase, there's no question about that, especially as we have a higher proportion of ill people in Wales. We have a higher proportion of people with comorbidities in Wales. We probably have a large number of carers in Wales as a consequence. How are you now working with your Cabinet Secretary for finance to look at how the budget can be used—what we have left—to support people or to put things in place to support people in the years ahead?

I was in the transition board yesterday; 1,600 people have been made redundant, whether it's compulsory or voluntary, in Tata, and 500 went for retirement. That's just from Tata itself, let alone the knock-on effect we're going to have. There are services we are going to need in Wales, so how are you having those discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for finance to look at how we can fund those services, irrespective of the analysis? Because the analysis tells you how far you have to go, but we do know you're going to have to go somewhere. So, what preparations are you doing?

As I say, we're days into knowing this situation, and we still don't have a clear picture of how it's going to impact on us. The first thing that we've done is to introduce that additional 10 per cent uplift in the ability of people to try and go and claim what is rightfully owed to them. As I say, there's £2 billion that is not being claimed currently. In relation to things like mental health support—and let's be clear; a lot of the increase, as I understand it, in terms of numbers of people going on sickness benefits, particularly in England in relation to youth unemployment, is as a result of mental health issues—what we've done in Wales is to really focus attention on mental health support.

It has improved massively over the last couple of years. Let me give you an example. For the under 18-year-olds in Wales, 93 per cent of them are assessed within 28 days, and they get an intervention, 59 per cent of them, within 28 days after that. When it comes to adults, those over 18, we're up to about 70 per cent for an assessment and 70 per cent of them get an intervention within 28 days. Those figures are much, much better than they used to be. On top of that, we have the '111 press 2' service. They don't have anything like that kind of support in England, and that early intervention is really, really crucial. It is important to get people out of their bedrooms, to give them the support they need.

I went on a visit to a youth unemployment project recently. These were really vulnerable young people who needed a lot of support. They were not ready for the jobs market. They needed to have a lot of hand-holding, sometimes over a period of months, before they were ready for the jobs market. Those are quite intensive and quite costly interventions, and we are supporting that in the Welsh Government. The interesting thing, of course, is that we support that and we're doing well in it; the benefits means that it's the welfare bill that gets to realise the success, rather than us as a Government, despite the fact that we're the ones putting that support in.

Llyr, do you want to talk about dentistry?

Yes, I would like to move on to dental services, if I may, because it's clearly something that has been raised regularly in this Senedd over the previous months. How would you describe the relationship at the moment between your Government and the British Dental Association?

We've been having discussions over a period of years. There are times when the relationship is better than others. Last year, we had failed to reach agreement, and so we provided an additional 6 per cent to them, which was more than the GPs received, for example, and it was more than was provided in England. But we did fail to come to an agreement, so we did have to impose that on them. This year, I think we're in a better position. We have been discussing what the new contract should look like, and I think there is a greater understanding as to where we are travelling to in the future.

One of the things that your health Secretary announced in his statement to the Senedd last week was that the system of providing routine check-ups was going to come to an end on the NHS and that people would only receive treatment when they needed that treatment. The great weakness of that, of course, is that if you miss the check-ups, then you miss the opportunity to identify problems at an earlier stage. And you've mentioned the preventative agenda in the past, that is, preventing people from getting ill in the first instance, rather than paying a fortune to treat those conditions when they're more advanced. And one thinks of things such as mouth cancer, which are often first identified when one has a routine check-up, rather than when they get treatment. Do you sympathise with those who think that that's a retrograde step for the health service in Wales?

Well, what we're doing there aligns with NICE's advice. They advise that you don't need to see a dentist, if your teeth are healthy, for a period of two years. And that's very different to the status quo. This comes from NICE, and they are the experts.

Well, we're talking here about no check-ups at all to see if your teeth are healthy. You only present yourself if you have a problem, and by then, of course, it'll be a problem that will mean more cost, more resource and more work.

Well, what we've done is to focus on those who have not been able to access an NHS dentist for quite a while. That's why I think that the fact that more than 400,000 people have been able to see a dentist after a long period of not being able to see a dentist means that there is an opportunity for some, possibly, who haven't seen a dentist for quite some time, while some have been seeing them regularly, every six months, although they have no problems. We have to improve that balance, I think.

But I have constituents who have been waiting three years to see a dentist, but they can't because they'll have to wait another year before they'll be able to.

Well, there is a particular situation in Betsi at the moment, and one of the things that's happening is that they're about to issue the new contract. You know that a lot of people have handed back their contracts, but a contract worth £5 million is about to be signed now, so there will be an opportunity for a lot more people to see a dentist because they are signing up to the fact that they need to see more people who haven't had an opportunity to see a dentist for quite some time.

You're right. I've raised the fact that seven dental surgeries in north Wales alone in recent months have handed back, or have stated that they will hand back, their contracts and would therefore only provide treatment in the private sector. Do you anticipate, if the contractual changes that you want to see are delivered, that some of those would choose to come back into the national health service?

Well, clearly, I would hope that that would be the case. The fact is that they are paid a lot more in the private sector than they are in the public sector, and they don't have to work in the public sector. But I do think it's worth pointing out that, of the 413 contracts, 41 have been handed back across Wales. And in Betsi, the value of the contracts was around £6 million, the ones that have been handed back, and £1.5 million of that has already been recommissioned, and now the additional £5 million will go back in. So, you don't lose that money, it is just going to other dentists. People are willing and eager to take up these opportunities. That's what we've seen. There is a gap—I see that there is a gap between one and the other. But I do hope that you will see a difference now once that new contract is signed.

So, I mentioned seven practices; there is one in particular with 12,000 people registered on their books, in a disadvantaged area. I would be very surprised if many of those could afford private treatment. There is no other dental practice in the county in question that is taking on patients at the moment, so what's your message to those 12,000 people as to what they can expect to see?

Well, I do hope that this new contract will provide them with an opportunity to see a dentist in their locality.

Thank you.

Okay. Do any other Members have questions for the First Minister? Jenny, one.

I just wanted to come back to the discussion that we had briefly on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, because there were some important amendments made in committee this week, which will enable the Welsh Government and the Senedd to determine exactly when and how these measures would be introduced in Wales, assuming that the Senedd agrees. It was disappointing that the Minister of State, who happens to be a Welsh MP, opposed giving Wales the opportunity to determine its future in this respect. But in a sense, it is quite an important amendment because it recognises that there is this interface with the healthcare that we are responsible for with what is obviously a very important change in the law.

And so, I just wondered if you’d had any opportunity to understand that. Clearly, it could still get reversed as it goes back to the Commons, but it seems to me to be a useful way in which Wales can have its say on important legislation, where there’s obviously a serious interface with everything that we’re responsible for.

Yes, the Committee Stage has only just concluded in the first House, so we’re poring over the implications of that now. And as I said earlier, there will probably be a memorandum that will need to be laid in the Senedd in relation to this. And you’re absolutely right, there will be profound implications for us in Wales. So, despite the fact that it’s a reserved area, the implications for us and the NHS will be not inconsiderable, and we will need time to look through it.

I noted this week that they pushed back the implementation date—

I did too.

—in England, so that will give us a bit more time to work through the detail of how it would work in practice. But we’ve got the small issue of getting the law right first, and, obviously, there will be a period of time then when we'll have to build up to what the implications are. But this is really sensitive and difficult stuff, and our commitment in the interim is to make sure that we put as much support as we can into palliative care.

Okay. That's on the specifics, but do you see it as a useful way of Wales and the Senedd and the Welsh Government being able to determine the detail of important legislation like this, because it's down to the regulations that we will have to pass or not, and that you will have to provide?

Look, I certainly haven’t seen the detail of what this means and the implications and how we’re going to have to manage it, and how the judiciary will be involved or not or—. There are massive implications here. This is not something that can be worked through overnight; it’s going to need a lot.

Indeed. That's on the specifics, but it's something that could be applied, for example, to disability—the administration of disability benefits. If we were in charge of our own regulations in Wales, that might enable us to ensure that the impact is mitigated.

I'm not sure how far we can go in relation to that, but it's certainly worth considering. I'm not sure if we'd ever get a blanket, 'Yes, you can sort out the regulations yourselves.' I guess it would depend on the issue at hand. So, I think we just have to work through this particular Bill and see if there are implications for others. But there are always lessons we can learn. We're still actually quite early on this devolution journey—we're 25 years in. That's actually quite early in terms of devolution. And if you think of all the changes that have happened during that time, they are not inconsiderable. Someone said—

I'm sure we'll come back to this question, because, as you said, if it does go through, then this is something that we will have to consider as a Senedd in future. I have Buffy who wants to ask a question.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted, if you could, a quick update on the digital online roll-out in GP surgeries and what measures have been put in place to support our elderly residents to use this service. Because I know that we still have residents who are stuck in that 8 a.m. bottleneck, phoning in, and some of our older residents, obviously, have not been able to reach their surgery—[Inaudible.]—able to use the online service, so I just had a question around that, and I've got a supplementary as well, Chair, please.

So, the GP contract has been signed, and one of the things, as you're aware, was that we try and tackle that 8 a.m. bottleneck. What's clear is that many, many GP surgeries have improved access for patients. There are some laggards, and in the proposals in relation to GP contracts this year, there's a proposal to tighten that up, so that those laggards are addressed and included.

But you're quite right: we've got to be really careful that when it comes to inclusivity, in particular when it's with older people, that they don't feel like having an online system discriminates against them. It's one of the reasons why I was so pleased this week to go and visit the digital inclusivity project in Barry library—and I'm sure there are examples of this happening in Rhondda Cynon Taf as well—where we're putting money in to make sure that people can get access and learn how to use these digital facilities, and those facilities are available in libraries across Wales.

So, look, I don't think that gives the whole answer, and we've always made it clear that there have to be alternatives for people, but a lot of people want to use digital services. We need to switch these on and we need to get more people to use them, so I'm not going to apologise for that, but we should always make sure that we are catering for those people who will find it difficult to use them.

And the supplementary, Buffy.

Yes, just really quickly. I just wanted to know what role does the First Minister see pharmacies playing through the common ailments scheme in supporting our GP surgeries, and if we see future funding to support them, because they've become—I know in my constituency—a vital part of that GP service.

Yes, absolutely, and I think we're miles ahead of England when it comes to pharmacies, so, in Wales, you can get access to support for 28 common ailments in your local pharmacy. We give considerably more money, I think, to pharmacists in Wales compared to England, to help them with that, and of course all of that is taking pressure off our GPs. So, we've always been clear that we need to move services into our communities and that it's not all about the GP; we need to build that community. So, I think that common ailments scheme has been a huge success, and we need to see where we can take that next.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Time is almost upon us. I'm going to take the last two questions. One is about one of the answers you've just given. You said 93 per cent of young people were getting seen within 28 days—assessment, 28 days—and 70 per cent will have been treated within 70 days. That's 70 per cent treated within 28 days after that. Are those CAMHS figures? Because schools and parents are contacting me and they're not experiencing those types of times.

Well, this is why I'm really keen to make sure that all of these things are tested, because I think CAMHS has got a lot better in recent years. Now, 93 per cent assessment, that's not 100 per cent, so there will be 7 per cent of people who are not seen during that time. So, I guess it's just chasing down whether they are part of that 7 per cent.

Are those figures therefore from CAMHS, I'm saying?

They are general local primary mental health support services.

Okay, but we need to clarify, because I get them, they're still—

So, the assessment to intervention, which I would think might include CAMHS, those are slightly different figures. So, the under-18s, the figure for those is 59 per cent, and the over-18s is 70 per cent.

Okay, thank you.

But again, even with 70 per cent, I mean, 30 per cent are not being seen, so we've still got work to do, but it's miles better than it used to be.

And another answer you gave reflected that you're very keen to deliver existing programmes and strategies rather than new initiatives. Is that therefore going to be your approach for the remainder of this Senedd—to look at, actually, consolidating what we're doing now, rather than new initiatives?

Absolutely, yes. I've been very clear and focused on the four priorities. Within those four priorities, there are very clear things that I'm trying to focus on. One of them, for example, is to make sure that we bring the waiting list down, to do more in terms of delayed transfers of care, make sure that we deliver those women's health hubs. So, those are just examples from health. We've got a similar kind of target for what we're going to get—for example, we want over 90 per cent of journeys on Welsh trains to be on brand-new trains by the election. So, I'm really making sure that the things that we said that we would do, we actually deliver on.

Okay. Thank you. We've come to the end of our time. Can I thank you for your evidence this morning? As you know, First Minister, you will receive a copy of the transcript, and if there are any factual inaccuracies that you or your officials identify, please let the clerking team know as soon as possible and we'll make sure they're addressed.

Thank you.

Once again, thank you.

And, for us, we move on to item 4 on the agenda, which is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of today's meeting. Are Members content to do so? Therefore, we'll now move into private session.